This episode reminds me of St. Genesius. He was an actor who was so eager to please the emperor that not only did he decide to write a Christian-mocking play of his own, he also went undercover as a catechumen so that he could get all of the details right and make the play extra interesting. Things didn't go quite as planned and he ended up converting during his on-stage baptism in what had up until then been (in the emperor's opinion) a very funny play. When Genesius then started preaching, the emperors stopped laughing and had him arrested. Torture and death followed. Genesius is now the patron saint of actors, comedians and other such people.
It’s also worth noting that this story is a fabrication - there’s no evidence such a person ever existed or was converted in those circumstances. It seems to have been invented to spice up tales of another saint, a notary of the same name who was martyred around 303 AD.
As far as I can find, the Eastern Roman Empire never called itself the Byzantine Empire; it was 19th-century historians who started calling them that and it's only used for bookkeeping purposes. The Empire was officially the Basileia tôn Rhōmaiōn (Greek for "Roman Empire") from beginning to end.
... and worse? They were pretty much the light of civilisation in the dark ages, when the official Roman Empire fell and the new western world was split into factions and petty kingdoms. It was the East and the Byzantine Empire that survived and thrived during that period, where the romans, the greeks and the persians simply couldn't
crime-fighting spider No. The Arabs were. Both Byzantium and the sassanids didn’t contribute anything since Justinian essentially. And then later on some Byzantine scholars helped with the renaissance but only once there was a renaissance. The main revival of philosophy and science in the west in the 12th century was through the Arabs not the byzantines. We share more in common with the Arabs until averoes than we do with the Byzantines. And that’s for the better.
This is more ore less still going on. I remember as a kid in Catholic school watching the liturgical performance of the Stations of the Cross. The parishioners/audience calls out responses as the Roman crowds saying "free Barabbas" and "crucify him." Years later, I attended a Wiccan Yule ritual, in which two of the priests acted out the roles of the Oak King fighting and slaying the Holly King. I think the ritual of acting out historical/mythical events gives them a sense of realness and a stronger personal connection than can be gained by simply reading a book or hearing a lecture.
Mike, you're by far the best host in Crash Course. I'm not really that interested in theater but you make it so easy to enjoy anything about it. Keep it on!
Interesting enough these liturgical dramas are still alive and well in Catholic mass tradition, especially during special holidays like Easter and Christmas. The night before Easter Sunday the church would conduct a small re-enactment of the whole "whom do you seek?" scene. In the Lenten days leading up to crucifixion has the Church doing a call and response between the Priest and the lay men reenacting the Stages of the Cross. In Christmas eve the Nativity scene is played out though it has less dialogue and more the presentation of gifts to baby Jesus in the manger. Really interesting that just as Theater was born from the elevation and sophistication of Religious Rituals the Theater itself has its own rebirth in Religion once more.
You're correcting a mistake by making one yourself. The Ostrogoths ruled Italy in the late 5th Century yes, but they did not depose the last Western Roman Emperor, the Ostrogoths deposed Odoacer, who was actually the one deposed the last Western Roman Emperor (if you don't count Julius Nepos for some reason). We don't know what tribe Odoacer belonged to, but he was probably not a Goth. He may have been from the Heruli, but it's not very certain.
Very strange to date the fall of the Western Roman Empire to 568, which is when the Lombards conquered much of Italy. They were conquering it from the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire, which had reconquered it from the Ostrogoths, who had in turn taken it from Odoacer, the barbarian general who had deposed the last emperor of the Western Empire in 476 and made himself King of Italy. Even by 476 very little was left of the Roman Empire in the West and the last emperor was a powerless puppet of Odoacer, who didn't even bother to kill him, just sent him off into early retirement. So in reality the Western Empire was gone a century before 568.
Interesting full circle here, and how theater originally born of religious ritual was ironically reborn from religious ritual. And BTW, I was a theater minor, and am still a major theater geek as a playwright, actor, improv-er, etc., so I really, really appreciate this crash course reminder, which is both refreshing a lot of what I learned and filling in gaps on what I didn't. Keep on keepin' on with it!
Hello dear CrashCourse people, I just saw your video on the agricultural Revolution and due to the fact that you didn't point out a solution to the negative effects of mostly monocultural agriculture and the time and protein defecit I was wondering if you considered the methods of 'permaculture' and plantal sources of protein. Or did you maybe already make a video about it? There are historical roots to this topic after all :)
Watching the first video, when theatre originated from religious rituals, and here watching liturgical plays, I can say they're going back ti the roots.
Or....480 C.E? Why does everybody forget about Julius Nepos. Poor guy is always forgotten despite being the last Western Roman Emperor, I kind of feel bad for the guy.
Think they’re going with the last attempt to revive the western side of the Empire by Belissarius and the invasion of the Lombards in 568 marks the fatal end of any hope of controlling Italy. Ya the Byzantines lingered in southern Italy for almost 500 more years but Italy was now a backwater province of Byzantium, not the capital province of the West.
Well, Julius Nepos is a weird case. He was deposed in favor of Romulus Augustulus in 475 and fled to Dalmatia. Though he continued to claim to be the emperor until his death in 480, he wasn't actually ruling what was left of the Western Empire, which had been taken over by Romulus and then by Odoacer, who deposed Romulus and made himself King of Italy. If historians counted everybody who claimed to be emperor as one of the Roman emperors, the list would be long indeed. The Historia Augusta, for instance, lists no less than 32 pretenders to the throne during the 8-year-long reign of Gallienus. So Julius Nepos' post-475 reign not being considered that of a "real" emperor by some historians is kind of like Pluto not being considered a planet by astronomers.
+Kenneth Connally Except Nepos did rule, he just ruled Dalmatia instead of Italy. A further point in favour of his leigitimacy is that the Eastern Empire always, always recognized Nepos. They never recognized Romulus and when Odoacer asked for the Empire to be reunified with him as patricius of Italy, Zeno told Odoacer's delegation to shove it and recognize Nepos. Nepos' recognition ended when he was killed in 480. Possibly in a conspiracy. Romulus was the pretender with no recognition, not Nepos.
Depends I guess which argument you are more convinced by. Even us historians cannot find concensus on which was truly last. I myself tend to dismiss WREs collapse as significant as long as the ERE existed there was a legitimate Emperor and thus, for say Italians, neither 475 or 480 made much difference in their daily lives. I think in hinesight, and thanks to Gibbon, we greatly overestimate the inportance of the fall of the West when, when in truth, I doubt at the time anyone thought too much of it. To build off my last statement, 580 is in many ways more significant because the ERE suddenly realized they had lost control of Italy, even in a nominal sense, and any attempt to bring the western provinces back into their control was effectively impossible whilst under the pressure from the East. By 632, a mere 50 years later, they had much more serious problems. Even pretending rhe Western Provinces were their de jure territory was impossible. Most western kings paid lip service that the Enperor was still Christ's sovereign on Earth but in practical terms it meant nothing. With the crowning of Charlemagne in 800, even this meagre pretense was gone.
Doesn't undermine the meaning of the Mass from the first one (Last Supper through the Last Breath of Christ) until today: the Mass has never changed, in essence, regardless of outward form or the human fallibility of individual Christians.
Ummm...didn't one of Crash Course's other shows say that there's zero evidence that the Romans ever fed Christians to the lions? And wasn't it proven a few years back that it wasn't possible to intentionally flood the Coliseum, despite the stories?
wow, so... i googled nude mime, and it is still a thing. i found a half hour 'performance' that took me a couple sittings, but i watched 90% of it. its not super popular, but it happens... so yeah, thanks for that. i think
Wait, the Western Roman Empire fell in 568 A.D? Where's this coming from? The last Western Roman Emperor (Julius Nepos) was killed in 480 A.D. The only thing that happened in Rome during 568 was that the Lombards invaded most (not all, most) of Italy (Rome was still Roman for a century or so longer). If you're going to label the Eastern Roman Empire as the Roman Empire (which is the correct position, let's be honest guys), then go all the way and say the Roman Empire ended in 1453, not that the Western half ended at some random, arbitrary date.
The Eastern Romans controlled a strip of land from Rome to Ravenna until the mid sixth century and they thought of themselves Roman as Western Romans did.
+GlobeTrotter267 They "controlled" that strip of land well into the 8th Century though and they kept calling themselves Roman until 1453...because they were Roman.
Hol' up! Theodora? Okay, so... I've done some gaming (don't worry, I get a lot of my history from regular sources that aren't entertainment platforms) and... wasn't she in charge of the Byzantine world for some time?
The Eastern Empire wasn't called the Byzantine Empire, it was the Roman Empire. We now call them Byzantines because we are those barbarians and we feel bad about it.
Masles Roy Since Diocletian at least everyone is a tyrant. And the Arab world is much better than the Byzantine world between the founding of Baghdad and before its sack.
Sure, and everyone to the Chinese was a barbarian and I'm sure even they are barbarians to the aliens on galaxy Blorgron. Why bring this up? It has nothing to do with the subject. We the West call Visigoths, Vandals, Franks and the like 'barbarians', as the Romans did. Our modern nation states come straight from them, but we're culturally ashamed of their destruction of the classical world. So better forget that Rome was around in the East between that and the Renaissance (which we owe to Roman scholars fleeing New Rome before the Fall to the Ottomans).
Wow. As a Christian aspiring actress it is so inspiring to see that theatre remerged with Christians, I assume with the intent of glorifying God. So cool.
When referring to dates of events attributed to the Christian church, one has no excuse not to use AD / BC, rather than the secular-humanist mask over the top of the Christian calendar that just happens also to have become a world standard.
people was very thirsty for entertainment before Internet, some were so desperate that they burned people just to have something to do on a Friday night!
Well...this is the early Middle Ages he's talking about (The Dark Ages period). Things got WAY more fun during the High Middle Ages. (1100 AD to like 1300 AD).
the hint that constantine converted to christianity to just to stabilise the empire is v weird - why would converting to a minority palestinian sect that had been oppressed for centuries help stabilise the government? also the circumstances of his baptism and other personal quirks make his christianity seem pretty sincere, crazy thought but maybe he did actually believe in god.. (great video though not trying to start a fight xx)
Eden Watkins Christianity was on the ascendancy way before Constantine. He’s just the emperor who finally converted. Read the books by either Bart ehrman or James Stevens Valliant or both.
Christianism was still disliked by quite many, but was certainly in a rising curve at that point, and Constantine was facing troubles with his public image. So it is not beyond the realm of politics/possibility that he could have given up on apeasing the usual courtiers and decided to throw his hat in a turf filled with people desperately needing political recognition and who would be quite loyal to him for that. Than, again, we are talking about history and he could have being honest in his coversion. Or being partially honest, hoping it would be a good choice but being unsure, or rationalized his interests until convincing himself that he was being honest, so on and so forth. To really know, who does? Problem always arise in discussing history mostly because each side wants a definite answer, and there is REALLY little of that when we speak about real motivations, feelings and thoughts of historical figures. It's either chose an option just because (which is the most common behaviour on the internet and irl) or accept that X, Y and Z might all be possible but that the true will never be known either way, which is more of an academic aproach.
I disagree. First of all, everything he said about them from that period is historically accurate, at least from every single ancient history book *I* ever read. Second, to be fair, he did not diss Christian dogma, but the practices of the CHURCH back then. It's more anti-Catholic Medieval Church sentiment, which is beyond appropriate, as they were awful and corrupt. (I'm not going to even bring up the Crusades a few centuries later). Just because Christianity is still a religion practiced and believed in today, does not mean it's past is not open to scrutiny, and yes...to be poked fun at. Mike also pokes fun at some of the cultures' ancient myths in his Mythology Crash Course. All is fair game, and also...while educational, Crash Course is meant to be entertaining as well.
Eric Nash Not just Christianity. Islam did similar things too. But I guess they probably learnt it from the Christians so your point stands. Glad I’m an atheist and don’t have to do all that weird theology stuff.
Hold on, the Roman empire wasn't that bad to the christians. First, death was punishment for a lot of crimes. Prisons weren't a thing back then so this was their alternative (horrible as it was). Second the religion wasn't outlawed. You just had to also give tribute to Roman gods, much as today you have to give tribute to the christian god (you know, paying extra taxes because churhes are exempt). All and all the pagans were nice to the christians than vise versa, especially today.
Hate to break it to you but there were a few emperors who specifically persecuted the Christians in a way reminiscent of the holocaust. I have Diocletian specifically in mind.
The fact that they refused to give tribute to the Roman gods and especially to the imperial cult led many Romans to doubt their loyalty. This eventually led to them being blamed for all sorts of hardship because the Romans had a sense of communal justice and if there were some who refused to partake, that was seen as a danger to society. Studying early Christian history will show you this. But all in all persecution ebbed and flowed depending on the time. Trajan is famously considered the best emperor by many medieval thinkers because of his toleration as is evidence in the fact that he appears in Dante's Paradiso. The same was the case for Christians towards pagans. On one hand you had the Northern Crusade which forced Christianity upon many pagans, but on the other you have people like Thomas Aquinas and other important figures saying that one can only prosecute Christian Heretics or Apostates; one who has never accepted Christ cannot be forced to do so or punished for this. In both situations it depended on the person, the place and the time. Alverant your statement is problematic because you are drawing too sharp and too biased a conclusion without looking at both sides equally. It is impossible to say that one side was better towards the other than vice versa because it simply isn't true.
This episode reminds me of St. Genesius. He was an actor who was so eager to please the emperor that not only did he decide to write a Christian-mocking play of his own, he also went undercover as a catechumen so that he could get all of the details right and make the play extra interesting. Things didn't go quite as planned and he ended up converting during his on-stage baptism in what had up until then been (in the emperor's opinion) a very funny play. When Genesius then started preaching, the emperors stopped laughing and had him arrested. Torture and death followed. Genesius is now the patron saint of actors, comedians and other such people.
Sunberries84 I did not know that. That's so cool.
It’s also worth noting that this story is a fabrication - there’s no evidence such a person ever existed or was converted in those circumstances. It seems to have been invented to spice up tales of another saint, a notary of the same name who was martyred around 303 AD.
I thoroughly enjoyed your defense of mimes.
Japanthewoman SAME
thousands of children go to mime school every year and are never heard from again
So in 1000 years we go from 'Whom do you seek?' to 'JESUS CHRIST - SUPERSTAR'
Ben Cronin * scoffs * Humans, amarite?
👽👾👽👾👽👾👽
Humans Indeed
We missed you last week, Mike. Make more videos and teach us more about history
As far as I can find, the Eastern Roman Empire never called itself the Byzantine Empire; it was 19th-century historians who started calling them that and it's only used for bookkeeping purposes. The Empire was officially the Basileia tôn Rhōmaiōn (Greek for "Roman Empire") from beginning to end.
Yes that's true but for clarification's sake, its easier and clearer to say Byzantine rather than Roman or Eastern Roman.
Derek Floyd Yeah but they’re very different and worse than what came before so it makes sense to give them a different name.
... and worse? They were pretty much the light of civilisation in the dark ages, when the official Roman Empire fell and the new western world was split into factions and petty kingdoms. It was the East and the Byzantine Empire that survived and thrived during that period, where the romans, the greeks and the persians simply couldn't
crime-fighting spider No. The Arabs were. Both Byzantium and the sassanids didn’t contribute anything since Justinian essentially. And then later on some Byzantine scholars helped with the renaissance but only once there was a renaissance. The main revival of philosophy and science in the west in the 12th century was through the Arabs not the byzantines. We share more in common with the Arabs until averoes than we do with the Byzantines. And that’s for the better.
The Slavs and Greeks probably wouldn't agree with that statement.
This is more ore less still going on. I remember as a kid in Catholic school watching the liturgical performance of the Stations of the Cross. The parishioners/audience calls out responses as the Roman crowds saying "free Barabbas" and "crucify him."
Years later, I attended a Wiccan Yule ritual, in which two of the priests acted out the roles of the Oak King fighting and slaying the Holly King.
I think the ritual of acting out historical/mythical events gives them a sense of realness and a stronger personal connection than can be gained by simply reading a book or hearing a lecture.
Arise, and go ye from the sepulchre, to bear witness on some sick naval battles and nude empress mimes
YES!
Mike, you're by far the best host in Crash Course. I'm not really that interested in theater but you make it so easy to enjoy anything about it. Keep it on!
I hope there will be a Crash Course, art history.
"To be quite H, though"
Mike, you're the best.
Got to love those mimes. After all, a mime is a terrible thing to waste
Learns something new every day
Interesting enough these liturgical dramas are still alive and well in Catholic mass tradition, especially during special holidays like Easter and Christmas. The night before Easter Sunday the church would conduct a small re-enactment of the whole "whom do you seek?" scene. In the Lenten days leading up to crucifixion has the Church doing a call and response between the Priest and the lay men reenacting the Stages of the Cross. In Christmas eve the Nativity scene is played out though it has less dialogue and more the presentation of gifts to baby Jesus in the manger.
Really interesting that just as Theater was born from the elevation and sophistication of Religious Rituals the Theater itself has its own rebirth in Religion once more.
FINALLY. Missed you, Mike!
Wrong flavor of goths: The Visigoths set up shop in Spain, it was the Ostrogoths who deposed the last Western Roman emperor.
You're correcting a mistake by making one yourself. The Ostrogoths ruled Italy in the late 5th Century yes, but they did not depose the last Western Roman Emperor, the Ostrogoths deposed Odoacer, who was actually the one deposed the last Western Roman Emperor (if you don't count Julius Nepos for some reason).
We don't know what tribe Odoacer belonged to, but he was probably not a Goth. He may have been from the Heruli, but it's not very certain.
It is days that I hear of stuff like this that I am extremely greatful that I live in an age with Netflix.
You guys should do a crash course series on Music theory.
Very strange to date the fall of the Western Roman Empire to 568, which is when the Lombards conquered much of Italy. They were conquering it from the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire, which had reconquered it from the Ostrogoths, who had in turn taken it from Odoacer, the barbarian general who had deposed the last emperor of the Western Empire in 476 and made himself King of Italy. Even by 476 very little was left of the Roman Empire in the West and the last emperor was a powerless puppet of Odoacer, who didn't even bother to kill him, just sent him off into early retirement. So in reality the Western Empire was gone a century before 568.
You can talk 'em up all ya want.....Down with Mimes!
Interesting full circle here, and how theater originally born of religious ritual was ironically reborn from religious ritual. And BTW, I was a theater minor, and am still a major theater geek as a playwright, actor, improv-er, etc., so I really, really appreciate this crash course reminder, which is both refreshing a lot of what I learned and filling in gaps on what I didn't. Keep on keepin' on with it!
Theater emerging in a high-ceilinged building with men in fancy robes does not sound the least bit unlikely.
I love this series soooooooo much
plz continue this series forever!!!
Spectacular Vernacular !
hold your hoses, investigate ther sub-clauses.
Ancient Christians: no actors in my lobby
Am I the only one who feels like there's been more then 8 Crash Course theater episodes?
Amazing video
Thanks for these awesome videos! ☺ But was there nothing going on in the "Eastern" world?
I loved the Star Wars reference :)
Hello dear CrashCourse people,
I just saw your video on the agricultural Revolution and due to the fact that you didn't point out a solution to the negative effects of mostly monocultural agriculture and the time and protein defecit I was wondering if you considered the methods of 'permaculture' and plantal sources of protein. Or did you maybe already make a video about it?
There are historical roots to this topic after all :)
Thank you for this!
All your videos are so interesting and cool
"533 CE is the date of the last recorded theatrical performance in Rome..."
So, there aren't any performances being put on today?
Mike, you read the brief wrong! You were supposed to defend memes!
Quite the dramatic comeback;)
YAY we're going to be talking about Hrosvitaaa =D =D =D I'm looking forward to it !
Wooow I haven't watched the video but I know I'm going to love it
You're playing this like you really have to sell how interesting this is. But it IS interesting. You don't need to apologize for the content.
"Mime holding a phone!"
Watching the first video, when theatre originated from religious rituals, and here watching liturgical plays, I can say they're going back ti the roots.
Why do you mention variety shows in 5:07 ? What does variety shows mean in the medieval theater? Didn't variety shows appear around the 1800s?
*533 was after the Roman Empire fall
Can't wait till Comedia Del Arte. I simply love Il Dotoro and Capitano.
Don't you mean Western Rome fell in 476 C.E?
Or....480 C.E? Why does everybody forget about Julius Nepos. Poor guy is always forgotten despite being the last Western Roman Emperor, I kind of feel bad for the guy.
Think they’re going with the last attempt to revive the western side of the Empire by Belissarius and the invasion of the Lombards in 568 marks the fatal end of any hope of controlling Italy. Ya the Byzantines lingered in southern Italy for almost 500 more years but Italy was now a backwater province of Byzantium, not the capital province of the West.
Well, Julius Nepos is a weird case. He was deposed in favor of Romulus Augustulus in 475 and fled to Dalmatia. Though he continued to claim to be the emperor until his death in 480, he wasn't actually ruling what was left of the Western Empire, which had been taken over by Romulus and then by Odoacer, who deposed Romulus and made himself King of Italy.
If historians counted everybody who claimed to be emperor as one of the Roman emperors, the list would be long indeed. The Historia Augusta, for instance, lists no less than 32 pretenders to the throne during the 8-year-long reign of Gallienus. So Julius Nepos' post-475 reign not being considered that of a "real" emperor by some historians is kind of like Pluto not being considered a planet by astronomers.
+Kenneth Connally
Except Nepos did rule, he just ruled Dalmatia instead of Italy. A further point in favour of his leigitimacy is that the Eastern Empire always, always recognized Nepos. They never recognized Romulus and when Odoacer asked for the Empire to be reunified with him as patricius of Italy, Zeno told Odoacer's delegation to shove it and recognize Nepos.
Nepos' recognition ended when he was killed in 480. Possibly in a conspiracy. Romulus was the pretender with no recognition, not Nepos.
Depends I guess which argument you are more convinced by. Even us historians cannot find concensus on which was truly last. I myself tend to dismiss WREs collapse as significant as long as the ERE existed there was a legitimate Emperor and thus, for say Italians, neither 475 or 480 made much difference in their daily lives. I think in hinesight, and thanks to Gibbon, we greatly overestimate the inportance of the fall of the West when, when in truth, I doubt at the time anyone thought too much of it.
To build off my last statement, 580 is in many ways more significant because the ERE suddenly realized they had lost control of Italy, even in a nominal sense, and any attempt to bring the western provinces back into their control was effectively impossible whilst under the pressure from the East.
By 632, a mere 50 years later, they had much more serious problems. Even pretending rhe Western Provinces were their de jure territory was impossible. Most western kings paid lip service that the Enperor was still Christ's sovereign on Earth but in practical terms it meant nothing. With the crowning of Charlemagne in 800, even this meagre pretense was gone.
Constantine, by the way, delayed his conversion until he was in his deathbed.
torture mimes
empress mimes
survivor mimes
nude mimes
all the mimes
thank yoooou
What brand of shirt is Mike wearing? Can anybody tell me? That asymmetric pocket keeps grabbing my attention when I'm tryna learn about theater...
Are there references for Crash Course videos? I'd love to know where I can read more.
“Nude dancing wild animal acts”
Wouldn’t that just be ANY dancing wild animal act?
When was the first Purim spiel recorded?
Doesn't undermine the meaning of the Mass from the first one (Last Supper through the Last Breath of Christ) until today: the Mass has never changed, in essence, regardless of outward form or the human fallibility of individual Christians.
Ummm...didn't one of Crash Course's other shows say that there's zero evidence that the Romans ever fed Christians to the lions? And wasn't it proven a few years back that it wasn't possible to intentionally flood the Coliseum, despite the stories?
wow, so... i googled nude mime, and it is still a thing. i found a half hour 'performance' that took me a couple sittings, but i watched 90% of it. its not super popular, but it happens... so yeah, thanks for that. i think
Thanks a lot, Emperor Constantine.
Watched CSmith
Constantine: christianity is the only legal religion now!
Tortured christians of that era: *am i a joke to you?*
In the Dark Ages, everything was religion. Work, family, fun, health, life in general.
yes
Wait, the Western Roman Empire fell in 568 A.D? Where's this coming from? The last Western Roman Emperor (Julius Nepos) was killed in 480 A.D. The only thing that happened in Rome during 568 was that the Lombards invaded most (not all, most) of Italy (Rome was still Roman for a century or so longer). If you're going to label the Eastern Roman Empire as the Roman Empire (which is the correct position, let's be honest guys), then go all the way and say the Roman Empire ended in 1453, not that the Western half ended at some random, arbitrary date.
The Eastern Romans controlled a strip of land from Rome to Ravenna until the mid sixth century and they thought of themselves Roman as Western Romans did.
+GlobeTrotter267
They "controlled" that strip of land well into the 8th Century though and they kept calling themselves Roman until 1453...because they were Roman.
Hol' up! Theodora? Okay, so... I've done some gaming (don't worry, I get a lot of my history from regular sources that aren't entertainment platforms) and... wasn't she in charge of the Byzantine world for some time?
the church thing doesn't sound dull at all.
sepulchre
I like mimes. Never understood the hate.
When people say religion has never done anything for anybody
so monks were the first trans christians?
yes. :P
The Eastern Empire wasn't called the Byzantine Empire, it was the Roman Empire. We now call them Byzantines because we are those barbarians and we feel bad about it.
Thindorama this is one of the most uninformed things I've read this week. I don't even know where to start an answer.
Masles Roy Since Diocletian at least everyone is a tyrant. And the Arab world is much better than the Byzantine world between the founding of Baghdad and before its sack.
Sure, and everyone to the Chinese was a barbarian and I'm sure even they are barbarians to the aliens on galaxy Blorgron. Why bring this up? It has nothing to do with the subject.
We the West call Visigoths, Vandals, Franks and the like 'barbarians', as the Romans did. Our modern nation states come straight from them, but we're culturally ashamed of their destruction of the classical world. So better forget that Rome was around in the East between that and the Renaissance (which we owe to Roman scholars fleeing New Rome before the Fall to the Ottomans).
So they didn't defeat the Romans and took their place, are you saying? Because England and France were part of Rome, you know.
Wow. As a Christian aspiring actress it is so inspiring to see that theatre remerged with Christians, I assume with the intent of glorifying God. So cool.
Do law as a course
when are you going to upload history of science new episode?
When referring to dates of events attributed to the Christian church, one has no excuse not to use AD / BC, rather than the secular-humanist mask over the top of the Christian calendar that just happens also to have become a world standard.
There were plays written by nuns in the church fyi
Arabic subtitles pls
Wow! Life in the Middle Ages must have been really boring if those first Liturgical Dramas proved so popular.
people was very thirsty for entertainment before Internet, some were so desperate that they burned people just to have something to do on a Friday night!
Yes, and 1,000 years from now, RUclipsrs will seem really boring. (We watch young men playing video games.) What's your point?
Well...this is the early Middle Ages he's talking about (The Dark Ages period). Things got WAY more fun during the High Middle Ages. (1100 AD to like 1300 AD).
what what? what's the gospel of mary??? that's not a thing.
*mimes*
bruh moment
Thank God for Jesus Christ Superstar
the hint that constantine converted to christianity to just to stabilise the empire is v weird - why would converting to a minority palestinian sect that had been oppressed for centuries help stabilise the government? also the circumstances of his baptism and other personal quirks make his christianity seem pretty sincere, crazy thought but maybe he did actually believe in god..
(great video though not trying to start a fight xx)
Eden Watkins Christianity was on the ascendancy way before Constantine. He’s just the emperor who finally converted. Read the books by either Bart ehrman or James Stevens Valliant or both.
Christianism was still disliked by quite many, but was certainly in a rising curve at that point, and Constantine was facing troubles with his public image. So it is not beyond the realm of politics/possibility that he could have given up on apeasing the usual courtiers and decided to throw his hat in a turf filled with people desperately needing political recognition and who would be quite loyal to him for that.
Than, again, we are talking about history and he could have being honest in his coversion. Or being partially honest, hoping it would be a good choice but being unsure, or rationalized his interests until convincing himself that he was being honest, so on and so forth. To really know, who does?
Problem always arise in discussing history mostly because each side wants a definite answer, and there is REALLY little of that when we speak about real motivations, feelings and thoughts of historical figures.
It's either chose an option just because (which is the most common behaviour on the internet and irl) or accept that X, Y and Z might all be possible but that the true will never be known either way, which is more of an academic aproach.
Are they still all man plays?
The anti-Christian sentiment is inappropriate to an educational context.
I disagree. First of all, everything he said about them from that period is historically accurate, at least from every single ancient history book *I* ever read. Second, to be fair, he did not diss Christian dogma, but the practices of the CHURCH back then. It's more anti-Catholic Medieval Church sentiment, which is beyond appropriate, as they were awful and corrupt. (I'm not going to even bring up the Crusades a few centuries later). Just because Christianity is still a religion practiced and believed in today, does not mean it's past is not open to scrutiny, and yes...to be poked fun at. Mike also pokes fun at some of the cultures' ancient myths in his Mythology Crash Course. All is fair game, and also...while educational, Crash Course is meant to be entertaining as well.
1
So, Christianity saved theater, from their own condemnation of it.
Sounds like the entire religion in a nutshell.
Eric Nash Not just Christianity. Islam did similar things too. But I guess they probably learnt it from the Christians so your point stands. Glad I’m an atheist and don’t have to do all that weird theology stuff.
Hate speech! Condemning every individual Christian shows your ignorance.
Howard Wiggins The condemnation is just.
Have fun with that persecution complex.
Gullible lot those early Christians... oh wait; they still are!
Don't be mean.
Gullible? They were persecuted brutally by the Romans and stood up to them. They stood for what is right and still do, I don't call that gullible.
This counts as hate speech.
Hold on, the Roman empire wasn't that bad to the christians. First, death was punishment for a lot of crimes. Prisons weren't a thing back then so this was their alternative (horrible as it was). Second the religion wasn't outlawed. You just had to also give tribute to Roman gods, much as today you have to give tribute to the christian god (you know, paying extra taxes because churhes are exempt). All and all the pagans were nice to the christians than vise versa, especially today.
Hate to break it to you but there were a few emperors who specifically persecuted the Christians in a way reminiscent of the holocaust. I have Diocletian specifically in mind.
Okay...a true christian wouldn't be able to give tribute to roman gods....so....if they refused? Was that a crime punishable by death?
The fact that they refused to give tribute to the Roman gods and especially to the imperial cult led many Romans to doubt their loyalty. This eventually led to them being blamed for all sorts of hardship because the Romans had a sense of communal justice and if there were some who refused to partake, that was seen as a danger to society. Studying early Christian history will show you this. But all in all persecution ebbed and flowed depending on the time. Trajan is famously considered the best emperor by many medieval thinkers because of his toleration as is evidence in the fact that he appears in Dante's Paradiso.
The same was the case for Christians towards pagans. On one hand you had the Northern Crusade which forced Christianity upon many pagans, but on the other you have people like Thomas Aquinas and other important figures saying that one can only prosecute Christian Heretics or Apostates; one who has never accepted Christ cannot be forced to do so or punished for this. In both situations it depended on the person, the place and the time. Alverant your statement is problematic because you are drawing too sharp and too biased a conclusion without looking at both sides equally. It is impossible to say that one side was better towards the other than vice versa because it simply isn't true.