🚨Here is the link to our kickstarter project:🚨 www.kickstarter.com/projects/cjleung/cloudbreaker-alliance We have less than 48 hours until the funding period ends. Back now to save & get your bonuses.
Just to be clear in early days and orginally a Caliphate is Muslim version of Noocracy not imperial dynasty. It is with Ummayad that changed politically. But Islamic in the book it needs to be Noocracy like and the Caliph serves a max of 12 years with min requirements to meet to be a possible candidate but no limit to how many turns of office can serve as long still healthy and able to do so but if gets voted out or steps down the old Caliph needs to be an adviser and teacher of the new one. That is how first Caliphate was. That is what word Caliph means. Caliphate was anti monarchy. It is one of the reasons why Ummayad didn't call themselves kings despite the word exise in Arabic and other power men used word Sultan than to use king. Because only God is the king. Sultan basically means the one with authority. King in Arabic refers to ownership and authority by right as the rightful owner. Hope that is clear.
Technically a person can check at least 3 out of the 4 boxes. If a Turco-Mongol person conquered either China or Rome, and then became Muslim, he would be Emperor, Khagan and Caliph.
@@kuroazrem5376 Actually, the Qing emperor did more than that. They also established as one of the Buddha for Tibet. Hence, they were able to control the so-called reincarnation of the Dalai Lama and others, such as Panchen Lama. The process is once the old Lama passed away, the regent will locate and find a few possible successors. All the names were placed in a golden bottle, and the Qing emperor's representative would select the official next Lama. When Qing dynasty collapsed, the authority for this was passed to Republic of China, which selected the 14th Dalai Lama using the golden bottle. The People's Republic of China claimed to take over this process in 1949.
Just to be clear in early days and orginally a Caliphate is Muslim version of Noocracy not imperial dynasty. It is with Ummayad that changed politically. But Islamic in the book it needs to be Noocracy like and the Caliph serves a max of 12 years with min requirements to meet to be a possible candidate but no limit to how many turns of office can serve as long still healthy and able to do so but if gets voted out or steps down the old Caliph needs to be an adviser and teacher of the new one. That is how first Caliphate was. That is what word Caliph means. Caliphate was anti monarchy. It is one of the reasons why Ummayad didn't call themselves kings despite the word exise in Arabic and other power men used word Sultan than to use king. Because only God is the king. Sultan basically means the one with authority. Hope that is clear.
The title of Shah (King) or Shāhanshāh (King of Kings) was also a title many Persian conquerors and conquerors of Persia took to give themselves legitimacy and prestige.
@@rizkyadiyanto7922 Xšāyaθiya Xšāyaθiyānām as it used to be in Old Persian. The Akkadians and eventually the Persians through them also claimed Sharrum Kishatim as title, which means "King of the Universe".
@@iexist3919or the fact that roma wasn’t even the capital of the west before its collapse and every land owning none slave in the empire was given roman citizenship already.
Byzantine empire is like Shu-Han kingdom in Chinese Three Kingdoms period, or Later Ummeyad Dynasty in Iberia, as long as they lost Rome/Chang'an and Damascus, they aren't the same as before,
Genuinely couldn't be happier to see you back; it feels like it's been an eternity since you've uploaded a new video. I'm so glad to see you upload again and fingers crossed there will be more coming soon.
@@Nom_AnorVSJedi The naming of Gifu Castle and other thing's came from Older China even, Emperor, and Queen Himiko made trade with Cao Rui of Wei and I think by extension Wu, if you watch The Shogunate, he talks into the foundation of Japan and how they got a lot of their culture from China he and this channel are 2 of my favorites, no clue if this channel went over it, I mostly have watched everything on China and its surrounding area
This principle also happened in ancient Mesopotamia thousands of years ago. Sargon of Akkad was regarded as a model by Mesopotamian kings for some two millennia after his death. The Assyrian and Babylonian kings who based their empires in Mesopotamia saw themselves as the heirs of Sargon's empire.
@@golonawailus4312 Sharru-Kin, "established king", the first, the original. The king of kings, the king of Sumer and Akkad, the King of the Four Corners, the King of the Universe. First ruler to claim universal dominion. Sargon II. of Assyria was also very successful. Funnily there is also Sargon I. of Assyria, who was pretty uneventful. Saddam Hussein apparently once claimed to make himself Sargon III.
Really do love your work, so glad to see you back at it! There is much to be said about Roman Europe vs Han China. One major difference: Rome was kicked out of Germany in the Battle of Teutoburg Forest. They retreated to a Rhine/Danube border that left half of Europe outside of their domain. Contrast that with the Han, who conquered everything within highly defensible borders described by the Himalayas / Xinjiang / East China Sea. "China" as a concept became more universal and more durable, whereas Rome was sometimes reassembled but never fully realized. Just imagine the history of Europe more like that of China - the kingdom, long divided, must reunite. One battle may have made all the difference. Because there are indeed many parallels, there are really only so many (good) ways to run an empire. And this is without the decentralized approach of Iran (Persia) coming into China during the Tang Dynasty and setting off a golden age. There's a lot here, so much to explore! Thanks for getting it started and great to see you again!
Europe was united under the "Catholic Empire" (the true power behind, and greater than, the "Holy Roman Empire"). This Empire was/is under the absolute and *infallible* authority of the elected "Bishop of Rome" aka "the Pope", aka the "God-King of the Catholic Empire". I mean "Pope" basically means "revered father" or "Huang Di" as in "Qin Shi Huang Di". Even if you are a high noble, or even a king, you still need to show your loyalty and piety, or the Church may excommunicate you. If you've been excommunicated for some time, and still dare to offend the Church, the Church will start backing your rivals, granting them access to massive papal treasury (which basically the collective wealth of Catholic Europe, since practically everyone in Europe pay the Church tithe). So if you think about it, Catholic Europe was not that different to the Caliphate. The Pope was the "Caliph" of Catholic Europe, while Kings and Dukes were the equivalent of the Emirs and the Sultans. I also argue that Catholic Empire is the prime example of a "decentralized empire". Maybe the best and longest lasting form of "decentralized Empire", since it has been around for at least ~1500 years.
The Rhine/Danube _was_ a highly defensible border, with nothing much of taxable value lying beyond it. If Rome had felt that Germany was worth the trouble, they wouldn't have been deterred by one defeat. They lost many more legions to Judean rebellions over the years, but kept fighting there because holding Judea was crucial to keeping Egypt safe and the empire together.
11:45 The Carolingian Empire (Kingdom of the Franks) split in three parts. The _eastern part_ became the Holy Roman Empire, the middle part disappeared over time, and the western part still exists as France (known as West Francia for a while at the beginning). The HRE, for the most part of its history, was not defunct at all to the extent when Voltaire wrote snarky things about it. HRE became permanently handicapped at the Treaty of Westphalia (1648).
@@microplasticeaterwell, as an actual kingdom/sovereign country, it ceased to exist. It just became the foreground of numerous battles between France and the HRE over time after the kingdom fell apart decades after its founding.
In Mesoamerica, the area the Aztec, Maya, etc are from, there's a few somewhat similar concepts. The most discussed of these would be the concept of "Tollan", which was a title claimed by or ascribed to major influential cities. Most notably, in Aztec accounts describing the preceding Toltec civilization, their capital was known as Tollan, and in it, the Toltecs were said to rule over a utopian civilization and established the arts, sciences, and high culture, before a series of moral temptations (set up by gods like Tezcatlipoca) taken by Toltec lords or kings led to it's collapse and denigration. Now, if the Toltec as described in such Aztec accounts really existed, if it's a mythical exaggeration of a real empire, or if it's entirely legendary is a subject of big debate and is not one i'm going to get into here (certainly, complex civilization and governance, writing, etc goes back in Mesoamerica is much, much earlier, around 2000 years prior around 1400-900BC then when the Toltec are said to have reigned around 900-1100AD), but regardless the idea of the Toltec had major influence and political implications on how Aztec rulers and city-states (who themselves were actually relatively recent migrants who arrived as nomads from Northern Mexico around 1200AD) handled themselves. To claim descent from a Toltec dynasty was a major part of establishing political legitimacy, and cities would preform political marriages with others to be able to assert that and to present a cultured, intellectual image (though in some cases, so too was their nomadic ancestry stressed to convey a hardy warrior one). As far as i'm aware, though (and keep in mind I haven't done a lot of research or reading specifically on the concept of Tollans, i'm just into Mesoamerican history and archeology generally) it's not like different city-states, kingdoms, and empires would fight over the right to claim to be "THE" Tollan or the rightful heirs of it. Maybe that happened and/or was a part of political dynamics, but as far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to have been much dispute over multiple cities being a "Tollan". Central Mexico's main power before the Aztec and (allegedly) the Toltecs would be Teotihuacan, which was a massive metropolis of 100,000+ people at it's height around 500AD. Teotihuacan's ruins would be found by the Aztec, who did excavations there, refurnished some of it's shrines, adopted Teotihuacano urban design, artistic, and architectural traits, and worked the site into their creation myths as the place where the gods sacrificed themselves to create the current sun. Teotihuacan, too, was seemingly considered a Tollan, as was Cholula, a city (and home of the world's largest pyramid) which like Teotihuacan had it's origins around 300-100BC, but unlike it survived all the way to Spanish contact and exists as a populated center even today: sometime between 600-900 AD, Cholula became a site of massive religious influence, and was said to be tied to the Toltecs and was even visited on pilgrimages by other Mesoamerican kings for their coronations, sort of a Mesoamerican mecca. Cholula, as of Spanish contact, was also a Tollan. Some titles which WERE fought over were more specific, more specific (wheras Tollan seems to have been a much wider and older concept) to Aztec states within or around the Valley of Mexico (the valley Teotihuacan was in, later the Aztec political core, and today Mexico City's greater sprawl), such as Teuctli Chicimeca (Tecuthli is lord, basically, Chichimeca is the term for non-urban nomads or "barbarians" of Northern Mexico, of which the Aztec descended from before adopting Central Mexican style urbanized statehood and civilization), which was a title various kings asserted and fought over which had influence in the initial centuries of competing Aztec states, especially between the Tepaneca and Alcohua and their leading cities, Azcapotzalco and Texcoco, before eventually the Mexica, whom Azcapotzalco used as mercenaries, eventually overthrew them in the late 1420s with help from Texcoco and Tlacopan (another Tepaneca city), founding the Aztec Empire ("Aztec" can refer to the Mexica specifically, or all of these Nahuatl speaking groups/the Nahuas, or the "Aztec Empire", politically, but keep in mind not all Nahua states were inside that empire nor were all states inside that empire Nahua). I'd talk more about that Teuctli Chicimeca and other fought-over titles during that period but I honestly don't know much about them. Something to keep in mind through all of this is Mesoamerican states tended to be relatively small and hands off relative to Eurasian ones: They had no draft animals to aid in transportation, and much of the region was either dense jungles and swamps, or rugged hillls and ranges of mountains and valleys: Travel and long distance administration were difficult. As such, even larger states like the Aztec Empire (which despite being dwarfed by the empires you disscuss here, was the largest state in Mesoamerican history), whatever kingdom or empire Teotihuacan headed, the Zapotec empire or kingdom led by Monte Alban, the larger Classic Maya dynasties,. etc, were often reliant on indirect methods of establishing political influence which left their subjects often still either functionally or even formally independent polities with their own identities and interests: As such, opportunistic secession, rebellions, coups, side switching etc were relatively common as states attempted to jockey increased influence over or from other states or political networks. I'd go on but i'm passing out in my chair, haha. Maybe ii'll edit more in later!
Good to see you making videos again and also looking forward for new interesting history subject content for what you focus and go deep into also take your time and pick which history or subject that you choose to go into. :) :3
If anyone is (very) keen on Imperial Tradition, HRE and even Islamic history, I hotly recommend Schwerpunkt. If you get into it, it's pretty mind-blowing
I recently discovered this channel and am in the process of binge-watching ALL videos. Nice to see this is still getting new stuff. Keep up the good work, bro !
The Cordoba Caliphate was Arabic by patrilineage and was actually the last Ummayad Caliphate, founded (first as independent Emirate) by the last survivor of this Caliph dynasty, dethroned by the Abbasid "revolution" (conspiracy and coup). The first and strongest Caliph was Abd Al-Rahman III, who was like 95% Basque... but not patrilineally nor by culture, in those things that matter the most for dynastic legitimacy he was 100% Arab and Ummayad.
@@papazataklaattiranimam - I would have to re-research the details but in my passing through relevant forums and discussing the matter, Abd El-Rahman III specifically happened not just to be 75% Basque as I thought initially based on his mother and paternal grandmother but well into the 95%, as the Andalusi Ummayads basically married Pamplonese princesses all the time. Pamplona (later Navarre) was a major polity in the 10th century particularly, when it controlled Castile, what would later be core Aragon, had strong influence in Gascony and even intervened militarily in Leon, Sancho the Great being called in those days "Imperator Hispaniae" (emperor of the Spains) and Pamplona claimed to be "the new Rome" (those monks and their fantasies!) The Cordoba Caliphate and this powerful version of the Basque realm collapsed around the same time: the former because, after the dictatorship of Al Mansur the Caliphs had become so irrelevant that provincial governors took over instead and Cordoba proclaimed itself a "republic", the latter for adopting dynastic partition and then Pamplona falling victim of the ambition of its offshoots Castile and Aragon.
I am pretty sure some matrilineally Slav Caliph was said to intentionally darken his skin a bit to look more Arab. So while dna% mattered way less than patrilineage, it still mattered to some extent.
Though not imperial, but Mahajanpadas and Panchayati Raj System are most underrated. In ancient India, before Mauryan empire, there existed 16 great Mahajanpadas and some other Janapadas, Out of 16, 8 Mahajanpadas had elected leaders, they were republics(Gana) and all decisions were taken in groups and meetings (Buddha's father too belonged to this part of system). Even though Mahajanpadas perished after Mauryan empire, This practice survived in local villages and townships, as well as tribes and hilly folks as Panchayati system and village councils. Many allowed even women participation in decision making. This councils were legally respected by all empires, from Guptas to Mughal Empire, even British Empire gave Panchayats and village councils legal status. Even after some decades of independence, Indian government have given Panchayats and village council of tribes legal status as third or Local level government of India. This ancient practice is still very popular. (Above information was given by my Political Science professor) About Chakravarti, anyone can assume Title of Chakravarti Samrat by defeating many kings or making them submit. Most of the times, Kings resumed ruling under Chakravarti Samrat. He was considered King of Kings (Maharajadhiraja). Another title for which all kings craved was Digvijayi (conqueror of all directions), for which even Ashoka craved. When we talk about Chakravartis, that is most likely to be about Gupta Period. As it was a golden period for Indian literature, trade and arts, many popular stories and legends have themes of Chakravarty Samrat (most famous might be Vikramaditya, who was an actual historical king) Other than that, room for being ruler was practically open to all who had considerable power. Even Indo- Greek rulers, Kushans, central asians and Huns adopted Indian religions and customs for legitimacy. Though most of the times, Brahmin class kept them calling mleccha only. Another thing you can do is getting legitimacy by a great Acharya. Harihara and Bukka were captured soldier brothers, but they escaped, came south and established Vijayanagar Empire, which consisted whole of Southern India after taking blessings and legitimacy from Shankaracharya of Shringeri (There are four monasteries in four corners of India established by Adi Shankaracharya, whose heads are called Shankaracharya, they are like very high authority and respected in Hindu society). It was golden period for Southern India while Northern parts of India were ruled by Mughal Empire and Goloconda Sultanate. It haf bustling cities and well managed system having visitors and traders from Europe, Turkey, Arab, Persia, China, South east Asian kingdoms, etc .
India is a place where historically religion seems to be much more powerful than the state. To claim an Indian empire title I doubt you would get far without support from the Brahmins.
@@the11382 well That isn't necessary it seems. Ashoka was not favoured by Brahmanas. There were Shudra and Brahamana rulerd as well, even though only Kshatriyas are supposed to rule. Kushanas were considered mleccha, so were Huns and others. Delhi Sultanate, Mughal Empire were Muslim. So ofcourse, if you have power, you can.
@the11382 Brahimins weren't just religious priests. They were actually mainly scholars and performed many other functions in society like being ministers, scribes, advisors etc. Of course, "the caste system", was a lot more flexible in ancient and early medieval times, so it wasn't just brahmins performing these roles
India is the most underrated compared to the other major civilizations. It had vast empires with many of the world's largest cities, temples, univerisites, irrgiation newtorks, road networks etc. It was the centre of the Indian Ocean Trade, spread its culture, writing systems, religions and philosophies across Asia. India also excelled in Medicine, Sciences, Mathematics, Engineering, Philosophy, Metallurgy, Cartography, Alchemy etc India had its own ancient republics, village elections, centralised governments etc But for some reason Westerners ignore Indian Civilization. They think it was a place of oppression, backward pagans, caste system, invasions and warring chieftains with no cities, centralised governments, organised militaries etc
@@the11382India is the most underrated compared to the other major civilizations. It had vast empires with many of the world's largest cities, temples, univerisites, irrgiation newtorks, road networks etc. It was the centre of the Indian Ocean Trade, spread its culture, writing systems, religions and philosophies across Asia. India also excelled in Medicine, Sciences, Mathematics, Engineering, Philosophy, Metallurgy, Cartography, Alchemy etc India had its own ancient republics, village elections, centralised governments etc But for some reason Westerners ignore Indian Civilization. They think it was a place of oppression, backward pagans, caste system, invasions and warring chieftains with no cities, centralised governments, organised militaries etc
(The 'Byzantines' did not 'claim' to be Romans. They WERE the Roman Empire after the ancient times have ended and the Mediterranean world expanded into the Medieval Ages, and they themselves held that identity, as well as those around them addressed them as such)
Could we get a Yuan Dynasty in depth analysis? Especially a video explaining Kublai Khan’s relations with the Jurchen Jin, Southern Song, and the his failures in the Mongol conquests of Japan? This channel has some of the best Chinese history I’ve seen, and I think this period of China was a pivotal and overlooked era as it nearly lead to a Mongol conquest of a political weak Japan
I've always liked the concept of the Mandate of Heaven. I know it's propaganda, but if the rulers really buy into the idea that they only rule so long as they are benevolent and if they're not, the next guy has the *right* to overthrow them, I think it does a decent job of offsetting the inherently exploitative nature of empire.
@@kyyyni I don't either, but considering the whole system lasted for 2500ish years and I only speak about six phrases of Chinese, I'm sure there's at least one. I know of two Roman emperors who gave up power willingly (Diocletian and Tiberius II) off the top of my head. In fact, while I was typing this I remembered that the founder of the Tang dynasty willingly gave power over to his second son after he basically pulled a coup on his brothers. The thing I was thinking of though, is that the whole Mandate of Heaven concept seemed to make most Chinese dynasties think twice about being openly exploitative/tyrannical towards their subjects, which is my personal benchmark for a "good ruler", if such a thing can be said to exist.
That is pretty much the central pillar of democracy; the ability to remove rulers that are tyrannical and prevent them from becoming tyrannical in the first place. Obviously existing democratic systems are far from perfect, especially with things like FPTP and EC's, but they are still pretty good. But certainly the threat of removal, whether through violence or peacefully keeps rulers from a certain level of despotism. However this threat still needs to be credible and countries that are nominally democracies but do not have power transfers between parties and leaders such as Hungary or South Africa are generally little better than dictatorships.
@@雷-t3j Gotta have that sword of Damocles above their head to make a leader remember that they're not untouchable, whether that's being voted out or overthrown. Difficult to implement such a measure in a hereditary monarchy without making the whole thing super unstable like the Roman empire was during the Crisis of the Third Century or all the infighting between early Ottoman princes when their fathers died. Make the threat *too* credible and you end up changing leaders more often than is really optimal. I gotta say though, of all the empires that I personally know a fair bit about, I think the Chinese dynastic system was probably the least tyrannical overall, and while that can't be chalked up *entirely* to the mandate of heaven, I think it goes a long way
I would argue the beauty of democracy is that one must keep a significant portion of the population happy in order to maintain power while in other systems one must only keep the military and officials happy. By creating the estate of the common people it forces politicians that hunger for power to help out their people to some extent.
Since Islam as religion has a major influence over several races and ethnicities, from a purely strategic standpoint It would be advantageous to choose the Caliphate. The Caliph is the closest position to the ruler of the world in my opinion
The best way to get all four titles is to start off as a Caliph, then become a khagan, then to take the Roman emperor, then to become the Chinese emperor
That is right, however the Japanese probably get themselves reverse assimilated like the mongolian, and today China can claim Japan is an inseparable part of China. just like manchria, and inner mongolia..🙂
I think the oldest of these did go completely unmentioned. The original concept of Kings of Kings and King of Sumer and Akkad, perhaps also King of Kish, althoug these all go hand in hand. They lasted from the 24th century BC till the Achaemanid empire and were kind of succeeded by the title of Shahenshah. The Ottomans also claimed the title Padishah for example. Apparently the city of Kish was important enough in ancient Mesopotamia, that it became synomymous with the title of King of the Universe. The same goes for King of Sumer and Akkad, which was claimed by the successive Mesopotamian dynasties.
Actually Byantium was called Eastern Roman Empire since the days of Diocletian, who moved the capital out of Italy into Greater Greece (it was Nicomedia then but close enough) and split the Empire in two allied antities (Western and Eastern) in the absurd idea that it'd be better for all. Since then the Eastern Empire (much richer than the Western one) held primacy. The Empire was intermittently reunified until the final "unification", when the Western Empire had collapsed and its strongman, Odoacer, sent the imperial regalia to Constantinople contenting himself with the title of King of Italy. The Byzantines did not like that and attempted to reconquer Italy, first by proxy (Ostrogoths) and then directly (Justinian) but could not consolidate their control, as the Latins saw the Greeks as foreign and pretty much usurpers. That's when Charlemagne takes over 2/3 of Italy and became Emperor on Germano-Latin new legitimacy, blessed by the Pope. The Byzantines did claim since Odoacer to be the only Roman Empire... but it was not always like that.
Argument could be made that the Eastern Empire was cool with the West under barbarian dynasties that recognized them and Justinian was an exception to this. And I don't think the Italians seeing them as foreign mattered much to how they lost Italy.
@@ikengaspirit3063 - Justinian is pre-Carolingian. In his day there was no Western Empire whatsoever, nobody claimed that title in the whole of the Dark Ages (around 350 years). AFAIK, Italian resistance to Byzantines and favoring of Lombards dukes and kings instead was central to the Justinian catastrophe. Sure: there was also the plague...
Italians not liking Greeks is a very strange way to see things, which seems to ignore some well established facts:a) the German warlords were those who opposed eastern roman rule during the Reconquista era. B) parts of Italy ( the exarchate of Ravenna ) remained in Byzantine hands for centuries after the reconquista in lesser and lesser form.that was less because of Italian resistance and more because of barbarian attacks from the outside the byzantines didnt allocate enough resources to defend an area that was not that essential to the empire anymore. Bari was finally lost to the Normans in the eleventh century A.D.who were very recently to the area. C) When Manuel I attacked in the 12th century most local Italian lords in Bari accepted him easily but the Normans countered and reconquered the region soon. Of course after the schism the relations between Catholics and Orthodox started deteriorating leading gradually to distrust and war between the Greeks and the Italians but that is not a Justinian era thing and it was not a significant fact until the Comnenian era.
@@pn8937 - I'm not saying Italians did not like Greeks, they did not like that much being ruled by foreigners of any kind, Greeks or Balcanic "Dacian" generals, who were the ones moving the capital. This translation of the Empire from Italy to Greece was dramatic and totally left the now semi-autonomous Western Empire without resources to fend off the Germanics. Once the Empire became foreign to Italy and, especially after the Byzantines sent again and again hordes of Goths against Italy and the West, in endless betrayal of the interests of Italy, grudges piled up and the less hostile barbarians became preferable, first the very fragmented Lombards, then the somewhat more solid and very much Latinized Franks (and their German Kingdom successors). Italy was in no position to reunify itself however: between the Pope and both emperors it had become a coveted prize rather than a sovereign power, something that lingered for many centuries desperating the likes of Machiavelli and Petrarca alike. The Great Schism was political rather than religious but it illustrates the problems of Christianity as single "proto-fascist" party (which is what Constantine and Theodosius made of it), leading to disputes about dogma and primacy, which did not only consolidate the Latin-Greek split but also favored Muslim expansion in the Afroasiatic areas, which had (and still have, even if much diminished) their own patriarchs and distinct less-trinitarian dogmas and very much resented the attempts at unification by the Greeks, finding the Muslims less annoying in comparison. Byzantinists are funny.
The reason that the Türks and other Turkic nomads were formidable warriors was that they were horse-archers. A horse-archer specifically denotes a mounted warrior armed with a bow who can shoot from horseback while riding. The Turkic nomadic warriors as well as the Mongols used the composite bow, which was made of horn, wood, and sinew. The composite bow was more accurate and had a better range and rate of fire than muskets and early firearms. The tactical principles of the Turkic horse-archers were based on the combination of fire power and mobility. yhe nomadic horse-archers shot in volleys, weakening the enemy before they charged. Ideally, they practiced "fire power in movement" like modern armies.Other things being equal, the horse-archers were often almost unbeatable on the open battlefields. Against them, sedentary soldiers were often helpless until the development of efficient battlefield handguns, including the repeating firearms (the firearms that could be fired repeatedly before being manually reloaded) in the seventeenth century.
Contrary to popular belief, horse archers were common in China, Middle East, Arabia, North Africa, and Western/Central Europe. Not at all special to the nomads. For example, English archers during 100 years war often travel on horseback, and during raiding/chevauchee, as depicted in contemporary art, they often shoot from the saddle. Nomadic armies did not have superior or more accurate ranged weapon, but superior strategic mobility, therefore much greater flexibility and ability to choose their battlefield. These highly mobile nomadic armies reign supreme till the rise of the well disciplined/drilled armies, which Russian and Chinese states begin to employ in mid 17th century onward.
Hi CJ. One of your fans here. Can you please consider making a video about Wang Mang and Liu Xiu, the events that took place around 5-25 CE. Just finished watching 光武帝劉秀 and I am so eager to watch your explanation. 🙂 Thank you.
Bro where have you been? It's been over 3 months since this video and the one before that was 9 months in-between. Are you sick or gave up on this channel? I loved your story telling and this always made my day seeing an Asian perspective on world history.
Heres the thing ottoman not claimed to be roman empire and caliphate but also true shah of persia(because of seljuk legacy) and khan of all nomads as to legitimise that they even kept khazadas hostage. This also the reason for fighting persia and russia and hre like mortal enemy
the caliphate of cordoba was arab/arabic. they were direct descendants of the Quraysh tribe and the overthrown ummayads who fled the abbasids. also the Ottomans claimed the kagante along side the caliphate and roman emperor-ship.
Byzantium was Rome. They were Romans. They are a direct continuation of Caesar and Augustus, in a nearly unbroken chain for a thousand years after the west fell.
Byzantium is like Chinese Three kingdoms period Shu-Han dynasty, Later Ummeyad Empire in Spain, or Republic of China in Taiwan, as long as Byzanine Empire loses Rome city, Italy and all territories in Western Europe, calling itself the true Roman Empire doesn't matter anymore,
Welcome back, king! I must say, however, please replace the flag of the Roman Empire in the thumbnail, the flag displayed was of the German empire aka “Holy Roman Empire”, not the legit Rome of 27 bc-1453
Despite not being a Muslim, I will do what Emir Timur do. And by that, I mean how will I consolidated my own power, of course. Marrying a female descendant of Chinggis Khan and claimed to be spiritual descendant of the Prophet's son-in-law are defintely the good ways to gain loyalties from both the nomadic Turco-Mongol tribes and the Muslims in the urban areas. And of course, the promises of loots and plunders if they joined the expansion of my realm and in case of polymaths and artisans, sponsorships for their works. But unlike Emir Timur, I will make it a law that if no male rulers are fitting to rule, women can ascended upon the throne to govern the realm. P.S: U.S is more like Carthage while Russia is more like Rome. But hey, that's just opinion from me and some other people I know on RUclips.
@@clozmo2171It was sort of a byproduct of the Scientific Revolution that had transformed tradition views about nature and society. Rene DeCartes, Francis Bacon, and most importantly for Americans John Locke, all provided key works that influenced the Enlightenment.
🚨Here is the link to our kickstarter project:🚨
www.kickstarter.com/projects/cjleung/cloudbreaker-alliance
We have less than 48 hours until the funding period ends. Back now to save & get your bonuses.
Just to be clear in early days and orginally a Caliphate is Muslim version of Noocracy not imperial dynasty. It is with Ummayad that changed politically. But Islamic in the book it needs to be Noocracy like and the Caliph serves a max of 12 years with min requirements to meet to be a possible candidate but no limit to how many turns of office can serve as long still healthy and able to do so but if gets voted out or steps down the old Caliph needs to be an adviser and teacher of the new one. That is how first Caliphate was. That is what word Caliph means. Caliphate was anti monarchy. It is one of the reasons why Ummayad didn't call themselves kings despite the word exise in Arabic and other power men used word Sultan than to use king. Because only God is the king. Sultan basically means the one with authority.
King in Arabic refers to ownership and authority by right as the rightful owner.
Hope that is clear.
But true chinese is Ming dynasty ! Qing is not han chinese. It was Manchu and East Mongols !
@@purevjargalpuujee4845 bru Qin not Qing
Dude you are so wrong, caliphate isnt an imperial model, it is a clan-cult communism semi barbaric states
@@havefuntazarasu5367 bru you worst than his tiny mistake
It is Noocracy not whatever bs you explained.
Imagine having an Empire so large you're simultaneously Caliph, Khagan, Chinese and Holy Roman Emperor; that would be so cool.
Technically a person can check at least 3 out of the 4 boxes. If a Turco-Mongol person conquered either China or Rome, and then became Muslim, he would be Emperor, Khagan and Caliph.
Qing rulers were the empirors of China and great khans of the mongols at the same time....at least one Tang empiror was the khagan of all turks
@@kuroazrem5376 Actually, the Qing emperor did more than that. They also established as one of the Buddha for Tibet. Hence, they were able to control the so-called reincarnation of the Dalai Lama and others, such as Panchen Lama. The process is once the old Lama passed away, the regent will locate and find a few possible successors. All the names were placed in a golden bottle, and the Qing emperor's representative would select the official next Lama. When Qing dynasty collapsed, the authority for this was passed to Republic of China, which selected the 14th Dalai Lama using the golden bottle. The People's Republic of China claimed to take over this process in 1949.
The Ottoman Sultans basically had Roman, Caliph, and Khan titles until somewhere after Suleiman the Magnificent.
Just to be clear in early days and orginally a Caliphate is Muslim version of Noocracy not imperial dynasty. It is with Ummayad that changed politically. But Islamic in the book it needs to be Noocracy like and the Caliph serves a max of 12 years with min requirements to meet to be a possible candidate but no limit to how many turns of office can serve as long still healthy and able to do so but if gets voted out or steps down the old Caliph needs to be an adviser and teacher of the new one. That is how first Caliphate was. That is what word Caliph means. Caliphate was anti monarchy. It is one of the reasons why Ummayad didn't call themselves kings despite the word exise in Arabic and other power men used word Sultan than to use king. Because only God is the king. Sultan basically means the one with authority.
Hope that is clear.
The title of Shah (King) or Shāhanshāh (King of Kings) was also a title many Persian conquerors and conquerors of Persia took to give themselves legitimacy and prestige.
Ngl Shahenshah is really a badass title
@@Aviceroxyku know whats more badass? shahenshahenshahenshah.
@@rizkyadiyanto7922Should be the title of the first Galactic Emperor humanity gets
@@rizkyadiyanto7922 Xšāyaθiya Xšāyaθiyānām as it used to be in Old Persian. The Akkadians and eventually the Persians through them also claimed Sharrum Kishatim as title, which means "King of the Universe".
Shahnashah mean king of kings which is an Assyrian title
The Byzantines did not pretend to be Rome. They were literally Rome, it just happens that they lost half their territory, including the city of Rome
And that doesnt even include the fact that the Byzantines held the city of Rome for around 2 centuries thanks to the success of the Gothic War.
@@iexist3919or the fact that roma wasn’t even the capital of the west before its collapse and every land owning none slave in the empire was given roman citizenship already.
He talks about it in the video
he explained it near the end
Byzantine empire is like Shu-Han kingdom in Chinese Three Kingdoms period, or Later Ummeyad Dynasty in Iberia,
as long as they lost Rome/Chang'an and Damascus, they aren't the same as before,
Genuinely couldn't be happier to see you back; it feels like it's been an eternity since you've uploaded a new video.
I'm so glad to see you upload again and fingers crossed there will be more coming soon.
Well... in Japan, Oda Nobunaga was a fanboy to Qin Shi Huangdi and wanted to emulate him, while Tokugawa Ieyasu wanted to emulate Emperor Tang Taizong
These Japanese warlords knew about those Chinese emperors? The Japanese warring states as so different from the Chinese warring states period.
@@Nom_AnorVSJedi The naming of Gifu Castle and other thing's came from Older China even, Emperor, and Queen Himiko made trade with Cao Rui of Wei and I think by extension Wu, if you watch The Shogunate, he talks into the foundation of Japan and how they got a lot of their culture from China he and this channel are 2 of my favorites, no clue if this channel went over it, I mostly have watched everything on China and its surrounding area
@@Nom_AnorVSJedi there is something called "Books". The Sengoku Warlords read alot of Sun Tzu
The first emperor of china was a black man
@@cudanmang_theog Qin Shihuangdi did not eat fried chicken 🍗
This principle also happened in ancient Mesopotamia thousands of years ago. Sargon of Akkad was regarded as a model by Mesopotamian kings for some two millennia after his death. The Assyrian and Babylonian kings who based their empires in Mesopotamia saw themselves as the heirs of Sargon's empire.
I am seriously considering declaring myself Heir to Sargon
@@WolfofAsia012 If you appoint me crown prince, that's fine with me.
@@vitorpereira9515 which Sargon?
@@golonawailus4312 Sharru-Kin, "established king", the first, the original. The king of kings, the king of Sumer and Akkad, the King of the Four Corners, the King of the Universe. First ruler to claim universal dominion. Sargon II. of Assyria was also very successful. Funnily there is also Sargon I. of Assyria, who was pretty uneventful. Saddam Hussein apparently once claimed to make himself Sargon III.
@@Flozone1 let me be Sennacherib then
Really do love your work, so glad to see you back at it! There is much to be said about Roman Europe vs Han China. One major difference: Rome was kicked out of Germany in the Battle of Teutoburg Forest. They retreated to a Rhine/Danube border that left half of Europe outside of their domain. Contrast that with the Han, who conquered everything within highly defensible borders described by the Himalayas / Xinjiang / East China Sea. "China" as a concept became more universal and more durable, whereas Rome was sometimes reassembled but never fully realized. Just imagine the history of Europe more like that of China - the kingdom, long divided, must reunite. One battle may have made all the difference. Because there are indeed many parallels, there are really only so many (good) ways to run an empire. And this is without the decentralized approach of Iran (Persia) coming into China during the Tang Dynasty and setting off a golden age. There's a lot here, so much to explore! Thanks for getting it started and great to see you again!
Rome was founded by black Bantus as well as israel
Europe was united under the "Catholic Empire" (the true power behind, and greater than, the "Holy Roman Empire"). This Empire was/is under the absolute and *infallible* authority of the elected "Bishop of Rome" aka "the Pope", aka the "God-King of the Catholic Empire". I mean "Pope" basically means "revered father" or "Huang Di" as in "Qin Shi Huang Di".
Even if you are a high noble, or even a king, you still need to show your loyalty and piety, or the Church may excommunicate you.
If you've been excommunicated for some time, and still dare to offend the Church, the Church will start backing your rivals, granting them access to massive papal treasury (which basically the collective wealth of Catholic Europe, since practically everyone in Europe pay the Church tithe).
So if you think about it, Catholic Europe was not that different to the Caliphate. The Pope was the "Caliph" of Catholic Europe, while Kings and Dukes were the equivalent of the Emirs and the Sultans.
I also argue that Catholic Empire is the prime example of a "decentralized empire". Maybe the best and longest lasting form of "decentralized Empire", since it has been around for at least ~1500 years.
Nah, I don't buy conquering Teutoburg would work. I think geographically, Europe might be more like India than people think.
The Rhine/Danube _was_ a highly defensible border, with nothing much of taxable value lying beyond it. If Rome had felt that Germany was worth the trouble, they wouldn't have been deterred by one defeat. They lost many more legions to Judean rebellions over the years, but kept fighting there because holding Judea was crucial to keeping Egypt safe and the empire together.
@@cudanmang_theog You hominids can't even leave your own continent.😂
11:45 The Carolingian Empire (Kingdom of the Franks) split in three parts. The _eastern part_ became the Holy Roman Empire, the middle part disappeared over time, and the western part still exists as France (known as West Francia for a while at the beginning).
The HRE, for the most part of its history, was not defunct at all to the extent when Voltaire wrote snarky things about it. HRE became permanently handicapped at the Treaty of Westphalia (1648).
The middle part became Lorraine which survived until the 1700s 🤡
@@microplasticeaterwell, as an actual kingdom/sovereign country, it ceased to exist. It just became the foreground of numerous battles between France and the HRE over time after the kingdom fell apart decades after its founding.
Middle Francia kinda became Italy.
such a shame you guys havent posted anything, I hope you come back, your channel is amazing, wish you all the best
THEY HAVE RETURNED
😅Ottoman Turks actually claimed three of the fours because they still have "han" title as the continuation of central asia Khagan
yeah 😂😂
That's how you know they were fake 😂😂😂😂
In Mesoamerica, the area the Aztec, Maya, etc are from, there's a few somewhat similar concepts. The most discussed of these would be the concept of "Tollan", which was a title claimed by or ascribed to major influential cities. Most notably, in Aztec accounts describing the preceding Toltec civilization, their capital was known as Tollan, and in it, the Toltecs were said to rule over a utopian civilization and established the arts, sciences, and high culture, before a series of moral temptations (set up by gods like Tezcatlipoca) taken by Toltec lords or kings led to it's collapse and denigration.
Now, if the Toltec as described in such Aztec accounts really existed, if it's a mythical exaggeration of a real empire, or if it's entirely legendary is a subject of big debate and is not one i'm going to get into here (certainly, complex civilization and governance, writing, etc goes back in Mesoamerica is much, much earlier, around 2000 years prior around 1400-900BC then when the Toltec are said to have reigned around 900-1100AD), but regardless the idea of the Toltec had major influence and political implications on how Aztec rulers and city-states (who themselves were actually relatively recent migrants who arrived as nomads from Northern Mexico around 1200AD) handled themselves. To claim descent from a Toltec dynasty was a major part of establishing political legitimacy, and cities would preform political marriages with others to be able to assert that and to present a cultured, intellectual image (though in some cases, so too was their nomadic ancestry stressed to convey a hardy warrior one).
As far as i'm aware, though (and keep in mind I haven't done a lot of research or reading specifically on the concept of Tollans, i'm just into Mesoamerican history and archeology generally) it's not like different city-states, kingdoms, and empires would fight over the right to claim to be "THE" Tollan or the rightful heirs of it. Maybe that happened and/or was a part of political dynamics, but as far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to have been much dispute over multiple cities being a "Tollan". Central Mexico's main power before the Aztec and (allegedly) the Toltecs would be Teotihuacan, which was a massive metropolis of 100,000+ people at it's height around 500AD. Teotihuacan's ruins would be found by the Aztec, who did excavations there, refurnished some of it's shrines, adopted Teotihuacano urban design, artistic, and architectural traits, and worked the site into their creation myths as the place where the gods sacrificed themselves to create the current sun.
Teotihuacan, too, was seemingly considered a Tollan, as was Cholula, a city (and home of the world's largest pyramid) which like Teotihuacan had it's origins around 300-100BC, but unlike it survived all the way to Spanish contact and exists as a populated center even today: sometime between 600-900 AD, Cholula became a site of massive religious influence, and was said to be tied to the Toltecs and was even visited on pilgrimages by other Mesoamerican kings for their coronations, sort of a Mesoamerican mecca. Cholula, as of Spanish contact, was also a Tollan.
Some titles which WERE fought over were more specific, more specific (wheras Tollan seems to have been a much wider and older concept) to Aztec states within or around the Valley of Mexico (the valley Teotihuacan was in, later the Aztec political core, and today Mexico City's greater sprawl), such as Teuctli Chicimeca (Tecuthli is lord, basically, Chichimeca is the term for non-urban nomads or "barbarians" of Northern Mexico, of which the Aztec descended from before adopting Central Mexican style urbanized statehood and civilization), which was a title various kings asserted and fought over which had influence in the initial centuries of competing Aztec states, especially between the Tepaneca and Alcohua and their leading cities, Azcapotzalco and Texcoco, before eventually the Mexica, whom Azcapotzalco used as mercenaries, eventually overthrew them in the late 1420s with help from Texcoco and Tlacopan (another Tepaneca city), founding the Aztec Empire ("Aztec" can refer to the Mexica specifically, or all of these Nahuatl speaking groups/the Nahuas, or the "Aztec Empire", politically, but keep in mind not all Nahua states were inside that empire nor were all states inside that empire Nahua). I'd talk more about that Teuctli Chicimeca and other fought-over titles during that period but I honestly don't know much about them.
Something to keep in mind through all of this is Mesoamerican states tended to be relatively small and hands off relative to Eurasian ones: They had no draft animals to aid in transportation, and much of the region was either dense jungles and swamps, or rugged hillls and ranges of mountains and valleys: Travel and long distance administration were difficult. As such, even larger states like the Aztec Empire (which despite being dwarfed by the empires you disscuss here, was the largest state in Mesoamerican history), whatever kingdom or empire Teotihuacan headed, the Zapotec empire or kingdom led by Monte Alban, the larger Classic Maya dynasties,. etc, were often reliant on indirect methods of establishing political influence which left their subjects often still either functionally or even formally independent polities with their own identities and interests: As such, opportunistic secession, rebellions, coups, side switching etc were relatively common as states attempted to jockey increased influence over or from other states or political networks.
I'd go on but i'm passing out in my chair, haha. Maybe ii'll edit more in later!
Glad to see you back man, and with a banger video at that 🎉
HE HAS RETURNED!!
Finallly, you're back
Good to see you making videos again and also looking forward for new interesting history subject content for what you focus and go deep into also take your time and pick which history or subject that you choose to go into. :) :3
So glad you have returned! 😊 I felt and noticed your absence these past months! Love the video.
Oh hey welcome back !
Great to see you back with another insightful video!
The return of the Coolest Bros of YT History! ❤️🔥
Aye Glad to see the History Content back, with that being said I still wish you great luck with your ungoing game project as well
If anyone is (very) keen on Imperial Tradition, HRE and even Islamic history, I hotly recommend Schwerpunkt. If you get into it, it's pretty mind-blowing
I am. What's that tho? A book? A historian? An althist?
@@d.esanchez3351A RUclips channel, apparently.
@@d.esanchez3351I think he means the RUclips channel
CJ I love you my Sworn Brother! My Cool Bro is back!!!
I recently discovered this channel and am in the process of binge-watching ALL videos. Nice to see this is still getting new stuff. Keep up the good work, bro !
Glad to see you guys again 😊
Welcome back, man. Hope you've been well.
Finally you are back!!!
The Cordoba Caliphate was Arabic by patrilineage and was actually the last Ummayad Caliphate, founded (first as independent Emirate) by the last survivor of this Caliph dynasty, dethroned by the Abbasid "revolution" (conspiracy and coup).
The first and strongest Caliph was Abd Al-Rahman III, who was like 95% Basque... but not patrilineally nor by culture, in those things that matter the most for dynastic legitimacy he was 100% Arab and Ummayad.
This is the first time I've heard of Umayyads marrying with Basque dynasties.
@@papazataklaattiranimam - I would have to re-research the details but in my passing through relevant forums and discussing the matter, Abd El-Rahman III specifically happened not just to be 75% Basque as I thought initially based on his mother and paternal grandmother but well into the 95%, as the Andalusi Ummayads basically married Pamplonese princesses all the time.
Pamplona (later Navarre) was a major polity in the 10th century particularly, when it controlled Castile, what would later be core Aragon, had strong influence in Gascony and even intervened militarily in Leon, Sancho the Great being called in those days "Imperator Hispaniae" (emperor of the Spains) and Pamplona claimed to be "the new Rome" (those monks and their fantasies!) The Cordoba Caliphate and this powerful version of the Basque realm collapsed around the same time: the former because, after the dictatorship of Al Mansur the Caliphs had become so irrelevant that provincial governors took over instead and Cordoba proclaimed itself a "republic", the latter for adopting dynastic partition and then Pamplona falling victim of the ambition of its offshoots Castile and Aragon.
I am pretty sure some matrilineally Slav Caliph was said to intentionally darken his skin a bit to look more Arab.
So while dna% mattered way less than patrilineage, it still mattered to some extent.
@@ikengaspirit3063 - Who? Never heard that.
@@LuisAldamiz I might be wrong and it's actually some general not a Caliph but I'll search for it.
how did i miss this video?! ahhh so glad to have you back !
Welcome back! I'd been missing this channel
Glad that you're back
Though not imperial, but Mahajanpadas and Panchayati Raj System are most underrated.
In ancient India, before Mauryan empire, there existed 16 great Mahajanpadas and some other Janapadas,
Out of 16, 8 Mahajanpadas had elected leaders, they were republics(Gana) and all decisions were taken in groups and meetings (Buddha's father too belonged to this part of system).
Even though Mahajanpadas perished after Mauryan empire,
This practice survived in local villages and townships, as well as tribes and hilly folks as Panchayati system and village councils. Many allowed even women participation in decision making. This councils were legally respected by all empires, from Guptas to Mughal Empire, even British Empire gave Panchayats and village councils legal status.
Even after some decades of independence, Indian government have given Panchayats and village council of tribes legal status as third or Local level government of India.
This ancient practice is still very popular.
(Above information was given by my Political Science professor)
About Chakravarti, anyone can assume Title of Chakravarti Samrat by defeating many kings or making them submit.
Most of the times, Kings resumed ruling under Chakravarti Samrat. He was considered King of Kings (Maharajadhiraja).
Another title for which all kings craved was Digvijayi (conqueror of all directions), for which even Ashoka craved.
When we talk about Chakravartis, that is most likely to be about Gupta Period. As it was a golden period for Indian literature, trade and arts, many popular stories and legends have themes of Chakravarty Samrat (most famous might be Vikramaditya, who was an actual historical king)
Other than that, room for being ruler was practically open to all who had considerable power.
Even Indo- Greek rulers, Kushans, central asians and Huns adopted Indian religions and customs for legitimacy. Though most of the times, Brahmin class kept them calling mleccha only.
Another thing you can do is getting legitimacy by a great Acharya.
Harihara and Bukka were captured soldier brothers, but they escaped, came south and established Vijayanagar Empire, which consisted whole of Southern India after taking blessings and legitimacy from Shankaracharya of Shringeri
(There are four monasteries in four corners of India established by Adi Shankaracharya, whose heads are called Shankaracharya, they are like very high authority and respected in Hindu society).
It was golden period for Southern India while Northern parts of India were ruled by Mughal Empire and Goloconda Sultanate.
It haf bustling cities and well managed system having visitors and traders from Europe, Turkey, Arab, Persia, China, South east Asian kingdoms, etc .
India is a place where historically religion seems to be much more powerful than the state. To claim an Indian empire title I doubt you would get far without support from the Brahmins.
@@the11382 well
That isn't necessary it seems.
Ashoka was not favoured by Brahmanas.
There were Shudra and Brahamana rulerd as well, even though only Kshatriyas are supposed to rule.
Kushanas were considered mleccha, so were Huns and others.
Delhi Sultanate, Mughal Empire were Muslim.
So ofcourse, if you have power, you can.
@the11382 Brahimins weren't just religious priests. They were actually mainly scholars and performed many other functions in society like being ministers, scribes, advisors etc. Of course, "the caste system", was a lot more flexible in ancient and early medieval times, so it wasn't just brahmins performing these roles
India is the most underrated compared to the other major civilizations.
It had vast empires with many of the world's largest cities, temples, univerisites, irrgiation newtorks, road networks etc. It was the centre of the Indian Ocean Trade, spread its culture, writing systems, religions and philosophies across Asia. India also excelled in Medicine, Sciences, Mathematics, Engineering, Philosophy, Metallurgy, Cartography, Alchemy etc
India had its own ancient republics, village elections, centralised governments etc
But for some reason Westerners ignore Indian Civilization. They think it was a place of oppression, backward pagans, caste system, invasions and warring chieftains with no cities, centralised governments, organised militaries etc
@@the11382India is the most underrated compared to the other major civilizations.
It had vast empires with many of the world's largest cities, temples, univerisites, irrgiation newtorks, road networks etc. It was the centre of the Indian Ocean Trade, spread its culture, writing systems, religions and philosophies across Asia. India also excelled in Medicine, Sciences, Mathematics, Engineering, Philosophy, Metallurgy, Cartography, Alchemy etc
India had its own ancient republics, village elections, centralised governments etc
But for some reason Westerners ignore Indian Civilization. They think it was a place of oppression, backward pagans, caste system, invasions and warring chieftains with no cities, centralised governments, organised militaries etc
Finally u are back! oh gods, i have been missing the videos
(The 'Byzantines' did not 'claim' to be Romans. They WERE the Roman Empire after the ancient times have ended and the Mediterranean world expanded into the Medieval Ages, and they themselves held that identity, as well as those around them addressed them as such)
Could we get a Yuan Dynasty in depth analysis? Especially a video explaining Kublai Khan’s relations with the Jurchen Jin, Southern Song, and the his failures in the Mongol conquests of Japan? This channel has some of the best Chinese history I’ve seen, and I think this period of China was a pivotal and overlooked era as it nearly lead to a Mongol conquest of a political weak Japan
Good to see you again.
Very good to have you back.
Waiting for you bro
Good to see you back Bro.
Welcome back CJ.
good to see u back cz (watching your videos to sleep for a while haha ^^
Damn, bro, I’m waiting you like 2000 yrs , thanks for video, I really like your channel
So glad to see you back!! I've found myself thirsting for another "Cool History Bros." vid all this week and then you gift me with this! Thank you!
Yay!!!!! Bro is back!
Great! Glad to see you back!
HELL YEEAAAAAH THE BRO IS BACK
I've always liked the concept of the Mandate of Heaven. I know it's propaganda, but if the rulers really buy into the idea that they only rule so long as they are benevolent and if they're not, the next guy has the *right* to overthrow them, I think it does a decent job of offsetting the inherently exploitative nature of empire.
Fair enough, but I don't know a single example where a Chinese emperor being overthrown gave power away willingly.
@@kyyyni I don't either, but considering the whole system lasted for 2500ish years and I only speak about six phrases of Chinese, I'm sure there's at least one. I know of two Roman emperors who gave up power willingly (Diocletian and Tiberius II) off the top of my head. In fact, while I was typing this I remembered that the founder of the Tang dynasty willingly gave power over to his second son after he basically pulled a coup on his brothers. The thing I was thinking of though, is that the whole Mandate of Heaven concept seemed to make most Chinese dynasties think twice about being openly exploitative/tyrannical towards their subjects, which is my personal benchmark for a "good ruler", if such a thing can be said to exist.
That is pretty much the central pillar of democracy; the ability to remove rulers that are tyrannical and prevent them from becoming tyrannical in the first place. Obviously existing democratic systems are far from perfect, especially with things like FPTP and EC's, but they are still pretty good. But certainly the threat of removal, whether through violence or peacefully keeps rulers from a certain level of despotism. However this threat still needs to be credible and countries that are nominally democracies but do not have power transfers between parties and leaders such as Hungary or South Africa are generally little better than dictatorships.
@@雷-t3j Gotta have that sword of Damocles above their head to make a leader remember that they're not untouchable, whether that's being voted out or overthrown. Difficult to implement such a measure in a hereditary monarchy without making the whole thing super unstable like the Roman empire was during the Crisis of the Third Century or all the infighting between early Ottoman princes when their fathers died. Make the threat *too* credible and you end up changing leaders more often than is really optimal. I gotta say though, of all the empires that I personally know a fair bit about, I think the Chinese dynastic system was probably the least tyrannical overall, and while that can't be chalked up *entirely* to the mandate of heaven, I think it goes a long way
I would argue the beauty of democracy is that one must keep a significant portion of the population happy in order to maintain power while in other systems one must only keep the military and officials happy. By creating the estate of the common people it forces politicians that hunger for power to help out their people to some extent.
Great to see you back! Good topic, too!
Hi CJ! There's a historiographical term for what you called "legacy assumption". It's translatio imperii 😁
Have a great day!
Since Islam as religion has a major influence over several races and ethnicities, from a purely strategic standpoint It would be advantageous to choose the Caliphate. The Caliph is the closest position to the ruler of the world in my opinion
The best way to get all four titles is to start off as a Caliph, then become a khagan, then to take the Roman emperor, then to become the Chinese emperor
This is one of my favourite subjects. Thanks for covering it.
welcome back! we've missed your content
You have returned! Yay
The coolest bro in all under heaven if back! Glad your back, can;t wait for more content.
Welcome back bros
interstingly, the japanese was going to claim the Chinese mandate and form a new Chinese dynasty if they won ww2
Never heard this before. What would they (Chinese character) name their new dynasty? Where would the capital be? Tokyo or Beijing?
@@Nom_AnorVSJedi "western capital" In Japanese
That is right, however the Japanese probably get themselves reverse assimilated like the mongolian, and today China can claim Japan is an inseparable part of China. just like manchria, and inner mongolia..🙂
welcome back! been missing your content, so excited to see you in my feed again ^_^
So glad to see you back!
Great video and welcome back!
Hello, it is great the Team is back The educational videos are much appreciated 😊
From Manila, PH
Welcome back Bro! you've been missed!
Glad to see you back 🥰
great a new video finally
I think the oldest of these did go completely unmentioned. The original concept of Kings of Kings and King of Sumer and Akkad, perhaps also King of Kish, althoug these all go hand in hand. They lasted from the 24th century BC till the Achaemanid empire and were kind of succeeded by the title of Shahenshah. The Ottomans also claimed the title Padishah for example. Apparently the city of Kish was important enough in ancient Mesopotamia, that it became synomymous with the title of King of the Universe. The same goes for King of Sumer and Akkad, which was claimed by the successive Mesopotamian dynasties.
因为这个文明在历史上消失的太彻底了，直到考古我们才知道她的样子，他对历史的影响没有那么大，很可惜的。
Hi I'm from Algeria 🇩🇿i love your historical videos
yaaay welcome back!!
Hope you guys come back soon. Love your work.
Missed you guy.
Yo're back!! Finally
Actually Byantium was called Eastern Roman Empire since the days of Diocletian, who moved the capital out of Italy into Greater Greece (it was Nicomedia then but close enough) and split the Empire in two allied antities (Western and Eastern) in the absurd idea that it'd be better for all. Since then the Eastern Empire (much richer than the Western one) held primacy. The Empire was intermittently reunified until the final "unification", when the Western Empire had collapsed and its strongman, Odoacer, sent the imperial regalia to Constantinople contenting himself with the title of King of Italy. The Byzantines did not like that and attempted to reconquer Italy, first by proxy (Ostrogoths) and then directly (Justinian) but could not consolidate their control, as the Latins saw the Greeks as foreign and pretty much usurpers. That's when Charlemagne takes over 2/3 of Italy and became Emperor on Germano-Latin new legitimacy, blessed by the Pope. The Byzantines did claim since Odoacer to be the only Roman Empire... but it was not always like that.
true, I was about comment this
Argument could be made that the Eastern Empire was cool with the West under barbarian dynasties that recognized them and Justinian was an exception to this.
And I don't think the Italians seeing them as foreign mattered much to how they lost Italy.
@@ikengaspirit3063 - Justinian is pre-Carolingian. In his day there was no Western Empire whatsoever, nobody claimed that title in the whole of the Dark Ages (around 350 years).
AFAIK, Italian resistance to Byzantines and favoring of Lombards dukes and kings instead was central to the Justinian catastrophe. Sure: there was also the plague...
Italians not liking Greeks is a very strange way to see things, which seems to ignore some well established facts:a) the German warlords were those who opposed eastern roman rule during the Reconquista era. B) parts of Italy ( the exarchate of Ravenna ) remained in Byzantine hands for centuries after the reconquista in lesser and lesser form.that was less because of Italian resistance and more because of barbarian attacks from the outside the byzantines didnt allocate enough resources to defend an area that was not that essential to the empire anymore. Bari was finally lost to the Normans in the eleventh century A.D.who were very recently to the area. C) When Manuel I attacked in the 12th century most local Italian lords in Bari accepted him easily but the Normans countered and reconquered the region soon.
Of course after the schism the relations between Catholics and Orthodox started deteriorating leading gradually to distrust and war between the Greeks and the Italians but that is not a Justinian era thing and it was not a significant fact until the Comnenian era.
@@pn8937 - I'm not saying Italians did not like Greeks, they did not like that much being ruled by foreigners of any kind, Greeks or Balcanic "Dacian" generals, who were the ones moving the capital. This translation of the Empire from Italy to Greece was dramatic and totally left the now semi-autonomous Western Empire without resources to fend off the Germanics.
Once the Empire became foreign to Italy and, especially after the Byzantines sent again and again hordes of Goths against Italy and the West, in endless betrayal of the interests of Italy, grudges piled up and the less hostile barbarians became preferable, first the very fragmented Lombards, then the somewhat more solid and very much Latinized Franks (and their German Kingdom successors).
Italy was in no position to reunify itself however: between the Pope and both emperors it had become a coveted prize rather than a sovereign power, something that lingered for many centuries desperating the likes of Machiavelli and Petrarca alike.
The Great Schism was political rather than religious but it illustrates the problems of Christianity as single "proto-fascist" party (which is what Constantine and Theodosius made of it), leading to disputes about dogma and primacy, which did not only consolidate the Latin-Greek split but also favored Muslim expansion in the Afroasiatic areas, which had (and still have, even if much diminished) their own patriarchs and distinct less-trinitarian dogmas and very much resented the attempts at unification by the Greeks, finding the Muslims less annoying in comparison.
Byzantinists are funny.
Welcome back!
Welcome back my bro!
He back it a Glorious day
The reason that the Türks and other Turkic nomads were formidable warriors was that they were horse-archers. A horse-archer specifically denotes a mounted warrior armed with a bow who can shoot from horseback while riding. The Turkic nomadic warriors as well as the Mongols used the composite bow, which was made of horn, wood, and sinew. The composite bow was more accurate and had a better range and rate of fire than muskets and early firearms. The tactical principles of the Turkic horse-archers were based on the combination of fire power and mobility. yhe nomadic horse-archers shot in volleys, weakening the enemy before they charged. Ideally, they practiced "fire power in movement" like modern armies.Other things being equal, the horse-archers were often almost unbeatable on the open battlefields. Against them, sedentary soldiers were often helpless until the development of efficient battlefield handguns, including the repeating firearms (the firearms that could be fired repeatedly before being manually reloaded) in the seventeenth century.
Contrary to popular belief, horse archers were common in China, Middle East, Arabia, North Africa, and Western/Central Europe. Not at all special to the nomads.
For example, English archers during 100 years war often travel on horseback, and during raiding/chevauchee, as depicted in contemporary art, they often shoot from the saddle.
Nomadic armies did not have superior or more accurate ranged weapon, but superior strategic mobility, therefore much greater flexibility and ability to choose their battlefield.
These highly mobile nomadic armies reign supreme till the rise of the well disciplined/drilled armies, which Russian and Chinese states begin to employ in mid 17th century onward.
Papuz u Are here too
Her yerdesin mk
so thats how they lost in southeast asia jungle.
Welcome back!!!
Hi CJ.
One of your fans here.
Can you please consider making a video about Wang Mang and Liu Xiu, the events that took place around 5-25 CE.
Just finished watching 光武帝劉秀 and I am so eager to watch your explanation. 🙂
Thank you.
Welcome back, bro.
Bro where have you been? It's been over 3 months since this video and the one before that was 9 months in-between.
Are you sick or gave up on this channel? I loved your story telling and this always made my day seeing an Asian perspective on world history.
Heres the thing ottoman not claimed to be roman empire and caliphate but also true shah of persia(because of seljuk legacy) and khan of all nomads as to legitimise that they even kept khazadas hostage. This also the reason for fighting persia and russia and hre like mortal enemy
Awesome video, love it! 👏🥔
the caliphate of cordoba was arab/arabic. they were direct descendants of the Quraysh tribe and the overthrown ummayads who fled the abbasids. also the Ottomans claimed the kagante along side the caliphate and roman emperor-ship.
Just FYI: your Sources section was incorrectly carried over from the previous video on otaku culture in China.
Been a while since you come out with new video. You still doing it?
❤ Glad to see you back 🎉
I would love it if u covered the tales of General Yue Fei
would love to see you talk more about the charkravartin & japanese models next!
Welcome baaaaack!
Please upload more this year on this channel. I know you're working on the other channel but it's not fair lol.
Byzantium was Rome. They were Romans. They are a direct continuation of Caesar and Augustus, in a nearly unbroken chain for a thousand years after the west fell.
Byzantium is like Chinese Three kingdoms period Shu-Han dynasty, Later Ummeyad Empire in Spain, or Republic of China in Taiwan,
as long as Byzanine Empire loses Rome city, Italy and all territories in Western Europe,
calling itself the true Roman Empire doesn't matter anymore,
Welcome back, king! I must say, however, please replace the flag of the Roman Empire in the thumbnail, the flag displayed was of the German empire aka “Holy Roman Empire”, not the legit Rome of 27 bc-1453
wow he is back! he is back! he is back!
hey guys. CJ is back
HES BACK
Return of the King
Despite not being a Muslim, I will do what Emir Timur do. And by that, I mean how will I consolidated my own power, of course. Marrying a female descendant of Chinggis Khan and claimed to be spiritual descendant of the Prophet's son-in-law are defintely the good ways to gain loyalties from both the nomadic Turco-Mongol tribes and the Muslims in the urban areas. And of course, the promises of loots and plunders if they joined the expansion of my realm and in case of polymaths and artisans, sponsorships for their works. But unlike Emir Timur, I will make it a law that if no male rulers are fitting to rule, women can ascended upon the throne to govern the realm.
P.S: U.S is more like Carthage while Russia is more like Rome. But hey, that's just opinion from me and some other people I know on RUclips.
Can you do a video on the yuanhe restoration?
When you guys are going to return? I would love to see a video from you about Journey to the West and Dream of the Red Chamber
The US legitimacy comes from enlightenment philosophy and social contract theory. "No taxation without representation" and all that.
but where did the 'enlightenment philosophy' came from ?
@@clozmo2171It was sort of a byproduct of the Scientific Revolution that had transformed tradition views about nature and society. Rene DeCartes, Francis Bacon, and most importantly for Americans John Locke, all provided key works that influenced the Enlightenment.