Henry VIII vs Ivan the Terrible: David Starkey Lectures
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Please join the David Starkey Members' Club via Patreon / davidstarkeytalks or Subscribestar www.subscribes... and submit questions for members Q & A videos. Also visit www.davidstark... to make a donation and visit the channel store shop.davidstar.... Thank you for watching.
Please do not re-upload any David Starkey Talks video without permission.
#Davidstarkey #Davidstarkeytalks #History
Please join the David Starkey Members' Club via Patreon www.patreon.com/davidstarkeytalks or Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/david-starkey-talks and submit questions for members Q & A videos. Also visit www.davidstarkey.com to make a donation and visit the channel store shop.davidstarkey.com. Thank you for watching.
I tend to steer away from contemplation of the member of Dr Starkey.
Thanks for sharing. Please could you put the date and venue of Dr Starkey's talks in the description?
I love this man's eloquent and erudite digressions. Always a pleasure to see him get under the skin of powerful fools
Starkeys's more punk than Johnny Rotten !
Starkey is a national treasure; he is to history what Attenborough is to the natural world.
I've always thought that too. Great minds lol
What puts Dr Starkey on another level though is his ability to editorialize. He’s a masterfully sharp wit, with a mix of conceit and humor. Attenborough has a voice. What’s behind it though. He’s basically reading a script. Attenborough’s are a dime a dozen. You could give me a hundred men and I could train a hundred Attenboroughs. But not ONE STARKEY!!
@@VynylFantasyso true✌🏻
international treasure
And what Brian Cox is to the Universe
Magnificent - imagine if this was on the BBC? Where it should be.
I drove from Italy to Lithuania a few years ago. As we went across Central Europe I remember suddenly understanding why it had been fought over so much over the centuries, it is where all the food is grown, control the food supply, control the people. Commentators are now reminding us that 20% of the worlds wheat is grown in Ukraine.....
Not in the past. Pre industrial countries were self supporting.
ukraine produce less than 10 % russia 20%
This is incredible David. Im only a little way in and i can FEEL history. Thank You
If only our politicians were as eloquent as this historian.
historian?
And as intelligent. This is what a truly high-temperature brain in action looks like.
@@mightyobserver9899 Are you confused by the term?
Yes, we HAD a sense of National Identity up until the mid
90s. Mass migration has completely undermined that .
See : Sweden and parts of UK for worst case scenarios.
ie. large areas of towns / cities where the inhabitants actually despise the Culture / History of the host community.
Applies to Germany too I might add.!
Are people eating a meal while he’s talking??? Clink clink of cutlery. I find that strange, go to a lecture then go have a meal.
After dinner speech. MPs and ex-PMs are often charging excessive amounts of money on listening to their drivel. At least Dr Starkey's are more interesting!
Thank you for an enthralling talk - again.
I enjoy Professor Starkey's lectures and videos but when it comes to language he goes seriously wrong. Anglo-Saxon was already undergoing changes at the time of the Norman conquest. It didn't "lose its grammar", its grammar changed. We don't have as many records of English between the 11th and 14th century but they are there. You can still see reflexes of Anglo-Saxon in Chaucer's writing - vestiges of grammatical gender and the Anglo-Saxon pronoun system (Chaucer used hie/hem for third person plural, although he has the northern characters using the Scandinavian-derived pronouns they/them). Very far from being "peasant grunts".
Prof Starky, I do enjoy your lectures quite a lot, but I’m afraid there is a significant inaccuracy about the history of Ukraine in this one. At the beginning of the lecture, you claimed the area known as Ukraine today hadn’t been called that until 1945. There is evidence to prove that the first mention of Ukraine dates back to approximately 1187. It appeared in the Hypatian Codex. You might argue it didn’t quite refer to what we call Ukraine today. Then again, there is 1917 when Ukraine first declared independence. It’s well before 1945, anyway.
I realise it must have been a slip but considering the situation Ukraine is in it would extremely unfair to distort its history. Being Ukrainian myself, I think it was my duty to write this comment. Thanks for your lecture!
Good comment. It was probably just an error. Even if we date “Ukraine” as a (semi) state with defined borders, it would be around 1922 with the finalization of the Ukrainian SSR.
The only way I can make sense of the 1945 date without it being an error is to say that the borders of the modern Ukrainian state today was not set till 1945 - which, other than Crimea - I think would be a true statement
Quite right.
He's utterly wrong in his dating of Ukraine as a modern entity. It's a very sloppy error. It's 1917 at the least, almost 30 years earlier than he claims.
It wasn't territorially complete by then and that may well be where he's got the erroneous date from since it was 1945 when territory was gained from Poland. However an argument could equally be made that the UK's present borders are pretty much just as new. After all it was only in 1922 that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with its modern borders. Yet no one credible would be stupid enough to say the UK's only a century old. So why does he make a comparable error with Ukraine? I don't know.
I think he was referring to the modern state as he went into how you could be alive now and have lived in essentially 5 different countries without moving city.
@@davidpnewton The idea of what is in the sphere of the then English Crown has been around since the time of England. Even today we all know that of it wasn't for the EU then the Republic of Ireland would be in the British sphere and it's independence is only by the grace of the UK. Ireland was pulled into the UK but kept a distinct entity within the UK it was never seen as a single body as such, unlike Wales which did not legally exist untill the 1960s and was just a region of England as much as the NW is.
Where as Ukraine as far as I know sees it's entire territory as a single indistinguishable area of one nation. The UK is four nations (arguably five if you separate Cornwall) in one country.
@@davidpnewton World Wide Ukromania?
Absolutely wonderful . I particularly like it when you compare historical events and people to present day ones .
@PrestonSartorius I agree the breaks were for different reasons but they were both massive and shocking breaks of their times and incomprehensible for very many people to deal with , both then and now , so I can see the similarity between Brexit and Henry VIII situation from that point of view .
@PrestonSartorius Yes , I do believe you are right in everything you are saying here about the Tories , etc .
What I find most fascinating about Ivan is the 'oprichnina' (sp?) when Ivan abandoned the throne and stomped off to live in a monastery because the nobles weren't paying him enough respect. And for all his wickedness the Russians begged him to come back and rule over them.
Listening to a range of very recent vox pops produced by a young Russian woman for her YT channel, ALL the young and bright people she questioned at random in the streets of Russia displayed exactly the same servility and mass delusion that they had no power over the current or any situation and needed their latter day Ivan the Fearful to restore their internet, their Apple Pay system, their McDonalds, their collective peace of mind. It's staggeringly sad.
@@iggle6448 westerners love to pretend they're so different
If you want to see the brilliant and legendary Starkey at his best, check out ‘The Trial of Richard III’, hosted by HRH The Duke of Gloucester. The whole program is great, but Dr. Starkey absolutely steals the show. Brilliant concept for a television program, and I think they should do an updated trial.
26:35 "We're a fringe European power..we're at the extreme western end of Europe, they're at the extreme eastern end.."
I think this is an important point and a good parallel between England/Britain/UK and Russia. Two European powers that book-end Europe and remain in the equation, even when those who are dominating the centre of Europe seek to exclude them. Napoleon attempted to isolate Britain economically - he invaded Russia partly because it wouldn't stop trading with Britain - and ultimately the policy failed. Current Western policy seeks to isolate Russia economically.
Peter the Great didn’t come to England during the reign of Charles II.
You're right: it was William III (William of Orange), who also ruled the Netherlands where Peter had already met him
Saying that Ukraine doesn’t have a mythos is incorrect as it can reach back to Kievan Rus where Kiev was the seat of government and the principalities that followed. It rather openly identifies with the Cossack Hetmanites whose defiance was legendary, and the independent state that followed world war 1 and the freedom fighters who fought to bring it back. It’s not a linear history like England but there is a line you can trace back for many hundreds of years.
It's interesting also because Kievan Rus and Kievan princes are as well a base of the Russian mythos
Ukraine is a fake and gay country. It's always been a part of Russia. Russian history begins in Kiev. Kiev is more a part of Russia than Hawaii or Texas is a historical part of the United States.
Take issue with the good Doctors developing theory vis a vis the Atom Bomb, and that the hapless Rosenberg's share of the ultimate guilt for giving the Soviets the means to create an atomic weapon ?
It was the discovery of fission of Uranium by Hahn in Germany just before the war that enabled the idea that an atomic bomb could be constructed to be of such weight that transport and deployment could be achieved by the aircraft of the time. Prior to Hahn's discovery it was generally assumed that any achievable atomic weapon would weigh many tons, and be quite beyond any reasonable means of delivery.
Once Otto Hahn had published his results showing how fission could be achieved with far less material than had previously been assumed, it was very much 'Off to the Races' by all the nations with a scientific base capable of following up on Hahn's discovery. Indeed even Japan, whilst being somewhat behind the UK, the USA, and Russia, in its atomic research was sufficiently advanced to ensure that the Americans made quite an effort to squelch nuclear research in that country. Witness the dumping of Cyclotrons into Tokyo harbour in 1945.
With regard to the Soviet effort, it was certainly ahead of the British Tube Alloys effort, but not that far behind the American project in theoretical terms. Obviously the Russians would have been somewhat preoccupied with performing the bulk of the work in defeating the NAZI's, so it may be understandable that they took a further four years after WWII to explode their first atomic device.
It may also be the case that the Soviet espionage efforts as they focused on the Manhattan Project, may have served as a confirmation of the direction they themselves were taking, rather than giving them a sort of instruction book ? Dare I suggest that the detonation of an Atom Bomb by the Russians would have bruised the rather hubristic view the west tends to have of itself, and that the old saws about Russians being a rather backward people who could not possibly have achieved such a feat, demanded the construction of this myth that the Russians could only have done so as a result of treacherous westerners telling them how it could be done.
It would be as well to regard Soviet nuclear weapons achievements in the same light as their achievements in the field of rocketry. We in the west tend towards the idea, that much like the Americans, the Soviets only achieved what they actually did because of the 'Captured German Scientists'. Such a view overlooks the fact that the field of rocketry in the USSR, whilst being slightly behind that of Germany at that time, was well ahead of American efforts. And again such information and personnel as the Soviets did manage to scoop up tended towards a second opinion rather than new information.
I'd like to point out that for much of the war the British were actually ahead of the US in nuclear technology and we only actually fell behind when the US failed to share their research as agreed like the British had.
Also, the British were years ahead of the US in rocketry and if we had funded a space program instead of the nuclear program we could have sent a man into space 10 years before the US did.
@@danielkrcmar5395 Yes the British were ahead of the Yanks in so many things, witness the Tizzard Mission to the USA in September 1940, that gave them everything that was of great commercial potential essentially free of charge, think the Cavity Magnetron, and the Gas Turbine.
The bottom line, America was not being bombed, or invaded, plus they had the money to take development beyond small scale prototyping to industrial production.
I'd venture to disagree with rocketry element of your reply. We know that when German rocket weapons were being posited, and before they actually arrived, 'The Prof' Lindemann was actively pronouncing the whole idea as being impossible. Certainly after the war, and having been on the receiving end of rocket weapons, the British picked up the whole idea with gusto, and but for the lack of money combined with other pressing issues, Britain could certainly have been a 'Player' in the space race. But I doubt we'd have been ahead of the Russians who with Sputnik, and Gagarin were well ahead of the USA, at least for a while.
@@danielkrcmar5395 very plausible
What did David Starkey say..re English exceptionalism? It’s hard to ignore though the contribution of all the peoples of the British isles is undeniable. England is still admired in the east and the west, by non communist Chinese and even communist. Look how they love our public schools. Isn’t there a Wellington College in China today? I think people do respect others not solely for reasons of force, contrary to what Starkey says. Catholics and others believe in forgiveness and loving your neighbour as yourself. Hard for us humans, but what else is there? Such believers will have to pick up the pieces after the barbaric and pointless destruction of the blind, as ever.
I'm not sure I agree with Dr Starkey on Ukraine not having national myths. They have Rurik and the Kievan Rus'.
I love this bloke! Top man.
Thank you for your intelligence and eloquence.
“It’s not arrogance, it’s gratitude.”
That’s wisdom. Wisdom with precision.
I think R S is wrong to say we want to give Afghan women mini skirts, he is being facetious. It is about the rights of women to be educated and emancipated and not slaves of men.
What does he mean by « Ukraine wasn’t called Ukraine until 1945 »?
Ukraine proclaimed its independence in 1917 after the russian empire fell.
Ukraine became the Ukrainian Soviet Republic after losing to Soviet Russia in Ukrainian - Soviet War in 1922
Ukraine was a state of the USSR after the revolution. That is not a nation.
I would so love to hear Dr Starkey’s thoughts on Stephen Gardiner. Was he the “Sith Lord” he’s always made out to be in dramatisations?
His horrendous treatment of Catherine Parr’s noblewoman, Anne Askew, who was a devout Protestant and as a gentlewoman was ILLEGALLY TORTURED ON GARDINER’S ORDERS (and then burned to death as a heretic) to try to dig up dirt on Henry’s last Queen (but Henry died too quickly for any of it to matter) reveals that Gardiner was a viciously cruel monster. If you can’t read the Latin (I worked on Anne in grad school as major Protestant John Foxe was fascinated by her example) GARDINER’S interrogation of Anne is terrifyingly ruthless though her patience and ability to articulate the arguments for her faith given the terrible situation are quite impressive.
Read not just "1984", but "Fahrenheit 451" and "Brave New World" as well. We are living on a terrifying fusion of all those futures.
Mr. Starkey makes 2 very important points about history.
Firstly, that PEOPLES are part of and act as TRIBES. This is WHY he so rightly says that they need boundaries. See TACITUS "Annals"
Secondly, that we must ALWAYS VIEW HISTORICAL CHARACTERS AND ACTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE TIME THEY HAPPENED. This is why so much of "identity politics" is such asinine rubbish.
Mr. Starkey, you need to use a large scale MAP to make your talks clearer.
Very true. The current vogue of historians judging history by modern standards is ridiculous. They even attempt to rewrite the facts to fit their narrative, rather than taking the facts and expressing their opinion of them. The current trend of people silencing dissent rather than making a strong case for their favored opinion and defending it is a sign of lazy thinking and arrogance - not a good combination.
I'm enjoying Dr Starkey's diversion into Russian history. So much of what is happening today is bound up with the histories of different countries and the stories they tell themselves. I started listening to a history of the Romanovs a few years ago and I had to stop after a few chapters due to the sheer savagery of the royal families knouting, flogging, killing their own kids etc. It explained so much of the brutality of the Russian leaderships in the 20th Century and Putin's actions today. It is naiive to believe that every country in the world wants to be a liberal democracy or can become one without a complete decapitation and reconfiguration as happened with Japan and Germany post WWII and there is no guarantee that transformations like that will last. So, am looking forward to Dr Starkey's comparison between Henry and Ivan....
so much of what is happening has nothing and everything with history. The powerful do what they can amid their own mad heads and circumstances. All the time......................
that type of behaviour does translate to the way they, the Russians, conducted themselves during the WW2 (and after 1945 till 1989), as they rolled across lands that were occupied by the Germans as they rolled/fought across Europe to Germany
@@olivier8264 Is it just the Russians ? In Britain we are taught remarkably little of the histories of the areas that once lay behind that Stettin to Trieste curtain. Prompted by the current crisis to look into the said histories, it does seem that the various groups in those areas have been continually at each others throats for centuries, and that ancestral grievances run deep indeed.
@@Fanakapan222 true, every nation is a house/home of it's own, they have their own house rules, guests are welcomed or not, but interference into running their house are not welcomed. After 3 days in the house guests are very unwelcomed, politely they should leave. Why the PC Szczecin to Trieste, it was the iron curtain, wokeness?. Currently history taught in the west is pathetic. That is why good politicians are rare as hens teeth and a short term opportunists and are just electeddumb arses. Dr Starkey exemplified this.
Certainly won't change the culture for long without a change in the institutions that buttress it. We'll need to give the Europeans the common law next time we liberate them.
I don't think the linguistic ideas regarding the evolution of English are quite correct.
What a pity Dr Starkey wasn't cancelled years ago. We would have seen much much more of him...and have had the benefit of his clarification of events. Thanks again Dr Starkey.
Learned and wise... thank you David 🙏
Chaucer's English is a creole of Anglo-Saxion dialects. It has a grammar throughout this is in transition. But it is a grammar evolving, from an inflexional system, to an analytical system. If it had no grammar, it would have no means to encode its semantics. It would be no more than incomprehensible gibberish.
Do you know what creole means?
@@IrishCinnsealach "A creole language, or simply creole, is a stable natural language that develops from the simplifying and mixing of different languages into a new one within a fairly brief period of time: often, a pidgin evolved into a full-fledged language." Wikipedia
I do abuse the word creole, since it requires the components of the synthesis to be 'languages'. Perhaps you regard Mercian, Northumbrian, Kentish and West Saxon; as mere dialects. What is a language but a dialect with an army and navy. Maybe you would prefer to describe Middle English as a mature pidgin.
We must not over emphasise the geographical diversities. What emerged as Middle English would have been the social dialect of the peasants and other lower classes. The language of Chaucer should rather be regarded as Cockney mark zero.
This is fun?
@PrestonSartorius I am being provocative. But, in response to what I see as an over reverential attitude to English. However, I think the role of dialect interaction in the loss of inflection, is an interesting question.
As usual, Dr Starkey a brilliant, insightful and somewhat depressing hard reality picture of our times. Best wishes from western Canada......
I am enjoying this so much! It has been so long since I've heard a relevant history lecture that ties in to the present. I have seen his lectures about Henry VIII. I am so impressed.
Starkey is totally wrong about Ukrainian national identity, which is arguably older than England's. It goes back to Kievan Rus. After its collapse, Ukrainians, Belarusians and Russians diverged into separate ethnicities with their own languages over many centuries. Ukraine doesn't come from nowhere. The territory switched hands numerous times, true, whilst England avoided foreign conquest after 1066 (unless, like Jonathan Israel, you consider 1688 a 'Dutch conquest'), but the point stands. Ukraine rebelled in the 17th century from Polish rule in order to be with their Orthodox brethren in Russia. (How sorely they must regret that now.)
Sadly, when Starkey is dealing with stuff outside his field, his grasp of the facts is inevitably much weaker.
16:30 and she was 100% right. Romans are in fact Italians after all :D
Fascists as Scotland is under Roman Law ⚔️🙏
A fascinating lecture of history!
I dont agree with starkey on much but he is a very good narrator indeed
You don't have to agree with him, but you do have to respect his right to his opinions, just as you have a right to yours.
In the English speaking world, he's always translated as Ivan the Terrible, but in the Russian speaking world, the translation is a bit more complex. For a great many Russians, the more accurate translation would be Ivan the Formidable.
Which may tell you a bit about the difference between the world views of the English and the Russian.
More please :)
William the Conqueror wanted to _own_ and _rule_ England. Putin wanted a buffer zone between Russia and Western Europe. If the US and other NATO countries hadn't been attempting to peel Ukraine away from Russian influence for decades, hadn't been training their troops and advocating for their membership in NATO, Putin never would have invaded. He never wanted complete control in Ukraine, he wanted enough _influence_ to ensure that Ukraine remained a client of _his_ rather than a client of the West. A client isn't the same as a colony or province.
Don't mistake me: Putin's objective _now_ is to cause misery and destruction on such a vast scale that no other former-Soviet state will dare look westward for alliances and partnerships. But until the revolution deposed the pro-Russian regime, Putin had no interest in _conquering_ Ukraine. He wanted it to remain a _client._ Once it was clear to Putin that the West was determined to make Ukraine _their_ client, he was left, in his own view, with no option other than force.
Not much about Ivan the Terrible, I must say. This was a clickbait. Indeed, historians ought to limit their talks to what they really know.The facts that Ivan actually proposed to Elizabeth I and was obsessed with the trade with England was worthy to be addressed.
I don't think I've ever heard an historian so in love with Henry and country. I applaud his gymnasts...but I worry that the 'spirit' of Henry would be applauded by anybody else outside of the 'Empire'. There's history and then there's 'personal feelings' - as the good historian points out not only in the past but today there are pretty shitty people who have been 'Kings'...or 'spares'.
Every 'Empire' has it's time..that's the lesson. We'll see what is next....maybe.
What a fantastic talk. Thankyou
Good lecture, but I'm not sure that Starkers over-states things rather, with ideas such as: Henry 8's reign initiates modern English speech 29:02. Henry 5 initiated English as the language of Government replacing Latin-French 100 years before H8's rule, so these processes were well underway before the Tudors it would seem.
"We don't know what a woman is anymore!" Hilarious Sir David. Haha
Yes, and Starkey believes we went into Afghanistan to impose western values on the Afghan women so they would be allowed to wear miniskirts!😂Is be aware of the acquisition and control of the poppy fields and the billion dollar drug trade?!
the plate scraping in the background, slightly annoyed me. Just saying 🙂 Good lecture though.
Simply Outstanding 👍
Outstanding, as always. I was even able to keep up, which I sometimes unable to do well. 😉 🇺🇸🇬🇧
That talk had everything. I feel 'shook'
David, if you ever come to New York City, I’ll take you to the- Russsian T Room.
I believe David really is a Treasure for the British
Starkey's little survey from Trafalgar Square, statues of James II (overthrown), William III (overthrower), Charles I (beheaded), Cromwell (beheader) could have included in the same perspective George Washington (rebelled) also in front of the National Gallery and just a little further down Pall Mall East is George III (rebelled against).
Henry VII also had c. 7 lookalikes on the battlefield so that the real Henry was harder to find at Bosworth Field.
What is the documentary evidence for this assertion?
I would’ve expected Richard lll to have that as he was the King
No, no no, the truth is just that Welsh folk all look the same.
And yeah, where did you get that information? I’ve never come across that statement in almost 15 years of studying the TWOTR or the Tudor dynasty. Did you read that in a Hillary Mantel book? I’m sorry sweetie, that’s not real.
Oh. Enough with the soap box. Very hubris that people are complacent. You dont know that. As queen Elizabeth said, you don't have a window into mens souls!! Further, comparing Ukraine is ridiculous and way more complex then what you are eluding to. If I were there, I'd get up an leave!
Also, his book ‘Rivals in Power’ has pride of place in my personal library of historical chronicles, and I find myself to this day using it as a ‘go to’ for fact-checking, dates, quotes…superb work.
Do you think that “Russkaya Pravda” of Yaroslav (1016, XI - XVI centuries) is not actually an example of codified Russian law?
Absolutely brilliant Mr Starkey - one of your most important lectures to date!
I thoroughly agree. We should take great heed of our courageous and clear-sighted, learned and wise people. They are so few, thus their words are all the more compelling.
No. He's a war monger here who's trying to get us into another World War, all over a fake and gay country that even he admits didn't exist till a few years ago and has poorly drawn borders.
@@markthomas6703 I do agree!
I have no doubt that he is employed by the 'deep state' - nevertheless
@@sonjawhite5815 I think it's more akin to being a member of a cult. Their whole life and identity is bound up with the cult and its beliefs. To leave would be nearly impossible. This is how they can believe manifestly crazy things such as Bruce Jenner being a woman and Hunter Biden's laptop is a Russian plot. They believe that White on black violence is a major problem yet ignore the massive racial crimes that are done to us.
It's not a mistake. This is all done on purpose by elites who do not fear us
How I love listening to this man, I learn about history and life. Thank you 🌹
The Church of England was founded on the balls of Henry VIII (Brendan Behan, I believe - certainly not me!)
Very interesting lection! But when Mr Starkey speaks about Ukraine he doesn't pay enough attantion to its identity and history. He didn't say enough attention to history of Cossacks, which had separate identity inside Polish-Lithuanian state, likewise out of it - because there were periods when they were independent (right in times of English revolution) or highly autonomuos. Even aristocracy of Rzecpospolita (Polosh-Lithuanian Commonwealth) which lived in Ukraine perceived itself as something different from any other country and culture. Authors I'd recommend for those interested in history of Ukrainian identity: Frank Sysyn, Sergiy Plokhy, Andrzej Sulima Kaminski, Natalya Yakovenko. Ukrainian People's republic was also proclaimed in 1917. The name Ukraine was used in maps of 17-19 ct, even though it did have a bit different meaning.
It looks like the most respected Mr. Starkey is not very knowledgeable in Russian history. That’s why he mostly concentrated his lecture on Henry III. He made couple of blunders talking about Russian history. He is right about MacCarthy in America. He is right about Putin.
I always find the time comparisons extraordinarily thought-provoking:
-Islam is as old as Christianity was in Henry’s age
- the idea that a Ukranian could be born in the Austro-Hungarian empire, lived through the Polish, Soviet, and Nazi eras and his grandchild could today be fighting Russians.
-A thousand years from now, we will finally be the same amount of time distant from the beginnings of Christianity as Christ was from the first pharaoh.
Boggles the mind.
Many historic documents prove that the Ukrainian language, and Ukrainian state, appeared earlier than the Russian ones. Russian comes from the Old Slavonic language, which was introduced by Kyivan colonizers to Muscovites, who were essentially Finno-Ugric
Dr Starkey says “Mary is a kind of English ‘modea’(sp?)” at 41:15. I’m not familiar with this word or what it means. (Or even how to spell it!) Please can anyone help with my understanding? Thanks.
I think he says Medea - from the ancient Greek myth of Jason and the Argonauts and the play by Euripedes.
@@lynn8487 thanks so much.
With admiration I agree with the great role Henry VIII played
This comparative analysis would be more interesting if the following factors were taken into account:
Russia began as Kievan Rus’ in 900 it adopted the Orthodox Christianity different from Roman Catholic creed which caused rupture between East and West still relevant today
Russian mythology is one of the richest in the world and it still feeds the Russian culture that gave the world its famous names.
It's kind of nice to know that as a casual observer of history I have come to the same conclusions on our attempt impose Western democracy on other countries without thinking about whether they want our style of democracy. Culture is important in this matter.
It's more complicated than that. I'm Eastern European and it wasn't an imposition per se, as much as something we also wanted, but didn't know how to do. In 1989, communism fell in my country (Romania), the last people who had lived in an actual democracy were in their 60s, 70s at the time and even back when we had a (fragile) democracy, they would have been children. Most of the population didn't even understand what freedom meant (we still see it as doing whatever we want, an anarchic interpretation). And so, we needed Western input, a road map. Do we want a Western-style regime? Yes. Do we want everything to be the same? No. Are there things the West imposes on us? Yes, but placing it all on the scales it's a net benefit.
Joining NATO and the EU was extremely valuable for us, because after the fall of communism, it was uncertain what would happen. It was like wanting to go somewhere without any map or GPS, it's night, there's no light and the road is full of traps. Some like Belarus or Russia fell in the traps, others like Czechia or Estonia didn't. We would have been much poorer and less free had it not been for the EU and NATO. But by far the greatest benefit was access to the know-how, the exchange of ideas, that connection. The flux of communication East-West had been severed by the Iron Curtain and censorship for decades and even before that... it was iffy. We could see snippets, but didn't have the whole image. We were excluded (and this is true even before communism) from the great intellectual movements in the West and we were busy with getting invaded and wars. So... I'd say I don't want all of Western democracy (I'm not yet convinced by the social justice stuff), but overall the pros definitely outweigh the cons. I'd want us in the East to do what the Japanese did during the Meiji Revolution, learn, but keep some of our stuff. The best thing would be an East-West cultural merger.
@@octavianpopescu4776 Thank you for sharing your interesting view, based on experience and well expressed. Cheers.
could use the Welsh Language as an example closer to home....but were not even allowed to associate with our celtish ancestors.....if you saxons think you have it bad. Starkey is still part of my tiny group of heroes. But I think Wales is the answer that most Saxons prefer to overlook. Most historians claim my maiden surname is French....the one part of france that was Welsh is the missed detail. Everything in Wales is always claimed to be French, German or Roman......but I think those are all in cahoots and have been for a very long time, The existence of our language suggests lack of full blown invasion.
Say more about Wales! What else should we know?
@@paulgrieve7031 As little as possible. Wales was not a united nation until the Normans-Plantagenets conquered it.
@@paulgrieve7031 The Mari Lwyd to me is very important. Local pagan tradition that the church has claimed ownership of. A rude drunk singing horse skull.....and the Rebecca Riots, the role they played in bringing human rights to all western cultures. Even the English aren't as saxon as they think according to DNA. Only about 5% difference between English and Welsh
bravo !!!
I'm hoping Dr Starkey will be touring.
Great lecture but comparison of personalities, respectively inaccurate. Putin was 20 years in power and there is nothing similar to a tyrannical ruling to compare with Henry VIII, It is other, than this.
Henry VIII lineage
'died out' in the 16th century...
Question: Why would London be the first city hit in a nuclear war? Is there some tactical reason or is it just location or something else?
If you mean the first city in the UK to be hit, then London is not only the capital but it's also the seat of the government, the Head of State, the law, the financial institutions and to some extent our culture, (ie. the West End, the National Gallery, the National Theatre, etc).
@@lorrainecrampton1632 No, I mean first hit globally which is what I think he was implying when he said the US had heavily war gamed. If it was just about the UK of course London would be hit first.q
I think its because it only takes 3 minutes for an ICBM to get to London. It’s takes about 8 minutes to get to most major US cities
Our nukes are in submarines. we don't have nuclear bases so it would make sense to take London out for same reasons Lorraine said. Sobering.
London is the financial puppet master of the Colonist EU Slave Traders ⚔️🙏
Dear Dr. Starkey,
I realy enjoyed your video. Especially at the end the Q&A part when you apply your huge historical knowledge on todays World. I would like to aks you if you could make a video about Haiti and the Domenican Republic. Although these countries share the same island their present and past differ tremendously. Could you please share your point of view why this is.
Kind Regards
I have watched this David Starkey talk several times over, only the title changes.
Loving the talks David :D
Starkey is a national treasure but he's wasted on 99% of the Brits of today.
Well said, I have found over the past couple of years you have given me things to reflect on and sometimes what I have written has been questioned by others. But that is how we learn and grow and expand our knowledge. I have found RUclips invaluable and to read others comments on any topic really interesting. Keep up the great work Simon I for one feel that my learning curve is much healthier now able to trust a number of RUclipsr speakers who take the time to tell us facts and not the lies that is harmful and can be found on main stream news.
Remarkable talk, thoroughly absorbing, thank you
So you could say that Queen Mathilda is a kind of Liz Truss? 🤔
Really interesting.
I enjoyed your speech immensely. Thank you.
The whispering.. oh the whispering..
Really loved this
Well done sir.
Brilliant lecture! I enjoy all your videos!❤
So what venue was that, who was the introducing person and sponsoring organization, and who was the audience? Dave, you're good alone but you're not that good. sheeeesh.
Prof Starkey shows the awesome mastery he has in his chosen field - the Tudor England. unfortunately that makes it even more conspicuous how sparse his knowledge about Ukraine and even Russia really is
As much polemicist as historian...
Yes, but how does he rate against Stormzy..
Please don't lower the tone.
Scorched earth.
Such a shame that you have the views you do regarding Russia/Ukraine… could have been an interesting piece to learn from…but you ruined it! England didn’t experience Burisma, Biden’s etc…
From the thumbnail portraits, you can see the merits of paying Holbein to whip up a few PR shots can't you?
Ukraine has plenty of state myths: to start, one of its early princes hung his shield in the golden gate in Byzantine forcing byzantines to give favourable trading rights to Ukrainians
This is fascinating, and the point about democracy being a purely western ideal makes sense. Here in China, it is demonised - I suppose (from the Chinese point of view), as being western - alien, and essentially a tool to enslave them. But the case of Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. I don't think that democracy was forced on them. They chose to adopt it when they had developed to a significant degree. People deride Francis Fukuyama, but I wonder if democracy is a logical end point of development. It certainly would not be in China's interest to become democratic, because it is nowhere near developed yet (despite its propaganda), but I don't think Fukuyama has really been disproved. Nor do I think democracy is dead as an idea. Flawed as it is, India is a democracy.
Henry VIII and Gustav Adolph of Sweden are also contemporaries who have much in common. And Sweden was a superpower in the seventeenth century and early in the eighteenth, when it was knocked out by Peter the Great's Russia.
Always amazing 👏
Henry VIII founded the first national Church - just like in Russia. And how’s that working out?