In some cases, there were right. It has many properties that could help cure many diseases. Ironically, it's all temporary since it will also poison you horribly.
Considering the lead poisoning, mercury poisoning and everything else, it's no surprise everyone was a blade wielding lunatic... "We're not conquering you! It's a mercy killing! The past IS the worst!"😂
Nah, media controlled by 1% in general. Social media are just quickest and easiest to manipulate, but fox lies and co are just as toxic and even more dangerous...
Public forums has existed throughout the history along with its toxic societal impacts, if you have problem with it now then your problem is with the Internet, which allows it on a unprecedented global scale without the need of identity, credibility and accountability.
@@RadenWA Public forums used to be physical spaces where your nonsense could have real life consequences and where idiots were laughed off the stage. Here you can parrot your bullshit to anyone willing to listen with 0 consequences. The village idiots used to be isolated in their own stupidity, now they can connect with any village idiot around the world
That bugged me too. The Romans, for instance, were _experts_ at torturing humans. The use of crucifixion with the T-shaped crossbeam on an upright pole was pure torture and they knew exactly how to make it incredibly painful for a really long time. It's said that some crucified men would hang up there for many days ... putting the nail through the lower part of the hand where it meets the wrist would put it right through the sciatic nerve, causing a shooting fiery pain, plus the radius and ulna would keep the spike from ripping out ... there's much more to it than that, but I'm getting depressed typing it out. He might be referring to torture as a form of getting information, but it still doesn't seem correct that it "started" with the Catholic Church in the 1300s.
@@daffers2345the earliest archeological evidence for torture (that we are aware of at least) comes from like 7000 BC and it's mentioned in ancient scriptures that predate not just the Catholic Church but even the earliest parts of the Old Testament, so it's definitely bullshit.
The thing with Roman lead poisoning: They not only used lead pipes and lead containers for their wine, but even used some lead compounds to sweeten their wine, because certain lead alloys tasted sweet, so that added even more lead to their system.
@@jasongermany5786You don't typically die from lead poisoning, it effects your brain function, and especially so in children who still have developing brains.
One correction: As far as swords, knives, etc. are concerned, modern steels are FAR superior to Damascus steel. The particular process might be lost, but the end product, although pretty, would be demolished by a modern reproduction. And anyone can buy a reproduction sword online today from numerous makers, including some superb ones for under US$1,000, that are more durable and effective than any sword owned by any medieval king.
Similar correction: Roman concrete isn't superior to modern recipes. A lot of modern concrete contains rebar (steel bars or grids) that help give it tensile strength. Roman concrete did not have this, and as such wasn't that great under tension. The upside is that Roman concrete lasts longer. The steel in reinforced concrete expands and contracts thermally, causing gradual cracking and weakening of the concrete around it. Over decades, it will break down. Because Roman concrete doesn't have rebar, it will last a lot longer. But so will a lot of non-reinforced modern concrete.
Similar correction: ancient kohl wasn't toxic to the wearers--the preparations used protected against endemic eye diseases and were thus medicinal as well as cosmetic.
@@huwday1131 An addition to your correction: Using modern material spectrograph we actually know exactly what was in Roman Concrete. turns out the "secret ingredient" was just plain old seawater and Quicklime instead of slaked lime.
The thing you didn’t mention about torture is how bad it is for getting reliable information. If you torture someone, they’ll most likely tell you what they think you want to hear to make the torture stop, regardless of whether it’s true. A person who doesn’t know an answer will make one up. The best interrogators form a rapport with their target and have conversations where they’re able to pick out valuable information that’s let out, sometimes unwittingly.
that's the problem you see; That is hard and the interrogator and his boss don't care if you are innocent or not. They only care about conviction rates. In their minds accusation = guilty. It was true back in medieval times, it is more true then ever today.
@@OnionChoppingNinja I’m referring to torture for the purpose of gaining intel, like torturing POWs, not torturing people into making confessions, false or genuine.
@@evilsharkey8954 Same effect can be seen there - the whole Iraq War was based on confessions under torture that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Clearly Bush and whoever else wanted to attack Iraq, and wanted that confession whether or not it was true.
That depends on what information you're after. Yes, the victim will tell you whatever they think will make the pain stop - but that includes the truth, so the issue is whether you can identify the truth when you hear it. Torture is utterly useless for questions like 'Did you do it?' or 'Who were your co-conspirators?', but questions like 'Where is the bomb?' can - not _should,_ just can - be effectively answered by torture.
According to Google translate, "ad glatium" means, "to the gladiolus". I like the idea of a gladiator poking another gladiator or a condemned criminal with gladiolus. LOL.
As a note, Damascus steel was not "superior to modern attempts." It was a lot better compared to most other contemporary steel alloys, but many modern ones are still better. Modern metallurgy is damn impressive, and Damascus has even been recreated artificially at this point, where the original could be considered partially down to the luck of happening to mine in the right spot. At least where the iconic look was concerned. Also your shot was a pattern-welded blade, not true Damascus, but that's another matter.
Pretty sure earlier horse harnesses didn't set back anyone as it was still more useful than having no harness at all. If you call an invention a setback just because a more efficient version of it came around later on then you could include almost every human invention in this list.
No dig on Simon, when ever someone talks about how much alcohol people used to drink, remember that getting fresh water and keeping it uncontaminated are modern things. Tainted water killed people all the time. Alcohol on the other had killed most bacteria and stayed drinkable longer.
That was limited to larger towns and cities, where waste could get into wells. Even then, it was weak brown ale at around 1-2%. Wine was common enough, but you wouldn't start the day with it unless you were wealthy.
Tainted water did kill and there are famous instances of it but it was not a huge issue until the early 19th Century and even then, only in industrial cities such as London.
Torture didn't start/become widespread only after the inquisition. Ancient civilization, expecially the Assyrians, were very, VERY inventive on their methods.
To further expand on "slash and burn farming," you also need "crop rotation." Today, farmers do field burns, but the thing to pay attention to is how they nearly always plant something different on that field next season, and so on. Planting the same thing on that field only depletes the nutrients in the soil, making it as useful as concrete. Every second or third year, you need to plant something which ADDS nutrients to the soil. On a smaller scale, you can see the same phenomenon in your home garden. Every year, you need to rotate the garden. Every second or third plot needs to be some type of bean or pea, so when you rotate the garden every year, that plot now has something which fertilizes the ground. You fail to do that, and the ground will be as useful as concrete. In conclusion, the simple fact of burning fields is not what makes the fields useless. What makes the fields useless is nutrient depletion, caused by planting the same crop on the same field every year.
I did catch that. However, he failed to mention the fact that farmers burn their crops every year. That is part of what keeps crops fertile. However, rotating crops, or neglecting to, is what determines if land remains suitable for crops.
@@ThatBaritoneGuitarGuy partly true, partly not. Peas, beans etc only add nitrogen to the soil, nothing else! Chemical fertilisers damage soil microbes, so are not good, despite the video's claims, but what is in them gives a good idea of what crops need, they are generally called "NPK" fertilisers, Nitrogen, Phosphorous, Potassium. Nitrogen will actually suppress the growth of any plants other than leafy greens, causing the plant to produce only the leaves, not the fruit/seed/tubers. Legumes do NOT add potassium or phosphorous to soil. Ash adds potassium (pot ash), phosphorous can be added with animal manure or chemicals
Also read that the nitrogen fixed by the legumes don't get used by other plants until the legume dies back. Some people thought just simply intercropping legumes with their crops is enough.
A word on lead, and chemistry in general. All chemistry relies mostly on its valence band of electrons. That's the outer most orbital. That's why everyday table salt, sodium chloride (NaCl), is relatively harmless, and actually needed, in modest amounts. Yet pure sodium metal is extremely reactive, reacts violently, when exposed to water, and chlorine (chloride) in pure form is a poisonous gas. That's all due to the way they are bonded; the valence. Pure lead metal is quite benign. So are mercury, and even gold. Yet, all three of these metals when reacted with other elements, such as lead sulfides, they become toxic. Lead is mostly non-reactive, but will react when exposed to acids, such as those in wine. Holding lead solder in your teeth is way less dangerous than inhaling flakes of old lead based paint, as in the paint, its a lead oxide. Gold is usually considered safe, because it barely reacts with anything. But if you do, its extremely toxic.
I'm glad I didn't become a big fan of fishing, because my grandfather taught me how to put lead weights on my fishing line by using his teeth to spread open or clamp down a weight instead of using needle nose pliers. I think I might have done that perhaps five or six times during my childhood, at the most. But I do remember that it always left a distinct metallic sweet aftertaste in my mouth. I get it about pure lead, but I believe I read somewhere that even a pure meta has a patina layer of oxidized lead wherever it gets exposed to oxygen. I may have that wrong, but I believe things like lead fishing weights or lead drinking cups will have a film of oxidized lead on them.
In reference to gold.... quote, "but if you do,".... do what?? Seriously, I've always been told gold was inert, as it's outer electron shell is full/complete. I have no idea how one would make it behave otherwise. Also, I'm curious. Some eastern cultures consume both gold, and more commonly, silver metal hammered into very thin flakes. Supposedly for a positive health effect. I've never read an impartial analysis of the practice. Have you heard of this practice? And if so, what do you know about it?
@@jackreisewitz6632 You've been told wrong. Gold has one electron in its outermost shell. If its outer shell was completely filled, it would be a gas like helium, neon,argon, krypton, xenon or radon. That it isn't shows gold atoms can stick together to form crystals. Granted, it's not very reactive, but will react with powerful reagents like "agua regia" (mixed nitric and hydrochloric acids) or by anodizing.
@@lordkelvin100thompson8 Actually, even xenon will react with fluorine, forming at least three compounds, xenon difluoride, xenon tetrafluoride, and xenon hexafluoride. Elements in a particular row of the periodic table tend to become progressively more "metallic," which in the case of the noble gases means more reactive, as you go down the row toward heavier elements.
Horses use their throats to breathe. Brilliant. You are also very engrossing, I love your videos. Thank you to RUclips for coming across your channel many moons ago, and thank you for making one.
I think other people outside of China had thoughts equally brilliant before the 5th century look at the roman mosaic at 2:25 for instance, showing a horse harnessed around the chest and head and with nothing around the neck ......there are other mosaics out there showing similar methods of harnessing horses and a pretty detailed head harness you can see at the "Pferdekopf von Waldgirmes".....it's alo not limited to Romans - Celts and Germans also used those....
ah sorry, I thought he said 5th AD and not BC not sure about outerchinese usage of similar harness types during that time ...although I know of the existence of a quite developed looking head harness from earlier bronze age Denmark..... edit: there are also pre-silk road coins with harnessed quadriga horses - like Syracuse Tetradrachms from the 5th *BC*
but fun fact, parrots throats are fully enclosed, so if you want to handle a parrot, you should hold it by it's neck & never by it's chest, as you will suffocate it if you hold it by it's chest, but have no risk of suffocating it by holding it by it's neck
9:40 But that's just objectively incorrect? We have numerous records of instances of Ancient civilizations employing utterly horrific methods with shocking regularity. The brass bull, the boats, flaying, etc, etc just to name a few. The Romans in particular enjoyed the spectacle of execution of dissidents by wild animals. These all predate the Catholic Church by quite some time.
Most of this video is pretty bad, the horse thing doesn’t belong, it’s a list of innovations that helped not hurt. Torture is ancient, punishment has always been part of human culture and ‘other groups’ have always been fair game. Most of the last section is just anti-Catholic rhetoric, most of the inquisitions and harms blamed on the church were carried out by the state (often for political gain, not religious reasons). The writer of this video just googled a few topics and probably did none of the research in the making of this video.
Not to mention the fact that Torture in the post Roman world was still used EXTREMELY often, even prior to the Reformation. I mean, there are some estimates that put 2% of every generation in Western Europe dying of Torture, meanwhile 1% was actually executed after found guilty. (~800-1500~)
@@moregumy That's not how you spell 'facts' kiddo. You can't be bigoted towards that murderous, full of pedos and war criminals organization, it anything Simon was way too soft...
I really enjoy your videos, HOWEVER the piece about torture was wildly inaccurate. Torture was practice wildly and from long periods of time. We have vast records from The Assyrian empire (depicting torture in great detail on the walls of the imperial palaces.) Chinese chronicles many torture methods applied over time, Mesoamerica tortures - this to name a few.
Torture is as old as humanity. Some of cannibalistic cultures used torture before kill as well. That practice survived in torturing dogs bred for consumption.
Thank you. Simon. You mentioned that slash-and-burn farming, on the small, local scale CAN be sustainable. You used a different adjective.... but you mentioned it. Local Amazonians use (used) a rotation system where they used an area for five years, after which it was unusable for about a century. This was not for the slash-and-burn, but the nature of that soil. The slash-and-burn was to fertilize the soill for the brief period of use.
Finns in Finland did it too. Small patches of the forest was burned and rocks were moved from the area, making low rock walls around the area. You can still find random rock wall in our forests some times, showing where there used to be a field.
@@liquidpixel2055cane farmers also used to burn the fields before harvesting to get rid of rats and leaf litter. Not common now but happen all the time 20 odd years ago when I was a kid
I lived on schofield barracks in Hawaii in the 1970s. Right off base was miles and miles of sugar cane fields. Every autumn they would burn the fields *after harvest* (so they didn't burn up all the usable crop *before harvest)* We used to call it black snow because our housing area always received a shower of ashes every time they burned another section.
I don't think it's true that Damascus steel is better than modern steel today. We have so many varieties of steel for so many different purposes that it's not really comparable, plus we can make weapons grade steel just as good or better today, particularly because of modern alloys.
Bulat Steel has come close, visually it looks like Damascus too. But it's like a Chinese knock-off of a Russian AK-swries. Looks and performs similarly, but not quite.
Just a note: the historical jury is still out on slash-and-burn. It was extremely nature-friendly, sustainable and useful to smaller, mobile populations. And, the Maya had many different types of agricultural production.
yes, but the jury is not still out on chemical fertilisers, they are absolutely a more serious problem in the damage they cause to the soil than slash & burn has any potential to be. He screwed up badly on that one, suggesting they are a better option!
@@mehere8038 And modern fertiliser from fossil fuels are a finite resource. What is worse is that the earth can only grow enough food for 3 billion people and that fertiliser production, and food production has been dropping, and likely to continue shrinking. This means that by 2100 there will likely be billions of people fewer on earth.
@@coweatsman What fertilisers are from fossil fuels? I'm not really aware of that issue, can you enlighten me? I am aware that phosphorous is a mined, limited resourse & like "peak oil", "peak phosphorous" is thought to have passed & supplies will be exhausted within the next 50-100 years at current use/growth of use rates, maybe less! & I'm also aware that Nitrous Oxide, a greenhouse gas 200 times more powerful than CO2 & also ozone destroying, is primarily from chemical fertilisers & I'm aware that crop land globally is degrading overall & therefore yields dropping where that is happening & that chemical fertilisers play a bit part in this process (erosion being the other huge issue)
@@blckspice5167 Slash and burn agriculture lasted longer than industrial agriculture will, now faced with degrading soils, and short of fertiliser production and only going to become worse in the decades ahead. Modern agriculture is the use of land to turn petrochemical products into food. The problem is #PeakOil which occurred in November 2018 which the media forgot to tell you about.Brace yourself for a rough ride and enjoy the empty supermarket selves we are now seeing.
I do have to point out that the Inquisition used torture far less than secular authorities did, and ecclesiastical courts were also known for giving fairer trials and giving people sentences to better prisons than secular courts, so much so that people would deliberately commit blasphemy or heresy to get out of a secular jail!
It's all relative. They killed whole swaths of people, like Muslims and Jews, forced people to convert, tortured people in the name of their god. They'd kill even converted Christians to see if they were secretly practicing Judaism. They'd get them to point to other people, even their families, to suffer the mercy of being killed quickly. Or, perhaps you think being burned at the stake isn't torture. I have to point out that what they did is horrific and from what I read there weren't fair trials. Perhaps for a narrow swath of crimes. But not the crimes of "being" something you weren't supposed to be.
I saw a video here on You Tube of an experiment in Brazil where they took a worn out plot of land and dumped a massive amount of orange peels on it. The peels came from an orange juice making company. After some time the land revived and started growing plants again and supported wild life.
Anything that adds life back to soil can help. The peels decomposed and the microorganisms that broke them down excreted the constituent minerals and nutrients. You can also revitalize dead soil with coffee grounds, manure, kitchen scraps, charcoal, etc.
The best option is actually livestock. That is in fact the ONLY option that's been found to work on mine tailings or volcanic rocks, where the soil has been turned into just dirt & rock, with no living microbes left. In those settings, manure is the best option, as it is full of the microbes the soil needs, but by depositing it via the livestock, rather than via truck, it means the livestock trample it into the existing soil as well & stir everything up, so as to bring it back to life, particularly when the liquid from the urine is added into the mix. If you were to dump the orange peels onto the land, add some hay & then bring in some cattle to eat all of that, it would take only 1-2 weeks before the soil would be restored. The orange peel alone will take a minimum of 3 months before it reaches that same point reached within 1 week if cattle are allowed to process the peel via their rumen microbes
@@DILFDylFworms crawl around inside the soil , loosening it so rain can soak in . They poop , so that adds to the soil. And when they die the bodies add also. Birds and animals hunt and eat the worms , their poop and dead bodies add to it as well
In some areas, arsenic makeup was used around the eyes. It had a big advantage : It could protect from some bacterial infections that would make you go blind. The disadvantage was, well... Arsenic poisoning. There where also antimony based makeups with the same advantages and disadvantage...
Saying modern damascus steel is inferior to ancient damascus is nonsense. There’s a wide range of steels used to make damascus now but there’s no way that modern metallurgy isn’t far superior to anything made in ancient times.
Lead has not only been detrimental because of its effect on Roman civilization, but also on modern civilization through tetraethyl-lead. You can blame Thomas Midgely Jr. for a significant spike in lead poisoning worldwide through leaded gasoline fumes spreading across the globe. American society, I think, has suffered the most.
Some Victorian and Edwardian houses still have lead pipes. My house is a 1920s one, it has copper pipes. Where cosmetics are concerned we seemed to have replace poisonous chemicals with potentially carcinogenic ones instead. 🙄
I think it's Ethiopia or Somalia, but somewhere they use the black core material from alkaline batteries as eye shadow. They collect used AA, AAA, and C batteries and split them open and mash the cores in some paste and rub it on their eyes. But the cosmetics at the drug store really arent much better. They use all kinds of heavy metals and petroleum byproducts.
@@PhilLesh69 Yes. Cosmetics and other toiletries in the US are barely regulated, and have toxins and carcinogens in them that are banned in the EU and Canada. Once in a while they find lead in lipstick, for example. They don't have to list ingredients. (US does a great job with drug safety)_
The thing is, those poisons from back then we're also carcinogens, people just didn't live long enough to get cancer. In fact most acute poisons are suspected to cause cancer in chronic exposure to them
@@tp6335 Not really. The low life expectancy is misinterpreted. It represents a high infant mortality. If one survived to 18 the chances were good that you would live to 40, 50, 60 or more. You could not run a society where everyone died before 30.
Ancient damascus steel is not superior to modern steel, it's superior to what else was available at the time. For a long time we didn't know exactly how it was made but the modern stuff was better, so what was the motivation? We've figured it out, (vanadium impurities and making it in a cruicible, iirc) Similarly we've fairly recently figured out Roman concrete.
Reminds me of the myths around the Japanese folded steel blades (Tamahagane), which did not result in a superior blade compared to what we had in Europe. It resulted in an acceptable blade when using the decidedly crappy Japanese iron ore.
Just a quick correction. in the intro the example of "Damascus steel" you showed is not actually Damascus steel, it's welded steel. True Damascus steel was crucible steel (high carbon) with most impurities removed. This steel is roughly equivalent to what industrial steel is like today in modern times but without the precision smelting of modern tech. Welded steel can be sturdy to a point but the bigger the piece the more likely it is to contain air pockets which make it brittle and due to the welding, layering, and grains is arguably less effective than high carbon steel which is far more flexible (as far as I am aware), with spring temper being arguably the best steel for weapons and possibly armor. For further clarification, Damascus steel got it's name from where Nordic traders often picked it up from: Damascus, Syria (formerly Persia).
Roman concrete and Damascus steel are not superior to modern alternatives, but the contrary. Also we do know how to replicate both with similar results. What we do not know is the exact historically acurate process to obtain them.
If you want a blade to be pretty and functional go for Damascus steel, if you want a blade to be top tier functional use a high grade modern still like tool steel.
@@TheRatOnFire_ Modern concrete is also great for longevity. What destroys that longevity is steel rebar. We use rebar because it enables structures previously impossible. There are types of rebar that do not rust but they are far more expensive and we simply do not build structures we desire to last hundreds of years. Modern concrete is however worse than Roman concrete in contact with sea water.
My grandparents had a lead pipe that brought water to the house from a spring for many years. I believe the difference was the water was always running. It ran into the house, into a non-lead catch basin, then out. No stagnent water. They lived into their 80s/90s. My mother is now 91. Now using well water and modern plumbing.
Nowadays in the UK, if you don't pay your taxes, it depends on how much you owe. Up to perhaps 100K, you could end up in jail. If you underpay your taxes by enough millions, you could get knighted!
"Damascus steel," from India but encountered in the Middle East, has been reproduced. But for decades, it's a solution i=n search of a problem. Modern homogeneous steel are far superior to "Damascus," if not as pretty. Modern concrete is superior to Roman Concrete and not dependent on burning piles of clam shells to produce quick lime.
Due to the high concentration and use of lime stone in and around the water systems in rome a layer of calcium built up in the pipes which would have significantly reduced or prevented lead from leaching into the water.
The lead thing is over-blown. Most Roman pipes weren't lead, but were rather terra cotta. Even the lead pipes quickly developed an inner lining of lime. While lead vessels were used, that was in the purview of the wealthy minority. Even the wealthy minority would have used plenty of other kinds of material vessels. Also, it's worth noting that things like lead plates were dangerous primarily when containing high-acidity foods (like tomatoes.)
tomatoes - which the Ancient Romans definitely did not have.... and they were aware of the dangers of lead poisoning. Thank you for mentioning the lime coating, I was going to.
@@Tinil0 Even the opening bit about Roman Concrete and Damascus Steel being unmatched today are wrong as we know how both were made and how to reproduce them. The odd thing is that I think there is an episode recorded by Simon about Roman Concrete and how it's self repairing works which I guess is the proof that Simon does so many of these that he forgets loads.
@@roycsinclair I don't think he really stores any of the info in his mind at all. He just farms out concepts from his writers and then narrates it. He constantly goes over similar things across his total channels and on the more casual ones he frequently admits he has really no idea what he is talking about, he just reads the script into the camera. It's why he is so notoriously bad at pronouncing things haha.
@@atodaso1668 yeah but only on a technicality, we put rebar into the concrete to give it tensile strength and its that rebar that make concrete fail relatively quickly while also being expected to take on significantly heavier loads than a horse or two. and also more obviously, we havent had 2k+ years to put our concrete to the test to weather against time
@@coreytaylor5386 Our concrete struggles to last 150 years. It's the self healing abilities of the roman concrete that modern concrete doesn't have that make it last.
also the mentioned damascus is not better than modern steel, it was just very good for their time. Also we do know how to make the original damascus, yet there are very few places the ore can be mined from.
I don't know who wrote this one, but this video is probably the most inaccurate video with Simon I've ever seen. I don't even know where to start. Even the premise itself seems imprecise and oddly applied as a theme connecting the "facts." This feels like a Wikipedia article at best. wtf, Simon.
Lead pipes get a coat of minerals in them fairly quickly. As long as this layer is not disturbed, it prevents lead from entering the water. Boiling anything in lead pots is a sure way to get lead poisoning.
Simon, your in depth yet amusing looks at so many varied subjects, have kept me entertained and informed for years. Thank you Ps You need more channels
The minerals in water create a crust on pipes that stops the lead from leaching into the water. This only takes decades. I'm skeptical that lead from pipes in Rome had any lasting health implications. I would guess that using lead drinking cups and just generally putting lead in everything was a much bigger issue.
@@tomhenry897 did you miss the part where lead pipes still leach lead into the water for years prior to developing a mineral lining? Also, we're very good at manipulating other metals. Lead was advantageous because it's malleable and easy to produce. Iron, which is trivially easy to make now (though we also use ABS and other materials) was not as plentiful or easy to fold into pipes as lead hundreds or thousands of years ago.
As much as i love your videos, well produced and mostly dilligently researched as they are, that intro speech reminds me to still take them with a grain of salt
For me it was the content that did that - most of the things mentioned were advances on desired things, like the original collars on horses. Codes of law were often harsh by modern standards, but they usually were less destructive than the retribution exercised by families getting revenge for real or perceived wrongs. And the claim that torture was a medieval invention is either amazingly ignorant or simply dishonest.
take it from the comment section - lots of salt spilled by outraged historians in this one .....really fun this time 😂 but horse harnesses coming from China and toture from late medieval Europe are really a bit off look at a Tetradrachm from Gelon's Syracuse or the ancient chinese "Five Punishments" but roman concrete was better than modern standard concrete and blades from modern steel are inferior to good old ones
"Arsenic, more commonly known as rat poison..." Hun I'm pretty sure it's most commonly known as arsenic. It's the single best-known poison in the planet. I'm guessing you got a lot more "they sell arsenic to poison rats!?" than "oh that's just another name for rat poison."
Slash and burn, even though it was used by the Maya, was almost not certainly the cause of their civilization declining and its ridiculous to say it as if it's accepted historical truth. It is one of the theories (and there's like a 100 of them), but I don't think anyone in the field now considers it credible. It was probably just drought. The slash and burn agricultural collapse theory was based on thinking that most of their agriculture was dependent on this method (this is a theory from early 20th century), which we now know is wrong.
For lead to be a problem you need two things : acidic water and stagnant water. Lead pipes are not really a big deal, especially for the Romans who mostly used plumbing in public works that ran frequently, if not constantly. Now putting it in cosmetics and using it as a sweetener on the other hand...
The first part about Roman plumbing is a urban myth : lead is extremely toxic but it has to come inside the body before. Natural water is generally basic or alcaline there are localized exceptions). When in contact with lead, this alcaline natural water produces a thin layer of alcaline salts on the surface of the lead in a few seconds? This layer prevents all lead or lead composites to go into the water. That is why the first thing to be forbiden in the modern world were lead paints, lead gas and lead beauty produces, not lead pipes which are still is in use in many old buidings all across Europe and America. As for the culinry tools : lead is not a good metal to use. Most of the roman culinary tools were clay, bronze, iron or steel.
@@tomhenry897 The short answer : PVC is cheaper, easyer to transport and easyer to work with. But you still find lead pipes in many old buildings that are perfectly ok.
@@tomhenry897 There is something else : in the European Community, some 15 years ago, the plastic industry lobbied to pass a law telling that the water should have less than a fixed threashold of lead in drinking water. The threashold was so low that, at the time, no detector on the market was precise enough to detect so few molecules. So, if someone says to you "you have to change your lead pipes to PVC ones", say no : they just want your money and you will not be poisonned (except at the end of your life if you live more than 500 years...). There is a HUGE caveat to my last advice : if the water in your area is not alcaline but acid (which is quite uncommon but not rare) : run to change your lead pipes. Ask the local authorities about the acidity of your water or make yourself a measure before taking any decision. PS.: I used to be in the trade of fighting against lead poisoning for the French State for some years. All the professionals were against this EU law at the time because we wanted the money not spent on useless works put into changing perfectly good pipes but still going to tackle risks : mainly removing lead paints which are a very real danger.
The exact materials and production methods are lost to history, but we have backwards engineered how to reproduce a similar result. However, it doesn't really matter because they are not as good as modern steel and concrete.
As far as I know, Damascus steel has not been reproduced, only the look of it has. At least the metalworkers I know say what they call Damascus steel made now isn't the real thing.
Interestingly the Romans actually knew that lead was bad for water. One of the emperors even tried to get a switch to pipes made of a different material.
In most cases, mineral deposits in the water, mostly lime, coat pipes. Therefore the lead doesn't have any direct contact anymore with the drinking water after just a short period of usage. So Lead pipes were bad, but actually not as bad as people think.
I heard that was the problem with Flint. They had lead pipes, but it wasn't originally a problem because the water they got from Detroit had an additive that maintained a protective layer inside the lead pipes. When they switched to their own water supply they didn't include the additives and the protective layer started flaking off and contaminating the water with lead.
@@battlesheep2552 To my knowledge the new water source was corrosive, which removed the natural protective layer and than leached the lead from the pips. Something similar happened in the late middle ages with tomatoes: People used silverware to eat that contained lead and mercury. Usually wasn't a massive problem due to the oxidation layer that stoped the metal to leak into people's food. However, tomatoes are slightly asidic, so they leached the poisones metals out of the silverware. When people fell ill after eating tomatoes they believed that tomatoes were poisonous
@@marvinamann4969 I heard that same thing about tomatoes as well. It's a "new world" food, so it'd never been an issue before for Europeans. Apparently richer people used pewter plates and cuts, and those were what leached lead. (I don't know about mercury)
That was not Damascus steel in your intro, that was pattern welded steel. In the 1970’s they (the ubiquitous they) used it as a marketing term for Damascus steel. Damascus steel has a totally different production technique. I’m sure others have made this comment, but this is the first time I’ve seen your channel.
I have heard that the Roman lead pipe problem wasn't really all that significant; that the water flowed through them fast enough that very little lead leached out into the water. Lead containers may have been more problematic. But I think that lead doesn't absorb particularly well through the digestive tract, so most of the lead that's ingested ends up getting excreted. I'll note as well that we continue to use lead today in things like lead crystal glasses and containers. Plus most faucets use lead in the seal that stops them from leaking. That lead does leach out into the water that sits still behind it for hours and hours, so you'd be well advised to always run the faucet for a few seconds to let that contaminated water clear before filling your glass with it. A far more significant source of mass lead poisoning has been leaded gasoline, since lead is absorbed quite easily through our lungs. And unlike the Romans, who just didn't know any better, we were fully aware of how toxic it was when we adopted it.
All the tap washers I've ever installed or replaced had a plastic-rubber seal against a brass, steel, or harder plastic seat. Where are you using lead washers?
Actually, the calcium and silicon in most waters will coat a lead pipe in a few months and you'll be fine. The bigger problem with lead was that they used it as a Spice.
My grandfather used to tell me that the reason Roman emperors often went mad was because of the lead. I'm amazed the empire held together as long as it did.
I've always felt that the major advances in our understanding of crystals in the 1890's and early 20th century could have lead to transistors in 1908 instead of 1948. It's just the invention of the thermionic valve in 1903 stymied such development. I'd like to know peoples thoughts on this.
Just found this channel. Been following a few others for a while but had no idea about this one. Can you mention all your projects at the end of a video at some point?
Based on what's said here, I think Mayan justice was the Goldilocks system, myself. Just right. Edit: But maybe I've just watched too much RUclips true crime. Thank you again, Simon and The Casual Criminalist.
A few historians view agriculture itself as humanity's greatest mistake. They have made plausible arguments, such as malnutrition and population growth wiping out the advantage of huge amounts of food.
It's simply a matter of what's better for scale. Farming is how we went from a few million sapiens to half a billion but via innumerable and horrible famines.
@@Taospark no, it's a question of whether we should have ever scaled. Should we act like lions, apex predator in the eco-system, or should we act like bacteria, destroying the eco-system via overpopulation, then moving on to colonise a new one when the first one dies?
@@mehere8038 On balance, it's a clear argument to say that scale enabled more cognitive challenges and more survivability of our species. It just also came with much higher stakes not just in the number of people who have routinely lost their lives due to farming shocks like famine, drought, or war but that we can now destroy a planet not just one ecosystem.
Humans were out of balance for a very long time before the Agricultural Revolution. Humans drove most of the Ice Age megafauna to extinction before the first farms. Agriculture just allowed humans to pack people much more densely
@@mvalthegamer2450 true in some cases, or maybe in all as humans figured out where they fitted into ecosystems. In reality though, in cases like Australia, they can't even figure out for sure when megafauna went extinct, cause there's evidence that contradicts itself & when the last large predator went extinct, which usually results in a complete ecosystem failure, in Australia, there was no such thing, because humans were embedded in the ecosystem as the apex predator & keystone species, keeping everything completely stable. When white ones arrived, things totally changed & kangaroos started to go into "boom and bust" periods with overpopulation & then mass die offs, but all evidence says they were totally stable in population for millennia before that. Dingo introductions & Tasmanian tiger die offs on the mainland that accompanied it 5,000 years ago being the only really clear change to the ecosystem after the changes that occurred to the plants 120,000 years ago & the impacts of the 15,000 year long iceage mega drought. Not all human communities were causing destruction, a lot were living in harmony with the ecosystem, as a part of it - and not just in Australia
"Torture wasn't common until the 13th century", really. I was reading this book that listed in some detail a 1st century civilization that would allow lions at certain citizens. And there was mention of hanging people on crossed timbers, crucible, no, cruciferous, no, oh well it escapes my mind at the moment.
It was a lot harder to convict the actual criminals, which is one reason why capital punishment was preferred punishment in earlier times. Of course, there were also a lot more wrongful convictions. However, since the likelihood that you would be tried and convicted of the actual crime you committed was lower, the punishment needed to be graver to act as an actual deterrent.
As far as burning is concerned, it's important to understand when a burn is good for the land and when it's not. Burning is a natural and very important part of the ecosystem. It essentially resets the land, repelling overgrowth, disease, and releases long trapped nutrients back into the soil. Burning is not however a quick fix to infertility. burned soil needs time to redevelop its biome and microbiome before being used for large scale production. A good burn strategy would be to burn on rotation, only burning small patches at a time and letting the land rest for an extended period before growing on it. The problem with slash and burn farming isn't the burning itself but the attempt to rush the life cycle of the soil.
Roman concrete being better is a complete myth. Modern concrete is tens to hundreds of times stronger. Remember survivorship bias is a major reason why Roman concrete seems so sturdy. Same with Damascus steel.
Slash and burn farming is still used in Maine but only for certain crops. It is still very common to see blueberry farms use this method as the rock can't get any worse
0:10 both Roman concrete and crucible Damascus have been replicated, also modern high carbon spring steel absolutely shits on Damascus in every way except aesthetics
@@mutantryeff I will 100% go with that. If they could be bothered to focus they may bother to actually read the laws their lobbies have written for them.
relatively recently yes. Using material spectograph it was determined the lime was Quicklime instead of Slaked Lime and sea water instead of fresh water.
@@fredblonder7850 re didn't/doesn't, didn't for past doesn't for present So if you're saying that looking at her now/present day, she seems to be fine, then "doesn't" is correct. If she is dead/you are referring to any possible impacts in the past, but excluding today for whatever reason, then "didn't" is correct. I'm not sure which one applies here, only you know that
I live in South Louisiana, where there are large areas of growing sugar cane. I remember from the time I could walk, the sugar cane would be cut down, then after a couple of days in the hot Louisiana sun, it was set on fire. EVERY YEAR! The earth, after years and years of this, grew dark and rich from this, and became prized farm land. They don't burn it anymore, so now they have to use artificial fertilizers.
why on earth did they leave it in the sun for days & then burn it? That makes no sense whatsoever! How it is done in Australia is the cane is burnt to remove snakes & other dangers (& in days past, to remove the spiky bits that are like cactus on the cane leaves that are a problem for hand harvesting), then once the pests are cleared, the cane is harvested, with raillines built through all the farms, so that the cane can be IMMEDIATELY loaded & transferred to the factory for processing, because even 1 hour between cutting & processing results in a 50% loss of productivity/sugar that can be harvested. After processing via chopping & squeezing to extract the juice, the waste is used to power the processing factory, plus returned to the cane fields or other places as mulch, with nutrients from the mulch leaching over time into the land it's placed on
@@mehere8038 the stubble has to dry out before you can burn it properly they still do it in parts of Eastern Europe........ofc not with sugar cane, lol....
@@mehere8038 That is more or less how it has been done in the past here, but now the little rail lines, which we used to call "dummy-lines", are handled by tractor, hauling a trailer, sometimes two of them in tandem. The cut cane would only be left for a couple of days, so that the leaves would wilt, and burn better. The sugar levels would remain the same, even though the moisture content was diminished a little bit. After squeezing, the left over cane used to be called "bagasse", and used for making insulation, ceiling tiles, and various construction products. A lot of it was also used to to run the boilers in the sugar factory here, too. I don't know if they are still allowed to do that, but they used to.
@@feldgeist2637 um, you don't understand what sugarcane burning is about lol. I grow sugarcane in my garden, I know how it works! You do NOT want sugarcane to dry out! The liquid in sugarcane is the sugar! Any drying means sugar losses! Sugarcane is traditionally burnt while in the ground growing. The process was discovered in an industrial action, where workers objecting to working conditions set fire to the fields to destroy them & result in the landowners losing everything. Result was unexpected, the sugar was just fine, just the snakes & spikes were removed, improving conditions while leaving the cane fine. The fires remove the dead, dried leaves, leaving the growing stems protected by their thick skins & sugar inside untouched, but all the rubbish that was making them hard to harvest gone. Today, fires are still used in much of the world, particularly where hand harvesting occurs, but also in some machine harvesting cases, cause removing the dried stems makes cutting the living ones easier & allowed higher density crop planting & harvesting. Fire reduces the quality of the cane though, so for this reason it is undesired. In years gone by though, people really didn't care that the sugar wasn't pure white, the ash content in it didn't reduce it's value in the way it does today. Drying to burn occurs later in sugarcane, the "drying" is done via extracting all liquid from the cane, leaving only very slightly damp bio-mass, that can be fed into electricity generators to power the operation. When I harvest my cane at home, it's super heavy, moist blocks, that I then press, resulting in about 1-2 litres of liquid (sugarcane juice) per stem & fibre waste that is very light weight & touch dry. I know if I have fully extracted the sugar or not, because if I did, when that waste is placed on my garden as mulch, it will act the same way as commercially bought sugarcane mulch. If on the other hand I was lazy with my pressing & moisture remains, it will mould up with rain, even though it appears fairly dry initially. It will also be heavier, due to the remaining liquid. I use a hydrollic press that is basically a car jack, capable of lifting or applying over 1 tonne of weight to crush the cane, in an area of a 10cm circle
@@otpyrcralphpierre1742 your info makes no sense whatsoever. Why would they want to burn it after the sugar had dried out? What good would that possibly do anyone? From Australia's sugar research site, disadvantages of burning cane before harvest - Harvest must be completed within 24 hours to avoid deterioration. Under hot and humid conditions, significant deterioration can occur within 10 hours, and within 16 to 20 hours if conditions are cool and dry. - Removes a valuable source of organic matter for the soil. There is also extensive discussion about the reduced quality of the cane produced from burning, due to increased ash & discolouration, so why on earth would it be burnt AFTER harvest, when there is zero benefit to that but huge disadvantages & yield reduction????? & no, sugar levels do NOT remain the same at all, I will post the details on that separately, as I seem to have removal issues when I talk about burning related stuff for some reason
One innovation that set civilization back for far too long was actually created in the Victorian era: The all-glass greenhouse. Prior to the use of coal furnaces needed to heat these all-glass-on-all-sides greenhouses & conservatories, gardeners and farmers had actually used passive thermal mass heating by putting solid stone or brick walls and earthen mounds on the side of the glassed-in spaces opposite the sun (north side in the northern hemisphere, south side in the southern hemisphere). In the 17th, 18th, and early 19th century, wall-gardens in Europe could grow foods that technically required being raised in growing zones two to three times warmer, *because* they were using thermal mass barriers on the north side of their smallish garden spaces. They didn't even *need* the glazing in many cases, unless they wanted to raise the growing zone temperatures a little bit more. When commercial farming started to include massive greenhouses in the 20th century, they followed the Victorian style of all-glazed greenhouses, which cost huge amounts of electricity (coal powered, etc) to keep warm in cold weather, rather than relying upon thermal mass, which only needed the power of the sun, or at the very least daytime temperatures. The amount of damage done to our environment has been significant due to the need to artificially heat all of these greenhouses...all because the Victorians wanted to show off that they could "afford" all-glass greenhouses that *had* to be heated with coal furnaces, which they could also "afford" ...not knowing the cost to the ecology of their descendants.
my grandfather was one of the first farmers in his area to reject the practice of field burning for the exact reason mentioned: the composting cycle takes about 10 years. field burning compresses it to one year. which means 9 years of crops being better than average, and then it's all below average, until 10 years after you stop.
Field burning makes sense when land is nearly free, or is communal property. Once private ownership was both enshrined in law and actually enforced it no longer makes sense.
@@knurlgnar24 field burning really only made sense when there was a surplus of land, and the burning of it was used to clear woody debris that made plowing more difficult. it was a lot less labor intensive to burn tree stumps to clear a field than to dig them out and then figure out what to do with them.
There is a way to take the biomass leftover from crops and turn it into a thing called biochar. When that is tilled into the soil it actually makes the soil an almost perpetual self replenishing soil.
@@PhilLesh69 no, it doesn't. all it does is accelerate the natural composting process. so for 9 years, you are getting the nutrients from the composted material still in the process, and the biochar, then after that 9 years, the composted material is used up, just as I said. 10 years after his neighbors started burning, they were back to buying just as much fertilizer as my grandfather was. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
You forgot religion. If you want to talk about setbacks and murder and corruption in the name of whichever deity you need look no further. As a former religious person, I can now comfortably say this. It plagues us to this day.
I one hundred percent agree. The crusades, inquisitions, imperialism, Expancinism, Slavery, Scientific setbacks, Using it as an excuse to put anybody down that doesn't believe what you believe in. I'm speaking more from the organized level. You can be religious and not be a complete bellend. A religion is a cult With political power.
"Masterpieces like roman concrete and Damascus steel remain superior to modern attempts" Bruh, Damascus steel is a myth, we never lost it, not only still have it but do it better. And we figured out Roman concrete a little while ago.
Serengeti is the best functioning grazing eco-system on the planet, it doesn't get burnt. Burning is only needed when grazing is badly managed. The NT in Australia was actually able to reduce the need for controlled burns when it had a feral water buffalo problem, when they were removed, the need for burning returned
So if a woman committed adultery, she was shamed. If a man committed adultery, he was killed. Crazy how that male privilege has been holding women down for all of human history...
So I looked it up and apparently the man wasn't killed if he cheated with an unmarried woman. So it seems like the basic idea is that a man is killed for having sex with another man's wife, but the wife is not killed since she was still useful for having children. Sure, it was sexist and wrong, but it wasn't put in place to benefit women. It was put in place to protect men from being cuckolded while still allowing them to keep their wives for having children.
Slash and burn is fine as long as you cycle through crops. You can't get a harvest every year. "Regular" farms work the same way. That's not unique. Every other year or once every three years you plow your crop directly into the dirt to restore nutrients to it. Nitrogen is pulled from the air by the plants, then they decompose and release it into the soil.
Very few farms plow anymore to preserve soil health, and no one burns as it's extremely inefficient - much of your nutrients litterally goes up in smoke. That's what smoke is, after all, solids that you permanently lose. Crops are drilled in, perhaps cultivated in some cases before planting but almost never plowed, and fertilizer is used. In cases where fertilizer is NOT used crop rotation is used instead. The yields are lower, you can't plant the crops most in demand every year, and crop failure is more likely, but it's still done sometimes for various other reasons. In all cases crops are not plowed into the ground. That's how they did it in the 1930's and lessons were learned.
Nitrogen is pulled out of the soil. Crops like cotton, corn, and Wheat deplete nitrogen from the soil. That's why Soybeans, alfalfa, and other legumes are planted. These plants have nodules on their roots with nitrogen-fixing bacteria to make nitrogen they use. It also replenishes the soil with usable nitrogen for all crops. Earthworms are good at releasing nitrogen in soil and only eat dead biomass. The enriched soul they make is "black gold."
Don't kid yourself. We have all kinds of setbacks, side effects and unintended consequences that are built into our modern society. It took me years to figure this out, but you might be viewing "ancient times" through a distorted lens. It is only ancient times to you and me. To a roman, the moment that he lived was also the modern times of his age, too. Every human being experiences modernity because the future hasn't happened yet. They have the pinnacle of technology at their hand, not ancient antiquated outdated technology. That's just how we think of it, from our perspective a thousand years later.
Just for example. A person born after 2000 actually has a statistically shorter lifespan than a person born thirty, forty or more years ago. Life expectancy has actually contracted in the last couple of decades.
@@PhilLesh69 as said in the video, people used equipment that choked their horses for millenia, and nobody in that timeframe seemed to have thought "This seems inefficient, how can I make it better?". Things are terrible these days, but at least our culture is obsessed with improving things, so they get less terrible over time.
And sometimes we even succeed in actually things better, but the jury is still out for a whole bunch of unanticipated side effects that almost certainly include stuff that hasn't shown up yet. Still, it's usually better than living in the 1700s.
Surprised mercury wasn't on the list. Love how so many cultures went "this is a bit weird, I think we should eat it / smear it on ourselves"
In some cases, there were right. It has many properties that could help cure many diseases.
Ironically, it's all temporary since it will also poison you horribly.
Considering the lead poisoning, mercury poisoning and everything else, it's no surprise everyone was a blade wielding lunatic...
"We're not conquering you! It's a mercy killing! The past IS the worst!"😂
It's still used as a gold extraction method in 3rd world countries
Apparently heavily used by the Mayans
@@micahgelfand8282 any gold empire used mercury as their main extraction method after getting the gold out of the rock
"Innovations that set humanity back"
I am certain that someday in the future, we will look back and put social media in that category.
Nah, media controlled by 1% in general. Social media are just quickest and easiest to manipulate, but fox lies and co are just as toxic and even more dangerous...
Public forums has existed throughout the history along with its toxic societal impacts, if you have problem with it now then your problem is with the Internet, which allows it on a unprecedented global scale without the need of identity, credibility and accountability.
Both a great boon and a great curse
@@RadenWA Public forums used to be physical spaces where your nonsense could have real life consequences and where idiots were laughed off the stage. Here you can parrot your bullshit to anyone willing to listen with 0 consequences. The village idiots used to be isolated in their own stupidity, now they can connect with any village idiot around the world
@@RadenWA You and I both know that the internet is an incredibly deceptive place to the point that scams abound.
"Torture wasn't common until the earliest Catholic Inquisitions. . ."
The Ancient World would like to argue about that one.
That bugged me too. The Romans, for instance, were _experts_ at torturing humans. The use of crucifixion with the T-shaped crossbeam on an upright pole was pure torture and they knew exactly how to make it incredibly painful for a really long time. It's said that some crucified men would hang up there for many days ... putting the nail through the lower part of the hand where it meets the wrist would put it right through the sciatic nerve, causing a shooting fiery pain, plus the radius and ulna would keep the spike from ripping out ... there's much more to it than that, but I'm getting depressed typing it out.
He might be referring to torture as a form of getting information, but it still doesn't seem correct that it "started" with the Catholic Church in the 1300s.
Yeah that sounds like antiCatholic propaganda
@@daffers2345the earliest archeological evidence for torture (that we are aware of at least) comes from like 7000 BC and it's mentioned in ancient scriptures that predate not just the Catholic Church but even the earliest parts of the Old Testament, so it's definitely bullshit.
@@igorbednarski8048 I believe you! I'm just pointing out that it didn't start with the Catholic Church, so I think the video is wrong :/
@@daffers2345 well, yeah, my comment was not a criticism of your comment, it was a criticism of the video
The thing with Roman lead poisoning: They not only used lead pipes and lead containers for their wine, but even used some lead compounds to sweeten their wine, because certain lead alloys tasted sweet, so that added even more lead to their system.
lead containers were thought of as elite products compared to the commoners' clay vessels haha!
@@jasongermany5786You don't typically die from lead poisoning, it effects your brain function, and especially so in children who still have developing brains.
@@jasongermany5786the life expectancy during the roman empire was 25 years
@@_gsp12now take out the % that didn’t make it past infancy….
@@austin8775 35-40 years
One correction: As far as swords, knives, etc. are concerned, modern steels are FAR superior to Damascus steel. The particular process might be lost, but the end product, although pretty, would be demolished by a modern reproduction. And anyone can buy a reproduction sword online today from numerous makers, including some superb ones for under US$1,000, that are more durable and effective than any sword owned by any medieval king.
Similar correction: Roman concrete isn't superior to modern recipes. A lot of modern concrete contains rebar (steel bars or grids) that help give it tensile strength. Roman concrete did not have this, and as such wasn't that great under tension. The upside is that Roman concrete lasts longer. The steel in reinforced concrete expands and contracts thermally, causing gradual cracking and weakening of the concrete around it. Over decades, it will break down. Because Roman concrete doesn't have rebar, it will last a lot longer. But so will a lot of non-reinforced modern concrete.
@@huwday1131 Hated seeing his script get those wrong within 20 seconds. Simon's channels are pretty worthless for factual information.
Similar correction: ancient kohl wasn't toxic to the wearers--the preparations used protected against endemic eye diseases and were thus medicinal as well as cosmetic.
at least they didnt make it out of carbon fiber and epoxy
@@huwday1131 An addition to your correction: Using modern material spectrograph we actually know exactly what was in Roman Concrete. turns out the "secret ingredient" was just plain old seawater and Quicklime instead of slaked lime.
Agriculture, metal work, and agriculture.
That’s 3 ….. well, 2.
Glad to know I wasn't the only one hearing things😂 Even turned cc's on quick just to make sure
Beat me to it lol
I'm so glad the editor just completely ignored him 😂😂
I had to rewind to see if I had heard it correctly
The bit about the fresh flowers is fantastic! I love how even in ancient times people were looking for a way to tell the tax man to go do one!
Not the hero that they deserved, but the hero that they needed 😂😂😂
The thing you didn’t mention about torture is how bad it is for getting reliable information. If you torture someone, they’ll most likely tell you what they think you want to hear to make the torture stop, regardless of whether it’s true. A person who doesn’t know an answer will make one up.
The best interrogators form a rapport with their target and have conversations where they’re able to pick out valuable information that’s let out, sometimes unwittingly.
that's the problem you see; That is hard and the interrogator and his boss don't care if you are innocent or not. They only care about conviction rates. In their minds accusation = guilty. It was true back in medieval times, it is more true then ever today.
@@OnionChoppingNinja I’m referring to torture for the purpose of gaining intel, like torturing POWs, not torturing people into making confessions, false or genuine.
@@evilsharkey8954 Same effect can be seen there - the whole Iraq War was based on confessions under torture that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Clearly Bush and whoever else wanted to attack Iraq, and wanted that confession whether or not it was true.
“Never start with the head [hit]. It makes the suspect all…woozy”.
-The Joker (The Dark Knight 2008)
That depends on what information you're after. Yes, the victim will tell you whatever they think will make the pain stop - but that includes the truth, so the issue is whether you can identify the truth when you hear it. Torture is utterly useless for questions like 'Did you do it?' or 'Who were your co-conspirators?', but questions like 'Where is the bomb?' can - not _should,_ just can - be effectively answered by torture.
Simon did you really say torture didnt exist until the middle ages? Ummm crucifixion? The seasaw? Execution ad glatium?
Modern playgrounds still have seesaws 😢
According to Google translate, "ad glatium" means, "to the gladiolus". I like the idea of a gladiator poking another gladiator or a condemned criminal with gladiolus. LOL.
Yea, the statement that torture wasn't used until ... is easily refuted.
He said it wasn't common. But in ancient Greece it was thought that the only way you could trust a slaves testimony was if it was given thru torture
@@DILFDylFyea but they don't have the lions anymore
As a note, Damascus steel was not "superior to modern attempts." It was a lot better compared to most other contemporary steel alloys, but many modern ones are still better. Modern metallurgy is damn impressive, and Damascus has even been recreated artificially at this point, where the original could be considered partially down to the luck of happening to mine in the right spot. At least where the iconic look was concerned.
Also your shot was a pattern-welded blade, not true Damascus, but that's another matter.
I should have read a little further… your comment is accurate. I got all touchy when I saw the pattern welded blade in the intro too.
Agreed, my magnacut steel blade is orders of magnitude better than the best of the best older steels.
Was JUST about to nerd-out and comment something similar!
The video editor probably just has a sub to Storyblocks or something like that, its just a limitation of the job unfortunately.
@@frostreaper1607 what does this have to do with anything?
Pretty sure earlier horse harnesses didn't set back anyone as it was still more useful than having no harness at all. If you call an invention a setback just because a more efficient version of it came around later on then you could include almost every human invention in this list.
No dig on Simon, when ever someone talks about how much alcohol people used to drink, remember that getting fresh water and keeping it uncontaminated are modern things. Tainted water killed people all the time. Alcohol on the other had killed most bacteria and stayed drinkable longer.
People still drank alot more water than many think they did though, as natural springs are pretty safe
That was limited to larger towns and cities, where waste could get into wells. Even then, it was weak brown ale at around 1-2%. Wine was common enough, but you wouldn't start the day with it unless you were wealthy.
@@jasongermany5786"your wrong"...so entertaining seeing a person who can't even use proper grammar scold others 😂
Tainted water did kill and there are famous instances of it but it was not a huge issue until the early 19th Century and even then, only in industrial cities such as London.
Also wine had a much lower alcohol content back then.
Torture didn't start/become widespread only after the inquisition. Ancient civilization, expecially the Assyrians, were very, VERY inventive on their methods.
Torture is as old as the hills in most every culture. It did not begin with the Catholic Inquisition.
To further expand on "slash and burn farming," you also need "crop rotation." Today, farmers do field burns, but the thing to pay attention to is how they nearly always plant something different on that field next season, and so on. Planting the same thing on that field only depletes the nutrients in the soil, making it as useful as concrete. Every second or third year, you need to plant something which ADDS nutrients to the soil.
On a smaller scale, you can see the same phenomenon in your home garden. Every year, you need to rotate the garden. Every second or third plot needs to be some type of bean or pea, so when you rotate the garden every year, that plot now has something which fertilizes the ground. You fail to do that, and the ground will be as useful as concrete.
In conclusion, the simple fact of burning fields is not what makes the fields useless. What makes the fields useless is nutrient depletion, caused by planting the same crop on the same field every year.
Did you not catch the part where he mentioned crop rotation as the later solution to S/B's issues?
I did catch that. However, he failed to mention the fact that farmers burn their crops every year. That is part of what keeps crops fertile.
However, rotating crops, or neglecting to, is what determines if land remains suitable for crops.
@@ThatBaritoneGuitarGuy partly true, partly not. Peas, beans etc only add nitrogen to the soil, nothing else! Chemical fertilisers damage soil microbes, so are not good, despite the video's claims, but what is in them gives a good idea of what crops need, they are generally called "NPK" fertilisers, Nitrogen, Phosphorous, Potassium. Nitrogen will actually suppress the growth of any plants other than leafy greens, causing the plant to produce only the leaves, not the fruit/seed/tubers. Legumes do NOT add potassium or phosphorous to soil. Ash adds potassium (pot ash), phosphorous can be added with animal manure or chemicals
Also read that the nitrogen fixed by the legumes don't get used by other plants until the legume dies back. Some people thought just simply intercropping legumes with their crops is enough.
A word on lead, and chemistry in general. All chemistry relies mostly on its valence band of electrons. That's the outer most orbital. That's why everyday table salt, sodium chloride (NaCl), is relatively harmless, and actually needed, in modest amounts. Yet pure sodium metal is extremely reactive, reacts violently, when exposed to water, and chlorine (chloride) in pure form is a poisonous gas. That's all due to the way they are bonded; the valence.
Pure lead metal is quite benign. So are mercury, and even gold. Yet, all three of these metals when reacted with other elements, such as lead sulfides, they become toxic. Lead is mostly non-reactive, but will react when exposed to acids, such as those in wine. Holding lead solder in your teeth is way less dangerous than inhaling flakes of old lead based paint, as in the paint, its a lead oxide. Gold is usually considered safe, because it barely reacts with anything. But if you do, its extremely toxic.
I'm glad I didn't become a big fan of fishing, because my grandfather taught me how to put lead weights on my fishing line by using his teeth to spread open or clamp down a weight instead of using needle nose pliers.
I think I might have done that perhaps five or six times during my childhood, at the most. But I do remember that it always left a distinct metallic sweet aftertaste in my mouth.
I get it about pure lead, but I believe I read somewhere that even a pure meta has a patina layer of oxidized lead wherever it gets exposed to oxygen. I may have that wrong, but I believe things like lead fishing weights or lead drinking cups will have a film of oxidized lead on them.
In reference to gold.... quote, "but if you do,".... do what??
Seriously, I've always been told gold was inert, as it's outer electron shell is full/complete. I have no idea how one would make it behave otherwise.
Also, I'm curious. Some eastern cultures consume both gold, and more commonly, silver metal hammered into very thin flakes. Supposedly for a positive health effect. I've never read an impartial analysis of the practice. Have you heard of this practice? And if so, what do you know about it?
@@jackreisewitz6632 You've been told wrong. Gold has one electron in its outermost shell. If its outer shell was completely filled, it would be a gas like helium, neon,argon, krypton, xenon or radon. That it isn't shows gold atoms can stick together to form crystals. Granted, it's not very reactive, but will react with powerful reagents like "agua regia" (mixed nitric and hydrochloric acids) or by anodizing.
@@lordkelvin100thompson8 Actually, even xenon will react with fluorine, forming at least three compounds, xenon difluoride, xenon tetrafluoride, and xenon hexafluoride. Elements in a particular row of the periodic table tend to become progressively more "metallic," which in the case of the noble gases means more reactive, as you go down the row toward heavier elements.
Horses use their throats to breathe. Brilliant. You are also very engrossing, I love your videos. Thank you to RUclips for coming across your channel many moons ago, and thank you for making one.
I think other people outside of China had thoughts equally brilliant before the 5th century
look at the roman mosaic at 2:25 for instance, showing a horse harnessed around the chest and head and with nothing around the neck ......there are other mosaics out there showing similar methods of harnessing horses and a pretty detailed head harness you can see at the "Pferdekopf von Waldgirmes".....it's alo not limited to Romans - Celts and Germans also used those....
ah sorry, I thought he said 5th AD and not BC
not sure about outerchinese usage of similar harness types during that time
...although I know of the existence of a quite developed looking head harness from earlier bronze age Denmark.....
edit: there are also pre-silk road coins with harnessed quadriga horses - like Syracuse Tetradrachms from the 5th *BC*
but fun fact, parrots throats are fully enclosed, so if you want to handle a parrot, you should hold it by it's neck & never by it's chest, as you will suffocate it if you hold it by it's chest, but have no risk of suffocating it by holding it by it's neck
Torture was *definitely* common before the 1300s.
9:40 But that's just objectively incorrect? We have numerous records of instances of Ancient civilizations employing utterly horrific methods with shocking regularity. The brass bull, the boats, flaying, etc, etc just to name a few. The Romans in particular enjoyed the spectacle of execution of dissidents by wild animals. These all predate the Catholic Church by quite some time.
Most of this video is pretty bad, the horse thing doesn’t belong, it’s a list of innovations that helped not hurt. Torture is ancient, punishment has always been part of human culture and ‘other groups’ have always been fair game. Most of the last section is just anti-Catholic rhetoric, most of the inquisitions and harms blamed on the church were carried out by the state (often for political gain, not religious reasons).
The writer of this video just googled a few topics and probably did none of the research in the making of this video.
Absolutely correct! Just full of anti-Catholic bigotry
Not to mention the fact that Torture in the post Roman world was still used EXTREMELY often, even prior to the Reformation.
I mean, there are some estimates that put 2% of every generation in Western Europe dying of Torture, meanwhile 1% was actually executed after found guilty.
(~800-1500~)
@@moregumy That's not how you spell 'facts' kiddo. You can't be bigoted towards that murderous, full of pedos and war criminals organization, it anything Simon was way too soft...
I really enjoy your videos, HOWEVER the piece about torture was wildly inaccurate. Torture was practice wildly and from long periods of time. We have vast records from The Assyrian empire (depicting torture in great detail on the walls of the imperial palaces.) Chinese chronicles many torture methods applied over time, Mesoamerica tortures - this to name a few.
That's where we also learn that tickle torture was reserved by the Chinese for royalty and people of high status as it did no physical harm.
Torture is as old as humanity. Some of cannibalistic cultures used torture before kill as well. That practice survived in torturing dogs bred for consumption.
Lead pipes.
The periodic-table symbol for lead is "Pb"... which is short for "Plumbum"... it's where we get the word "plumbing".
Thank you. Simon. You mentioned that slash-and-burn farming, on the small, local scale CAN be sustainable. You used a different adjective.... but you mentioned it. Local Amazonians use (used) a rotation system where they used an area for five years, after which it was unusable for about a century. This was not for the slash-and-burn, but the nature of that soil. The slash-and-burn was to fertilize the soill for the brief period of use.
Aboriginals also. Now Australia has bushfires every year
Finns in Finland did it too. Small patches of the forest was burned and rocks were moved from the area, making low rock walls around the area. You can still find random rock wall in our forests some times, showing where there used to be a field.
@@liquidpixel2055 Not necessarily agriculture, but certainly slashing by burning.
@@liquidpixel2055cane farmers also used to burn the fields before harvesting to get rid of rats and leaf litter. Not common now but happen all the time 20 odd years ago when I was a kid
I lived on schofield barracks in Hawaii in the 1970s. Right off base was miles and miles of sugar cane fields. Every autumn they would burn the fields *after harvest* (so they didn't burn up all the usable crop *before harvest)*
We used to call it black snow because our housing area always received a shower of ashes every time they burned another section.
I love the "Roman concrete was better than modern concrete" myth. There's a good video by practical engineering explaining concrete.
I don't think it's true that Damascus steel is better than modern steel today. We have so many varieties of steel for so many different purposes that it's not really comparable, plus we can make weapons grade steel just as good or better today, particularly because of modern alloys.
Yea, and the technique is very definitely not “lost.”
Strange that this myth is popping up more and more often lately.
Bulat Steel has come close, visually it looks like Damascus too. But it's like a Chinese knock-off of a Russian AK-swries. Looks and performs similarly, but not quite.
agriculture so freakin innovative it has to be mentioned twice lol
i had to rewind to see if i had just mis-heard the first time hahaha
Just a note: the historical jury is still out on slash-and-burn. It was extremely nature-friendly, sustainable and useful to smaller, mobile populations. And, the Maya had many different types of agricultural production.
yes, but the jury is not still out on chemical fertilisers, they are absolutely a more serious problem in the damage they cause to the soil than slash & burn has any potential to be. He screwed up badly on that one, suggesting they are a better option!
@@mehere8038 And modern fertiliser from fossil fuels are a finite resource. What is worse is that the earth can only grow enough food for 3 billion people and that fertiliser production, and food production has been dropping, and likely to continue shrinking. This means that by 2100 there will likely be billions of people fewer on earth.
@@coweatsman What fertilisers are from fossil fuels? I'm not really aware of that issue, can you enlighten me? I am aware that phosphorous is a mined, limited resourse & like "peak oil", "peak phosphorous" is thought to have passed & supplies will be exhausted within the next 50-100 years at current use/growth of use rates, maybe less! & I'm also aware that Nitrous Oxide, a greenhouse gas 200 times more powerful than CO2 & also ozone destroying, is primarily from chemical fertilisers & I'm aware that crop land globally is degrading overall & therefore yields dropping where that is happening & that chemical fertilisers play a bit part in this process (erosion being the other huge issue)
No its not
@@blckspice5167 Slash and burn agriculture lasted longer than industrial agriculture will, now faced with degrading soils, and short of fertiliser production and only going to become worse in the decades ahead. Modern agriculture is the use of land to turn petrochemical products into food. The problem is #PeakOil which occurred in November 2018 which the media forgot to tell you about.Brace yourself for a rough ride and enjoy the empty supermarket selves we are now seeing.
I do have to point out that the Inquisition used torture far less than secular authorities did, and ecclesiastical courts were also known for giving fairer trials and giving people sentences to better prisons than secular courts, so much so that people would deliberately commit blasphemy or heresy to get out of a secular jail!
It's all relative. They killed whole swaths of people, like Muslims and Jews, forced people to convert, tortured people in the name of their god. They'd kill even converted Christians to see if they were secretly practicing Judaism. They'd get them to point to other people, even their families, to suffer the mercy of being killed quickly. Or, perhaps you think being burned at the stake isn't torture. I have to point out that what they did is horrific and from what I read there weren't fair trials. Perhaps for a narrow swath of crimes. But not the crimes of "being" something you weren't supposed to be.
Your facts are clearly countered by angry rhetoric!
I saw a video here on You Tube of an experiment in Brazil where they took a worn out plot of land and dumped a massive amount of orange peels on it. The peels came from an orange juice making company.
After some time the land revived and started growing plants again and supported wild life.
Anything that adds life back to soil can help. The peels decomposed and the microorganisms that broke them down excreted the constituent minerals and nutrients.
You can also revitalize dead soil with coffee grounds, manure, kitchen scraps, charcoal, etc.
Tribes in the Amazon used terra preta ( charcoal sticks embedded in the soil ) to keep nutrients in. Has anyone tried it today?
The best option is actually livestock. That is in fact the ONLY option that's been found to work on mine tailings or volcanic rocks, where the soil has been turned into just dirt & rock, with no living microbes left. In those settings, manure is the best option, as it is full of the microbes the soil needs, but by depositing it via the livestock, rather than via truck, it means the livestock trample it into the existing soil as well & stir everything up, so as to bring it back to life, particularly when the liquid from the urine is added into the mix.
If you were to dump the orange peels onto the land, add some hay & then bring in some cattle to eat all of that, it would take only 1-2 weeks before the soil would be restored. The orange peel alone will take a minimum of 3 months before it reaches that same point reached within 1 week if cattle are allowed to process the peel via their rumen microbes
Please, PLEASE tell me what worms have to do with any of that
@@DILFDylFworms crawl around inside the soil , loosening it so rain can soak in . They poop , so that adds to the soil. And when they die the bodies add also. Birds and animals hunt and eat the worms , their poop and dead bodies add to it as well
0:40 - Chapter 1 - Roman plumbing & cooking
1:55 - Chapter 2 - Horse power
4:30 - Chapter 3 - Slash & burn farming
6:40 - Chapter 4 - Cosmetics
8:30 - Chapter 5 - Crime & punishment
Crime and Punishment is actually Chapter 2 again, according to the title card ha
In some areas, arsenic makeup was used around the eyes. It had a big advantage : It could protect from some bacterial infections that would make you go blind. The disadvantage was, well... Arsenic poisoning. There where also antimony based makeups with the same advantages and disadvantage...
Same with Uranium.
Modern makeup isn't any better.
A lot of the dyes and waterproofing are toxic and contain heavy metals.
Saying modern damascus steel is inferior to ancient damascus is nonsense. There’s a wide range of steels used to make damascus now but there’s no way that modern metallurgy isn’t far superior to anything made in ancient times.
Lead has not only been detrimental because of its effect on Roman civilization, but also on modern civilization through tetraethyl-lead. You can blame Thomas Midgely Jr. for a significant spike in lead poisoning worldwide through leaded gasoline fumes spreading across the globe. American society, I think, has suffered the most.
Some Victorian and Edwardian houses still have lead pipes. My house is a 1920s one, it has copper pipes.
Where cosmetics are concerned we seemed to have replace poisonous chemicals with potentially carcinogenic ones instead. 🙄
I think it's Ethiopia or Somalia, but somewhere they use the black core material from alkaline batteries as eye shadow. They collect used AA, AAA, and C batteries and split them open and mash the cores in some paste and rub it on their eyes.
But the cosmetics at the drug store really arent much better. They use all kinds of heavy metals and petroleum byproducts.
@@PhilLesh69 Yes. Cosmetics and other toiletries in the US are barely regulated, and have toxins and carcinogens in them that are banned in the EU and Canada. Once in a while they find lead in lipstick, for example. They don't have to list ingredients. (US does a great job with drug safety)_
The thing is, those poisons from back then we're also carcinogens, people just didn't live long enough to get cancer. In fact most acute poisons are suspected to cause cancer in chronic exposure to them
@@tp6335 Not really. The low life expectancy is misinterpreted. It represents a high infant mortality. If one survived to 18 the chances were good that you would live to 40, 50, 60 or more. You could not run a society where everyone died before 30.
Ancient damascus steel is not superior to modern steel, it's superior to what else was available at the time. For a long time we didn't know exactly how it was made but the modern stuff was better, so what was the motivation? We've figured it out, (vanadium impurities and making it in a cruicible, iirc) Similarly we've fairly recently figured out Roman concrete.
Reminds me of the myths around the Japanese folded steel blades (Tamahagane), which did not result in a superior blade compared to what we had in Europe. It resulted in an acceptable blade when using the decidedly crappy Japanese iron ore.
Just a quick correction. in the intro the example of "Damascus steel" you showed is not actually Damascus steel, it's welded steel. True Damascus steel was crucible steel (high carbon) with most impurities removed. This steel is roughly equivalent to what industrial steel is like today in modern times but without the precision smelting of modern tech. Welded steel can be sturdy to a point but the bigger the piece the more likely it is to contain air pockets which make it brittle and due to the welding, layering, and grains is arguably less effective than high carbon steel which is far more flexible (as far as I am aware), with spring temper being arguably the best steel for weapons and possibly armor. For further clarification, Damascus steel got it's name from where Nordic traders often picked it up from: Damascus, Syria (formerly Persia).
Roman concrete and Damascus steel are not superior to modern alternatives, but the contrary. Also we do know how to replicate both with similar results. What we do not know is the exact historically acurate process to obtain them.
If you want a blade to be pretty and functional go for Damascus steel, if you want a blade to be top tier functional use a high grade modern still like tool steel.
@@Wolf-oc6txtool steel is far to hard, spring steel is the absolute best for blades.
@@joeycampbell940 I used tool steel as an example because that is a metal that's used in making blades that can cut other forms of steel.
@@joeycampbell940Roman Concrete is better for longevity, modern for force.
@@TheRatOnFire_ Modern concrete is also great for longevity. What destroys that longevity is steel rebar. We use rebar because it enables structures previously impossible. There are types of rebar that do not rust but they are far more expensive and we simply do not build structures we desire to last hundreds of years. Modern concrete is however worse than Roman concrete in contact with sea water.
and then there were the "radium girls" who painted their teeth with radioactive paint
last time i was this early Simon only had one channel
Lol same 😂
Lmfao
My grandparents had a lead pipe that brought water to the house from a spring for many years. I believe the difference was the water was always running. It ran into the house, into a non-lead catch basin, then out. No stagnent water. They lived into their 80s/90s. My mother is now 91.
Now using well water and modern plumbing.
The scale which would eventually coat the inner surface of lead pipes in Roman (and modern) times rendered the water comparatively safe.
My grandpa had one lead pipe that he used to bonk field mice with
Nowadays in the UK, if you don't pay your taxes, it depends on how much you owe.
Up to perhaps 100K, you could end up in jail.
If you underpay your taxes by enough millions, you could get knighted!
Simons favorite quote come to mind watching this....The past was the worst lol
"Damascus steel," from India but encountered in the Middle East, has been reproduced. But for decades, it's a solution i=n search of a problem. Modern homogeneous steel are far superior to "Damascus," if not as pretty.
Modern concrete is superior to Roman Concrete and not dependent on burning piles of clam shells to produce quick lime.
You could definitely do a video about modern "innovations" as well. Leaded gasoline comes to mind. Or thalidomide.
"Damn you, Midgely!" I cry out as I shake my fist at the clouds.
Plastic, aluminium cookware, social media...
Due to the high concentration and use of lime stone in and around the water systems in rome a layer of calcium built up in the pipes which would have significantly reduced or prevented lead from leaching into the water.
The lead thing is over-blown. Most Roman pipes weren't lead, but were rather terra cotta. Even the lead pipes quickly developed an inner lining of lime.
While lead vessels were used, that was in the purview of the wealthy minority. Even the wealthy minority would have used plenty of other kinds of material vessels. Also, it's worth noting that things like lead plates were dangerous primarily when containing high-acidity foods (like tomatoes.)
tomatoes - which the Ancient Romans definitely did not have.... and they were aware of the dangers of lead poisoning. Thank you for mentioning the lime coating, I was going to.
There are still lead pipes in use all over the world right now. They're only dangerous when they're new.
Honestly this entire episode isn't exactly well-researched. Whoever the author was did a poor, superficial job
@@Tinil0 Even the opening bit about Roman Concrete and Damascus Steel being unmatched today are wrong as we know how both were made and how to reproduce them. The odd thing is that I think there is an episode recorded by Simon about Roman Concrete and how it's self repairing works which I guess is the proof that Simon does so many of these that he forgets loads.
@@roycsinclair I don't think he really stores any of the info in his mind at all. He just farms out concepts from his writers and then narrates it. He constantly goes over similar things across his total channels and on the more casual ones he frequently admits he has really no idea what he is talking about, he just reads the script into the camera. It's why he is so notoriously bad at pronouncing things haha.
"...was surrounded by fresh flowers." Best torture ever. LMAO
Roman concrete isn’t superior to moderns concrete. It has a couple of advantages for longevity, but lacks others and has lower overall strength.
Yet we only just figured out how they made it! It lasts a lot longer than modern concrete.
@@atodaso1668 yeah but only on a technicality, we put rebar into the concrete to give it tensile strength and its that rebar that make concrete fail relatively quickly while also being expected to take on significantly heavier loads than a horse or two. and also more obviously, we havent had 2k+ years to put our concrete to the test to weather against time
@@coreytaylor5386 Our concrete struggles to last 150 years. It's the self healing abilities of the roman concrete that modern concrete doesn't have that make it last.
also the mentioned damascus is not better than modern steel, it was just very good for their time. Also we do know how to make the original damascus, yet there are very few places the ore can be mined from.
@@atodaso1668Try measuring how long Roman concrete survives when under the same stress modern concrete endures.
I don't know who wrote this one, but this video is probably the most inaccurate video with Simon I've ever seen. I don't even know where to start. Even the premise itself seems imprecise and oddly applied as a theme connecting the "facts." This feels like a Wikipedia article at best. wtf, Simon.
You malign Wikipedia. Look up these issues there, and you'll see better scholarship.
Lead pipes get a coat of minerals in them fairly quickly. As long as this layer is not disturbed, it prevents lead from entering the water. Boiling anything in lead pots is a sure way to get lead poisoning.
Simon, your in depth yet amusing looks at so many varied subjects, have kept me entertained and informed for years. Thank you
Ps You need more channels
That's funny you wildly misspelled the word time. Unless "channel" is time in a language I'm unaware of 😂😂
@@slayingroosters4355 what 🤨
@@Carveila he said ps you need more channels, I'm implying that Simon doesn't possibly have enough time for another channel 👍🏿
@@slayingroosters4355 I dunno how you misspelled "clones" as "time", but here we are.
What he needs is better researchers, a lot of this information is either half truths or outright incorrect.
New Zealand farmers could learn SO much from your slash and burn segment. The way farming is done here beggers belief
The minerals in water create a crust on pipes that stops the lead from leaching into the water. This only takes decades. I'm skeptical that lead from pipes in Rome had any lasting health implications. I would guess that using lead drinking cups and just generally putting lead in everything was a much bigger issue.
Professionals in the field have already consigned this lead poisoning myth to history's rubbish bin.
Plus, the household pipes (most of the pipes) were terra cotta rather than lead.
The use of sugar of lead to sweeten wine was also a major mistake on the part of ancient Romans.
Then why aren’t we using it today
@@tomhenry897 did you miss the part where lead pipes still leach lead into the water for years prior to developing a mineral lining? Also, we're very good at manipulating other metals. Lead was advantageous because it's malleable and easy to produce. Iron, which is trivially easy to make now (though we also use ABS and other materials) was not as plentiful or easy to fold into pipes as lead hundreds or thousands of years ago.
As much as i love your videos, well produced and mostly dilligently researched as they are, that intro speech reminds me to still take them with a grain of salt
For me it was the content that did that - most of the things mentioned were advances on desired things, like the original collars on horses. Codes of law were often harsh by modern standards, but they usually were less destructive than the retribution exercised by families getting revenge for real or perceived wrongs. And the claim that torture was a medieval invention is either amazingly ignorant or simply dishonest.
@@thomasmacdiarmid8251I'm honestly inclined towards dishonesty in this case.
take it from the comment section - lots of salt spilled by outraged historians in this one .....really fun this time 😂
but horse harnesses coming from China and toture from late medieval Europe are really a bit off
look at a Tetradrachm from Gelon's Syracuse or the ancient chinese "Five Punishments"
but roman concrete was better than modern standard concrete and blades from modern steel are inferior to good old ones
"Arsenic, more commonly known as rat poison..."
Hun I'm pretty sure it's most commonly known as arsenic. It's the single best-known poison in the planet. I'm guessing you got a lot more "they sell arsenic to poison rats!?" than "oh that's just another name for rat poison."
Slash and burn, even though it was used by the Maya, was almost not certainly the cause of their civilization declining and its ridiculous to say it as if it's accepted historical truth. It is one of the theories (and there's like a 100 of them), but I don't think anyone in the field now considers it credible. It was probably just drought. The slash and burn agricultural collapse theory was based on thinking that most of their agriculture was dependent on this method (this is a theory from early 20th century), which we now know is wrong.
Social media
For lead to be a problem you need two things : acidic water and stagnant water. Lead pipes are not really a big deal, especially for the Romans who mostly used plumbing in public works that ran frequently, if not constantly.
Now putting it in cosmetics and using it as a sweetener on the other hand...
The first part about Roman plumbing is a urban myth : lead is extremely toxic but it has to come inside the body before. Natural water is generally basic or alcaline there are localized exceptions). When in contact with lead, this alcaline natural water produces a thin layer of alcaline salts on the surface of the lead in a few seconds? This layer prevents all lead or lead composites to go into the water. That is why the first thing to be forbiden in the modern world were lead paints, lead gas and lead beauty produces, not lead pipes which are still is in use in many old buidings all across Europe and America.
As for the culinry tools : lead is not a good metal to use. Most of the roman culinary tools were clay, bronze, iron or steel.
Then why arnt we using lead pipes today
@@tomhenry897 The short answer : PVC is cheaper, easyer to transport and easyer to work with.
But you still find lead pipes in many old buildings that are perfectly ok.
@@tomhenry897 There is something else : in the European Community, some 15 years ago, the plastic industry lobbied to pass a law telling that the water should have less than a fixed threashold of lead in drinking water. The threashold was so low that, at the time, no detector on the market was precise enough to detect so few molecules.
So, if someone says to you "you have to change your lead pipes to PVC ones", say no : they just want your money and you will not be poisonned (except at the end of your life if you live more than 500 years...).
There is a HUGE caveat to my last advice : if the water in your area is not alcaline but acid (which is quite uncommon but not rare) : run to change your lead pipes. Ask the local authorities about the acidity of your water or make yourself a measure before taking any decision.
PS.: I used to be in the trade of fighting against lead poisoning for the French State for some years. All the professionals were against this EU law at the time because we wanted the money not spent on useless works put into changing perfectly good pipes but still going to tackle risks : mainly removing lead paints which are a very real danger.
Religion is the one invention that has set humanity back more than any other.
0:10 Both Roman concrete and Damascus steel have been succesfully reporduced in modern times so there are no secrets there anymore.
The exact materials and production methods are lost to history, but we have backwards engineered how to reproduce a similar result. However, it doesn't really matter because they are not as good as modern steel and concrete.
As far as I know, Damascus steel has not been reproduced, only the look of it has. At least the metalworkers I know say what they call Damascus steel made now isn't the real thing.
I wonder if anyone has tested the lead in Washington DC around all the old buildings on capital hill could explain alot
Just goes to show that avoidance to paying taxes is universal and timeless.
Interestingly the Romans actually knew that lead was bad for water. One of the emperors even tried to get a switch to pipes made of a different material.
Purveyors of Damascus steel say it's superior but it's not. If anything it is comparable to some modern steels.
Funny, but lead pipes were used in the UK from the 1800’s until the later part of the 20th century. Could this explain anything?
I think lead is more soluble in hot water (like a cooking pot) than in cold water (like water pipes).
In most cases, mineral deposits in the water, mostly lime, coat pipes. Therefore the lead doesn't have any direct contact anymore with the drinking water after just a short period of usage. So Lead pipes were bad, but actually not as bad as people think.
I heard that was the problem with Flint. They had lead pipes, but it wasn't originally a problem because the water they got from Detroit had an additive that maintained a protective layer inside the lead pipes. When they switched to their own water supply they didn't include the additives and the protective layer started flaking off and contaminating the water with lead.
@@battlesheep2552 To my knowledge the new water source was corrosive, which removed the natural protective layer and than leached the lead from the pips. Something similar happened in the late middle ages with tomatoes:
People used silverware to eat that contained lead and mercury. Usually wasn't a massive problem due to the oxidation layer that stoped the metal to leak into people's food. However, tomatoes are slightly asidic, so they leached the poisones metals out of the silverware. When people fell ill after eating tomatoes they believed that tomatoes were poisonous
@@marvinamann4969 I heard that same thing about tomatoes as well. It's a "new world" food, so it'd never been an issue before for Europeans. Apparently richer people used pewter plates and cuts, and those were what leached lead. (I don't know about mercury)
That was not Damascus steel in your intro, that was pattern welded steel. In the 1970’s they (the ubiquitous they) used it as a marketing term for Damascus steel. Damascus steel has a totally different production technique.
I’m sure others have made this comment, but this is the first time I’ve seen your channel.
I have heard that the Roman lead pipe problem wasn't really all that significant; that the water flowed through them fast enough that very little lead leached out into the water. Lead containers may have been more problematic. But I think that lead doesn't absorb particularly well through the digestive tract, so most of the lead that's ingested ends up getting excreted. I'll note as well that we continue to use lead today in things like lead crystal glasses and containers. Plus most faucets use lead in the seal that stops them from leaking. That lead does leach out into the water that sits still behind it for hours and hours, so you'd be well advised to always run the faucet for a few seconds to let that contaminated water clear before filling your glass with it.
A far more significant source of mass lead poisoning has been leaded gasoline, since lead is absorbed quite easily through our lungs. And unlike the Romans, who just didn't know any better, we were fully aware of how toxic it was when we adopted it.
All the tap washers I've ever installed or replaced had a plastic-rubber seal against a brass, steel, or harder plastic seat. Where are you using lead washers?
Actually, the calcium and silicon in most waters will coat a lead pipe in a few months and you'll be fine. The bigger problem with lead was that they used it as a Spice.
Agritecture? Archiculture?
Crops you could live in and buildings you could eat...😆
My grandfather used to tell me that the reason Roman emperors often went mad was because of the lead. I'm amazed the empire held together as long as it did.
I've always felt that the major advances in our understanding of crystals in the 1890's and early 20th century could have lead to transistors in 1908 instead of 1948. It's just the invention of the thermionic valve in 1903 stymied such development. I'd like to know peoples thoughts on this.
Just found this channel. Been following a few others for a while but had no idea about this one. Can you mention all your projects at the end of a video at some point?
if you click on the video description they're all there ( 11 currently )
Based on what's said here, I think Mayan justice was the Goldilocks system, myself. Just right. Edit: But maybe I've just watched too much RUclips true crime. Thank you again, Simon and The Casual Criminalist.
0:04 agriculture twice-
A few historians view agriculture itself as humanity's greatest mistake. They have made plausible arguments, such as malnutrition and population growth wiping out the advantage of huge amounts of food.
It's simply a matter of what's better for scale. Farming is how we went from a few million sapiens to half a billion but via innumerable and horrible famines.
@@Taospark no, it's a question of whether we should have ever scaled. Should we act like lions, apex predator in the eco-system, or should we act like bacteria, destroying the eco-system via overpopulation, then moving on to colonise a new one when the first one dies?
@@mehere8038 On balance, it's a clear argument to say that scale enabled more cognitive challenges and more survivability of our species.
It just also came with much higher stakes not just in the number of people who have routinely lost their lives due to farming shocks like famine, drought, or war but that we can now destroy a planet not just one ecosystem.
Humans were out of balance for a very long time before the Agricultural Revolution. Humans drove most of the Ice Age megafauna to extinction before the first farms. Agriculture just allowed humans to pack people much more densely
@@mvalthegamer2450 true in some cases, or maybe in all as humans figured out where they fitted into ecosystems. In reality though, in cases like Australia, they can't even figure out for sure when megafauna went extinct, cause there's evidence that contradicts itself & when the last large predator went extinct, which usually results in a complete ecosystem failure, in Australia, there was no such thing, because humans were embedded in the ecosystem as the apex predator & keystone species, keeping everything completely stable. When white ones arrived, things totally changed & kangaroos started to go into "boom and bust" periods with overpopulation & then mass die offs, but all evidence says they were totally stable in population for millennia before that. Dingo introductions & Tasmanian tiger die offs on the mainland that accompanied it 5,000 years ago being the only really clear change to the ecosystem after the changes that occurred to the plants 120,000 years ago & the impacts of the 15,000 year long iceage mega drought.
Not all human communities were causing destruction, a lot were living in harmony with the ecosystem, as a part of it - and not just in Australia
"Torture wasn't common until the 13th century", really. I was reading this book that listed in some detail a 1st century civilization that would allow lions at certain citizens. And there was mention of hanging people on crossed timbers, crucible, no, cruciferous, no, oh well it escapes my mind at the moment.
It was a lot harder to convict the actual criminals, which is one reason why capital punishment was preferred punishment in earlier times. Of course, there were also a lot more wrongful convictions. However, since the likelihood that you would be tried and convicted of the actual crime you committed was lower, the punishment needed to be graver to act as an actual deterrent.
As far as burning is concerned, it's important to understand when a burn is good for the land and when it's not. Burning is a natural and very important part of the ecosystem. It essentially resets the land, repelling overgrowth, disease, and releases long trapped nutrients back into the soil. Burning is not however a quick fix to infertility. burned soil needs time to redevelop its biome and microbiome before being used for large scale production. A good burn strategy would be to burn on rotation, only burning small patches at a time and letting the land rest for an extended period before growing on it. The problem with slash and burn farming isn't the burning itself but the attempt to rush the life cycle of the soil.
Kohl often was stibnite, which is antimony sulfide. Not quite as dangerous as galena (lead sulfide) which seems to have become more common.
Roman concrete being better is a complete myth. Modern concrete is tens to hundreds of times stronger. Remember survivorship bias is a major reason why Roman concrete seems so sturdy.
Same with Damascus steel.
Slash and burn farming is still used in Maine but only for certain crops. It is still very common to see blueberry farms use this method as the rock can't get any worse
0:10 both Roman concrete and crucible Damascus have been replicated, also modern high carbon spring steel absolutely shits on Damascus in every way except aesthetics
Politicians are still setting us back.
Cows are setting us back much worse
@@Loralanthalas No wonder so many liberals are addicted to opiates - their stupidity must really be painful.
@@Loralanthalas Can we just blame squirrels? I do believe most of our politicians are squirrel hybrids, but they just don't play in the road enough.
@@Loralanthalas Cows? Leave your mother out of this and have some respect for her.
@@mutantryeff I will 100% go with that. If they could be bothered to focus they may bother to actually read the laws their lobbies have written for them.
Didnt they recently crack the secret to Roman Concrete, something to do with the particular stone they were mining at the time
relatively recently yes. Using material spectograph it was determined the lime was Quicklime instead of Slaked Lime and sea water instead of fresh water.
I swear this channel will become the epicentre of misinformation on the internet .
We need to bring back the ancient forms of dealing with crime...guaranteed to see an enormous drop in crime.
Nope. Just an increase in barbarity.
No kidding. If there were severe repurcussions to illegal actions, crime rates would plummet.
@@mjflitexept there were still enormous amounts of crime at the times these methods were used.
In the 1930s, my Mom took arsenic pills prescribed by her doctor, for eight years. It doesn’t seem to have had any effect.
*didn't
@@email5023 Unless you think it killed her, in which case it took 70 years.
What was she prescribed it for? Was it in combination of some other items? Was this in a Western Country?
@@josephteller9715 Milroy’s Disease. Not that I am aware of. New York City.
@@fredblonder7850 re didn't/doesn't,
didn't for past
doesn't for present
So if you're saying that looking at her now/present day, she seems to be fine, then "doesn't" is correct. If she is dead/you are referring to any possible impacts in the past, but excluding today for whatever reason, then "didn't" is correct. I'm not sure which one applies here, only you know that
I live in South Louisiana, where there are large areas of growing sugar cane. I remember from the time
I could walk, the sugar cane would be cut down, then after a couple of days in the hot Louisiana sun, it
was set on fire. EVERY YEAR! The earth, after years and years of this, grew dark and rich from this, and
became prized farm land. They don't burn it anymore, so now they have to use artificial fertilizers.
why on earth did they leave it in the sun for days & then burn it? That makes no sense whatsoever!
How it is done in Australia is the cane is burnt to remove snakes & other dangers (& in days past, to remove the spiky bits that are like cactus on the cane leaves that are a problem for hand harvesting), then once the pests are cleared, the cane is harvested, with raillines built through all the farms, so that the cane can be IMMEDIATELY loaded & transferred to the factory for processing, because even 1 hour between cutting & processing results in a 50% loss of productivity/sugar that can be harvested. After processing via chopping & squeezing to extract the juice, the waste is used to power the processing factory, plus returned to the cane fields or other places as mulch, with nutrients from the mulch leaching over time into the land it's placed on
@@mehere8038 the stubble has to dry out before you can burn it properly
they still do it in parts of Eastern Europe........ofc not with sugar cane, lol....
@@mehere8038 That is more or less how it has been done in the past here, but now the little rail lines, which we used to call "dummy-lines", are handled by tractor, hauling a trailer, sometimes two of them in tandem. The cut cane would only be left for a couple of days, so that the leaves would wilt, and burn better. The sugar levels would remain the same, even though the moisture content was diminished a little bit. After squeezing, the left over cane used to be called "bagasse", and used for making insulation, ceiling tiles, and various construction products. A lot of it was also used to to run the boilers in the sugar factory here, too. I don't know if they are still allowed to do that, but they used to.
@@feldgeist2637 um, you don't understand what sugarcane burning is about lol. I grow sugarcane in my garden, I know how it works!
You do NOT want sugarcane to dry out! The liquid in sugarcane is the sugar! Any drying means sugar losses!
Sugarcane is traditionally burnt while in the ground growing. The process was discovered in an industrial action, where workers objecting to working conditions set fire to the fields to destroy them & result in the landowners losing everything. Result was unexpected, the sugar was just fine, just the snakes & spikes were removed, improving conditions while leaving the cane fine. The fires remove the dead, dried leaves, leaving the growing stems protected by their thick skins & sugar inside untouched, but all the rubbish that was making them hard to harvest gone.
Today, fires are still used in much of the world, particularly where hand harvesting occurs, but also in some machine harvesting cases, cause removing the dried stems makes cutting the living ones easier & allowed higher density crop planting & harvesting. Fire reduces the quality of the cane though, so for this reason it is undesired. In years gone by though, people really didn't care that the sugar wasn't pure white, the ash content in it didn't reduce it's value in the way it does today.
Drying to burn occurs later in sugarcane, the "drying" is done via extracting all liquid from the cane, leaving only very slightly damp bio-mass, that can be fed into electricity generators to power the operation. When I harvest my cane at home, it's super heavy, moist blocks, that I then press, resulting in about 1-2 litres of liquid (sugarcane juice) per stem & fibre waste that is very light weight & touch dry. I know if I have fully extracted the sugar or not, because if I did, when that waste is placed on my garden as mulch, it will act the same way as commercially bought sugarcane mulch. If on the other hand I was lazy with my pressing & moisture remains, it will mould up with rain, even though it appears fairly dry initially. It will also be heavier, due to the remaining liquid. I use a hydrollic press that is basically a car jack, capable of lifting or applying over 1 tonne of weight to crush the cane, in an area of a 10cm circle
@@otpyrcralphpierre1742 your info makes no sense whatsoever. Why would they want to burn it after the sugar had dried out? What good would that possibly do anyone?
From Australia's sugar research site, disadvantages of burning cane before harvest
- Harvest must be completed within 24 hours to avoid deterioration. Under hot and humid conditions, significant deterioration can occur within 10 hours, and within 16 to
20 hours if conditions are cool and dry.
- Removes a valuable source of organic matter for the soil.
There is also extensive discussion about the reduced quality of the cane produced from burning, due to increased ash & discolouration, so why on earth would it be burnt AFTER harvest, when there is zero benefit to that but huge disadvantages & yield reduction?????
& no, sugar levels do NOT remain the same at all, I will post the details on that separately, as I seem to have removal issues when I talk about burning related stuff for some reason
One innovation that set civilization back for far too long was actually created in the Victorian era: The all-glass greenhouse. Prior to the use of coal furnaces needed to heat these all-glass-on-all-sides greenhouses & conservatories, gardeners and farmers had actually used passive thermal mass heating by putting solid stone or brick walls and earthen mounds on the side of the glassed-in spaces opposite the sun (north side in the northern hemisphere, south side in the southern hemisphere).
In the 17th, 18th, and early 19th century, wall-gardens in Europe could grow foods that technically required being raised in growing zones two to three times warmer, *because* they were using thermal mass barriers on the north side of their smallish garden spaces. They didn't even *need* the glazing in many cases, unless they wanted to raise the growing zone temperatures a little bit more.
When commercial farming started to include massive greenhouses in the 20th century, they followed the Victorian style of all-glazed greenhouses, which cost huge amounts of electricity (coal powered, etc) to keep warm in cold weather, rather than relying upon thermal mass, which only needed the power of the sun, or at the very least daytime temperatures.
The amount of damage done to our environment has been significant due to the need to artificially heat all of these greenhouses...all because the Victorians wanted to show off that they could "afford" all-glass greenhouses that *had* to be heated with coal furnaces, which they could also "afford" ...not knowing the cost to the ecology of their descendants.
my grandfather was one of the first farmers in his area to reject the practice of field burning for the exact reason mentioned: the composting cycle takes about 10 years. field burning compresses it to one year. which means 9 years of crops being better than average, and then it's all below average, until 10 years after you stop.
Field burning makes sense when land is nearly free, or is communal property. Once private ownership was both enshrined in law and actually enforced it no longer makes sense.
@@knurlgnar24 field burning really only made sense when there was a surplus of land, and the burning of it was used to clear woody debris that made plowing more difficult. it was a lot less labor intensive to burn tree stumps to clear a field than to dig them out and then figure out what to do with them.
Tell that to the Aussies dealing with bushfires every year! Morons
There is a way to take the biomass leftover from crops and turn it into a thing called biochar. When that is tilled into the soil it actually makes the soil an almost perpetual self replenishing soil.
@@PhilLesh69 no, it doesn't. all it does is accelerate the natural composting process. so for 9 years, you are getting the nutrients from the composted material still in the process, and the biochar, then after that 9 years, the composted material is used up, just as I said. 10 years after his neighbors started burning, they were back to buying just as much fertilizer as my grandfather was. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
You forgot religion. If you want to talk about setbacks and murder and corruption in the name of whichever deity you need look no further. As a former religious person, I can now comfortably say this. It plagues us to this day.
I one hundred percent agree. The crusades, inquisitions, imperialism, Expancinism, Slavery, Scientific setbacks, Using it as an excuse to put anybody down that doesn't believe what you believe in. I'm speaking more from the organized level. You can be religious and not be a complete bellend.
A religion is a cult With political power.
"Masterpieces like roman concrete and Damascus steel remain superior to modern attempts"
Bruh, Damascus steel is a myth, we never lost it, not only still have it but do it better. And we figured out Roman concrete a little while ago.
Slash and burn is good only when used correctly, some eco systems NEED fire, periodic burn offs drastically improve grazing land.
Serengeti is the best functioning grazing eco-system on the planet, it doesn't get burnt. Burning is only needed when grazing is badly managed. The NT in Australia was actually able to reduce the need for controlled burns when it had a feral water buffalo problem, when they were removed, the need for burning returned
Is a sponge on a stick really inferior to toilet paper? I believe there's an argument to be made there. Though, not so much for the communal sponge.
So if a woman committed adultery, she was shamed. If a man committed adultery, he was killed. Crazy how that male privilege has been holding women down for all of human history...
So I looked it up and apparently the man wasn't killed if he cheated with an unmarried woman. So it seems like the basic idea is that a man is killed for having sex with another man's wife, but the wife is not killed since she was still useful for having children. Sure, it was sexist and wrong, but it wasn't put in place to benefit women. It was put in place to protect men from being cuckolded while still allowing them to keep their wives for having children.
"We understand that slash and burn isn't worth it"
Can someone tell Brazil?
Slash and burn is fine as long as you cycle through crops. You can't get a harvest every year.
"Regular" farms work the same way. That's not unique. Every other year or once every three years you plow your crop directly into the dirt to restore nutrients to it. Nitrogen is pulled from the air by the plants, then they decompose and release it into the soil.
Very few farms plow anymore to preserve soil health, and no one burns as it's extremely inefficient - much of your nutrients litterally goes up in smoke. That's what smoke is, after all, solids that you permanently lose. Crops are drilled in, perhaps cultivated in some cases before planting but almost never plowed, and fertilizer is used. In cases where fertilizer is NOT used crop rotation is used instead. The yields are lower, you can't plant the crops most in demand every year, and crop failure is more likely, but it's still done sometimes for various other reasons. In all cases crops are not plowed into the ground. That's how they did it in the 1930's and lessons were learned.
Nitrogen is pulled out of the soil. Crops like cotton, corn, and Wheat deplete nitrogen from the soil. That's why Soybeans, alfalfa, and other legumes are planted. These plants have nodules on their roots with nitrogen-fixing bacteria to make nitrogen they use. It also replenishes the soil with usable nitrogen for all crops. Earthworms are good at releasing nitrogen in soil and only eat dead biomass. The enriched soul they make is "black gold."
I am so glad to live in an era where humanity is obsessed with making everything better, faster stronger, more efficient.
Don't kid yourself. We have all kinds of setbacks, side effects and unintended consequences that are built into our modern society.
It took me years to figure this out, but you might be viewing "ancient times" through a distorted lens. It is only ancient times to you and me. To a roman, the moment that he lived was also the modern times of his age, too.
Every human being experiences modernity because the future hasn't happened yet. They have the pinnacle of technology at their hand, not ancient antiquated outdated technology. That's just how we think of it, from our perspective a thousand years later.
Just for example. A person born after 2000 actually has a statistically shorter lifespan than a person born thirty, forty or more years ago. Life expectancy has actually contracted in the last couple of decades.
@@PhilLesh69 as said in the video, people used equipment that choked their horses for millenia, and nobody in that timeframe seemed to have thought "This seems inefficient, how can I make it better?".
Things are terrible these days, but at least our culture is obsessed with improving things, so they get less terrible over time.
The contracting life expectancy is due to climate change, political corruption and extreme concentration of wealth.
And sometimes we even succeed in actually things better, but the jury is still out for a whole bunch of unanticipated side effects that almost certainly include stuff that hasn't shown up yet. Still, it's usually better than living in the 1700s.
I can't spell it, but Mayan terrapratta black soil. Better than fertilizer; Much better. Wet burning was part of it, they say.
Is that the argument through Koch Bros used to burn and clear the Brazilian rainforest to make room for USDA cows?