Видео

Silence historian, a paradox map game player is speaking

I am a Mike Duncan stan terrified going into this

7:47 Fussel was a satirist, he regularly interjected humorous commentary that the reader would be expected to discern from literal facts.

Your triangle is very nice

TechnoFeudalism is coming for all of us, this vid is a great exploration of the growing control of our lives through big tech... Someone way smarter than I wrote a book by that title, and YTer Munecat covers it well too. Great video. Thanks :)

Man, I'm not sure why pop history and pop academia in general take such a weird attitude to sources and footnotes. If anything I feel like a properly-told version of "this is how we know this and these are the limits of that knowledge" is just as interesting and dramatic as the schlocky nartative stuff. Also shout out to Bret Devereaux over at his acoup blog for doing it right.

Goddamn, nice video on proper scholarly practices! Earned my sub for sure.

I think the saddest part of the game is that link helps everyone achieve a better life except himself.

One has to respect Marshal Fucks counterstroke.

hey dawg, just wanna say, you be rocking with those triangles; the way the straight lines lead to the straight vertices and really shines onto the silhouette shape you wish to achieve, really fits onto the didactics you wish to present your whole presentation is rocking, dont feel ashamed of it king🔥

I mean journalism has been sliding/outright circling the drain recently, but those Montefiore things would still be labeled tabloid journalism at best, outright Yellow Journalism at worst. This wouldn't pass muster at even a half-decent newspaper, hell it might get you fired from the average news site (even bloody Buzzfeed wouldn't allow you to call someone a slur for little people lmao), it's that bad.

Did you say a video about old world?? Yes please 🙏

Love your videos man. Keep it up. You're the pop historian we need but don't deserve

ever since i watched a video on that "liechtenstein came back from a war with an extra soldier" factoid and how it was exaggerated all the joy and whimsy has been sucked out of my life. can't trust anything anymore smh

I think the easiest way to distinguish why the "Byzantines" viewed themselves as Roman and not Greek has less to do with language and more to do with ethnicity and unifying markers. Without making a deep dive into Roman history, Roman citizenship, i.e. what defined "Romanhood," was largely reserved for those who lived in Rome and traced their ancestry to previous Roman citizens. I recall Romans colonizing land outside of Rome having to forego their citizenship. This citizenship was extended to all of the Italian peoples after the Social Wars that ended in 87 BC. And then centuries later to all of the Imperium's territorial people. It went from being a unique status symbol to a unifying element of the Roman Empire. So as a Greek Roman citizen in, say, 600 AD, to use an example, he knew he was Greek. But he was also Roman. So while he was ethnically distinct from others in the Roman Empire, he had kinship with those various ethnicities through their shared "Romanhood." There was the various ethnic makeup of the empire, and the shared status of being part of that empire. And Greeks were just one of those ethnicities. Pedantic explanations aside, I don't know if this has any verifiable evidence, so feel free to correct me on this.

There's so many people who use disclaimers like "I'm not a historian" as a get out of jail free card when talking about history

I would say the other media does matter. Hell, the trading cards had Ulysses on one of them because he was cut from the base game so late in development.

Which serious researcher would even cite a pop-history book with lacking citations as literature?? What????

25:46 Okay but the Berlin Conference dividing Africa up for colonial powers with pre-planned borders is also a pop-culture mistruth.

I don’t care if history (the documents) captured an accurate picture of Stalin, he was as evil as people can get, either driven by ideology or personal engradisement.

This has fueled my disdain for pop history (I know the take's supposed to be more nuanced but I just handed in a paper I need to balance my brain out by forgoing nuance for a while)

A French youtuber did exactly that, a series which never went in depth about Napoleon himself, nor the wars he is famous for. In fact, not only did he do that, he went on to do a series on Restauration France and the reign Napoleon III. It's a very good demonstration of how sometimes, things only have as much meaning as we give them.

Did you know that Stalin called his friend a fat goblin?!

Finally someone willing to take those yahoos at r/askhistorians down a peg.

Damn, I gotta rethink G, G, & S... if I'm doing that, you had some good thoughts :) Nice vid, 15 mins in anyways

lol

To be fair to mr. Wightman, Scottish land law was genuinely messed up in a lot of places for instance: did you know that only lords could own land? And that anyone who owned land was therefore automatically a lord? Fortunately those days are behind us but luckily now you can stil do the same thing with this comment's sponsor: Established Titles. Established Titles is an exciting new service that lets y-

y’know, alexander poskrebyshev predicted all this

Fukuyama strikes me as kinda wilsonian; His "Shining city" being the end goal of history and all that. I mean that in the worst possible way. Very flawed world-view.

"I -am- The State!" - Stalin snarled.

2 books Rosencreutz really hates for lack of citations but they're popular somehow. The video.

The Crown

Spain formed in 1707. That's a big mistake while Britain's is a non-factor.

He didnt say: le etat est moi... he said: I am the Senate- King Louis of France

The misidentified quotes are fine, they show us that people are more fixated on ideas more than real life events. But stuff like Monty fiore pulls is the little drops of posion that will end the intelectual superiority of the west.

"pls comment about my nice triangle I'm insecure about it" - Rosencreutz 2024

“Contrarian annoyance at house parties”. I don’t think I’ve ever felt so called out by a RUclips video.

He sounds like a Fungi.

Please no Diamond and not Harari!

Yooooooo! that was a pretty fire triangle, not gona lie.

how'd i git here?

dying isolated person's declaration w/limited knowledge & education. G, as per Q

Interesting video, and I agree with a lot of the points you make about specific works and authors (especially in regards to Sebag Montefiore), but I just can't agree with what is implied here, or at the very least what I feel as though you are implying. It may seem like an odd point, but what is the value in historical works being accurate? This view of history as almost a 'science', something that has something approximating an objective truth that should be approached as carefully as possible, where a historian's job is to extract the 'truth' from available sources, is very modern, originating with the archival turn in the late 19th century. Not only is it a late Victorian, imperialist approach to the subject, but I think it has lead the discipline astray. It is this approach that has seen the rejection of folk history, oral history, history through poetry or through art, and I don't believe that you would support that. Specifically in regards to this video, history, and the telling of history, is both artistic and political, and it really is only recently that people have began to balk at the idea that history should, or even just can, be used prescriptively, less to inform on specific events, and more to argue for a specific political, philosophical, social, etc. understanding. This is the way that Foucault used history, this is the way that Marx and Engels used history, this is the way E. P. Thompson sued history, this is the way that any number of independence fighters across Asia and Africa used history, and there is value in this approach. Your entire video is predicated on the view that pop history is bad because it is 'wrong', it is 'misleading', it 'leads people astray', and yet, even in the section entitled 'So what?', you don't really attempt to answer the question 'so what?' Your argument for why perpetuating wrong information is bad seems to be merely because the information is wrong, that's just as boring a truism (beyond being incredibly, tautologically anodyne) as anything else in the video. I am an historian myself, specifically I study the use of media as a political tool in post-independence East Africa. One story I often recount is that of the Maji Maji Uprising in Tanzania and the ways in which the history of that event is told in the country. From independence, the historical, academic narrative coming out of Tanzania was that of a unified revolt, one that engaged everyone in the country, across ethnicities, across religions in a single purpose, and event that, in it's unity, birthed the notion of Tanzania (or at least Tanganyika) as a unified polity, a state. This is wrong, almost entirely. In truth the Maji Maji uprising was a number of disparate revolt across the nation occurring for different reasons, often in opposition to each other; Muslims going into revolt at the coast likely didn't know of the Kinjekitile as they did and a major reason for the failure of the revolt was internal strife. On the back of this it is easy to call the post-independence history work 'bad history', but that assumes its purpose was to blankly relay facts when, in truth, its purpose was to look back at historical moments of unity (often embellished) to inform contemporary attempts at building national unity. Arguably it worked, with Tanzania being easily one of the most stable countries on the continent. In this context, contributing to what it set out to do, how can anyone in good conscience call it 'bad history?' Criticising works like these for their value in relaying what actually happened is like criticising a fish for inability to fly, that's very much not what it's trying to do. I dislike Sebag Montefiore, but there needs to be an approach broader than merely criticising the process; don't merely criticise what is presumed in his work, criticise what is implied by his work; don't merely criticise his inaccuracy, ciritcise the political purposes of his inaccuracies. There are fundamental assumptions about how history 'should' be performed that functionally cannot be criticised in the modern academic sphere and, despite your overt critiques of the discipline in the video, you are upholding the discipline tremendously by never stopping to question these assumptions. I ultimately left your video thinking 'so what?' This isn't intended as a critique of your work, I've enjoyed your videos, broadly agree with most of what you say, and you're clearly an incredibly smart bloke. Instead, this comment is more presented as a point for further exploration. I imagine you have a response to what I've said, but I think anyone discussing history, especially history communication, needs to at least attempt to grapple with these points.

Well done, Sir. Top notch.

Funnily enough, I can see "I am the state" and "I die but the state remains" coming from the same person pretty easily. Sort of like "Behold this thing, the state, my life's work. I have created it in my image. It is my legacy and though my body dies, through the state I endure."

Robert the Bruce being of Norman heritage did ring a bell. If I remember correctly "de Brus" comes from either Brix, Normandy, or Bruges, Flanders, and their first Lord of Annandale had come from Normandy to Britain after the Norman Conquest. Kind of weird to disqualify someone as Scottish for being an eighth-generation immigrant, though.

epic fredda reference

I hate pop history and I hate pseudo-archeologist hackfrauds like Graham Hancock, they have infected generations of people with brainrot

What a nice triangle