Pyrrhus is such an interesting character! It's a shame that he is mostly known for that Pyrrhic victory expression. Pyrrhus of Epiros is Alexander the Great without a successful father!
"These dont look like barbarians, we will see what they can do." -Pyrrhus of Epiros I believe it was said when he was looking at the Roman camp before the battle of Heraclea.
Phyrrus was used to fighting Barbarians his entire life. He also grew up with the Illyrians (who were barbarians) up to the age of 11 if I'm not mistaken so he knew how unorganized they were in battles. That's why he was so surprised to see the Roman formation
@@georgegkagka1773 Not really. Illyrians were no strangers to Greeks. Even if considered as foreigners, thus barbarians, by their immediate Greek neighbors to the south, namely the Epirotans and Macedonians, they were still quite influenced by Greeks particularly in military affairs adopting Greek-style weaponry and tactics. Dardanians (possibly related to Illyrians), who were allies of Athenians, had in fact adopted phalanx tactics earlier than the Macedonians and Epirotans who were Greeks (in fact more than half of Greeks never adopted phalanx tactics). Illyrians had of course adopted quite a number of other elements of Greek culture and of their onomatology we can only say that their names were often "quite very Greek" without being names imported from Greeks, a possible sign that their language may had not been that distant from Greek language, possibly a cousin language like what was Phrygian to Greek (Phrygian had some intelligibility with Greek, so close). Of the Roman army, Pyrrhus was not at all surprised by their formations which were pretty bad. He was rather surprised of their HUGE numbers, their ability to replenish their HUGE losses battle after battle and their logistics.
Pyrrhus. So brave. So bad at diplomacy. Underestimater of the Romans. Slaughterer of his own troops. Quite the legacy though I'm sure not the one he wanted.
Regarding the Battle of Beneventum: The Roman consular army unintentionally encountered King Pyrrhus's forces while already moving south to leave Italy and invade southern Greece (Peloponnese), where his interests were threatened by other Greek powers. The Romans immediately took and fortified a nearby hill, adopting a defensive stance. King Pyrrhus ordered an immediate attack from two sides, but it was not successful. Although the Romans did not leave their fortified camp, Pyrrhus had no reason to remain there and risk a difficult battle that-even if he emerged victorious-would not have yielded any strategic gain. The road was clear for him to continue his Greek expedition. If Pyrrhus had lost the battle, it is obvious that he would not have been able to proceed with his invasion of Greece. His army remained largely intact (the term "Pyrrhic victory" is an exaggeration, referring not to his actual losses, which were not so great, rather highlighting the fact that he couldn't replace his experienced fallen soldiers). For the Romans, it was a so-called "honor of the arms" victory; they stood their ground but definitely did not win the battle. Had they won, Pyrrhus’s army would not have been able to sail and invade southern Greece, where he continued fighting. The strategic Roman decision to fortify a nearby hill and adopt a defensive position was a key factor in the outcome of the battle. By holding their ground and effectively deterring Pyrrhus's forces from attacking, the Romans were able to avoid a direct confrontation and potential defeat. Though this allowed Pyrrhus to retreat and continue his campaign in Greece, but it also prevented a crushing blow to the Roman army. And again !! It is important to note that the term "Pyrrhic victory," which associated with these battles, is somewhat of an exaggeration. While Pyrrhus may have suffered some losses, they were not as devastating rather is a highlight to the fact that he couldn't replace his experienned veteran fallen soldiers.
I think "warrior" is a pretty good description of him. Though doubtlessly brave and inspiring, nothing I read about him indicates someone who could win lopsided victories like the more famous "great captains" of the ancient world. On a related note, I wonder why Pyrrhus was rated so highly by Hannibal, when he and Scipio had won far more impressive victories. Perhaps (I'm guessing) the ancients put a lot of value on personal bravery in their leaders than we do today. Or perhaps Hannibal knew/believed Pyrrhus' victories to be more impressive than we think today.
Epirus was a backwater , barely Greek small kingdom. Pyyrhus befriended Ptolemy, fought under antigonus gonatas, he defeated the Romans twice while outnumbered both times, he went to sicily and defeated the carthaginians, he went to Macedonia and won it's throne. Pyyrhus and pyyrhus alone had the epirotes punching well above their weight for years and years
Pyyrhus is also the last Hellenic general who used the pike phalanx correctly, he supplemented it with specialist light troops and medium infantry to compensate for it's inflexibility.
@@blakeboles2848 this is exactly why, Rome has a much larger population, economy, army, land for a defense in depth, Pyrrhus is operating a campaign across a body of water that of infested by Illyrian pirates at the time and possibly the small Roman navy, Rome has the allies His victories are akin to little Alexander victories. Basically Alexander on a small scale but the Romans are much better troops than the Persians.
There is also the kinship between the two on an ideological and technical level that I think we should account for. Pyrrhus' army in a lot of ways was nearly identical to the Carthaginian army. It was a rag-tag makeshift motley crew of poor fighters who were able to fight the mustered force of the roman Republic very efficiently due to cunning and bravery on behalf of leadership. It is my belief that Hannibal saw much of himself in Pyrrhus
The last Hellenic eagle to ever soar the skies and the greatest of them all! Which is kinda strange to say since he was not the greatest and yet for some unfathomable reason he was.
Antigonus II will be the last person covered in terms of chronological date, but I plan on going back to cover at least a few more minor figures. My video on Antigonus II will release tomorrow and it won't be very long since I plan to revisit Antigonid Macedon in the future.
Incredible work. Truly. I was looking for a biography of Pyrrhus, this was my second video watched, and it is so superior to the first, I am a bit stunned. I feel like I read a book on this incredible flawed warrior-king. Thanks.
Funny how Pyrrhus is probably the most well-known Successor to the average joe (ala his name being used to describe a type of win condition ) despite being a minor player in the grand scheme of the Diadochi wars.
Im glad i saw this! Pyrrhus is one of those words ive only ever read and never heard spoken so i never knew how it was supposed to be pronounced until now.
I love how casually he said “ ima conquer the entire italian peninsula, then defeat carthage (the big cock power of the time) and then go on vacation” That turned out great
The whole “leaving a wrestling ground for the Roman’s and Carthaginians” never made sense to me because he was leaving the area to go fight the Romans! If he genuinely believed that they would not only survive his oncoming war, but become big enough to take on Carthage, then why did he leave to go back and fight them?!? I believe the quote was never actually said
I just finished watching a Kings and Generals videos about him. Thanks Thersites. Btw do you think that Michael VIII could have re-instated a thematic system of sorts in the remaining Byzantine Anatolian holdings?
Macedonian was what? An ethnic identity? Are you nuts? Do you consider Athenians and Spartans as having separate ethnic identities? What is wrong with you Americans mixing up the definition of "ethnic" with "state". Yes, we know you call your state a "nation" but in the true sense of this multi-raped word, it is anything else other than a nation. The word "ethnic" implies 1) Same blood 2) Same language 3) Same religion 4) Same customs. Macedonia, a region of north Greece containing the Greeks' holy mountain Olympus and original homeland of the Dorian tribe was akways populated by Greek tribes, of Dorian stock, that is where they started. If Macedonia was occasionally invaded by non-Greek enemies from the north that strengthened even further their character as Greeks. Macedonians participated in the Olympics that had more strict ethnic/blood laws than Hitler's Nazi regime and they did so even back when they were an ailing poor kingdom on the verge of collapse. You calling them "an ethnos" and implying a separate ethnic identity from other Greeks, let alone from the Epirotans who were basically the same Dorian tribes speaking the exact same Greek dialect, is totally un-historic and well into the realm of para-political propaganda.
On the contrary you have too broad a view. I would consider Spartans and Athenians as separate ethnicities, but both Greek: one Doric, one Ionian. I think you came off way too strong assuming Thersites agrees with the Slavs in current "Macedonia." Everyone acknowledges the ancient Macedonians as Hellenic. In any event the ancients certainly noticed a difference. As for your point about Americans, it's incoherent. You've made the American point, as Americans typically are the ones to lump people together into larger groups
@@kilpatrickkirksimmons5016 Well, then you are changing the meaning of words. Not only people adopt a new meaning for the latin word "nation" but now even the Greek word "ethnos" (i.e. ethnic group) is being changed. I think to have this discussion we need first to agree on a common definition of the words nations/ethnos. The word "nation" is latin. Initially it was the direct translation of the Greek word "ethnos". It meant the collective group of people with common origin, language and religion/customs who shared a common consciousness of their belonging into a common human group irrespective of whether belonging to the same state or not, irrespective of whether they were militarily affiliated or fighting among each other. The word "ethnos" maintains the very same meaning to this day as per Herodotus (same blood, same language, same religion, same customs) and there can be no other definition for this word. The word "nation" though, having been widely used in Western and Eastern Europe for the state creation of the various European states either on the basis of indeed existing ethnic grpups but sometimes on the basis of kings and aristocrats whims (e.g. Belgium a nation?don't think so! France and Britain and Russia also incorporated different ethnic groups within etc.). However it was in the Anglosaxon world and in particular in the states of USA, Canada and Australia where the word "nation" just took a holy different meaning implying merely the state. As such, using the new meaning of "nation:" as merely a state, people have started talking about "nations" when referring to the ancient Greek states. It is weird but this is the case increasingly for the past 20-30 years, it is a recent phenomenon really. As absurd as this can be, it went beyond those boundaries to start now having people talking about "different ethnic groups' when referring to Dorians and Ionians and Macedonians and such - with the later even doing a separate categorisation, only God knows why and under what motives! And my question is : what is wrong with the word "tribe"? What is wrong with the term "tribal". Why do they need to use distorted usage of the word "nation:"' and then even go to the extent of start abusing the Greek word "ethnos" to put it in that propapandist narrative. Is that how we want to do history? I an all against this. Greek history is crystal clear. You have a collection of Greek tribes. Talking Greek dialects, having the same customs, same belief sets, same basic culture with whatever regional differentiation which you will find in every single ethnic group around the world. The fact that they lived in separate states fighting among each other was the norm back then, it was not what made them into "separate nations". Egyptians when not living in a single kingdom (a proto-Empire) were fighting among each other as well. So did the Semitic tribes, so did the Iranian tribes, so did the Indian tribes, the Chinese, the Japanese, everyone. Without a unifying power, usually kings or aristocracies, ethnic groups were always divided in tribal settings and fought among each other. Unification usually was done under duress, under threat of an imminent invasion and that is what happened in Greece during the 2nd Persian invasion, albeit short lived and then again under the leadership of Philip II and his son, Alexander the Great. This happened quickly and not organically (Greeks needed a couple of centuries more to fuse organically- but Philip II mastered the Panhellenic alliance under pressure to face off the imminent Persian threat which was rising up again at that time) so that it met with resistance by the previous powers namely Athens, Thebes and Sparta as well as a rising Rhodes so that the eventual unification was not possible, thus Greeks falling pray to expanding Romans. This would be the same result if Athens or Sparta had managed to do that unification - and this is well understood by everyone. None could unite Greece back then, it had to be an organic process that required at least a couple of centuries more of collective work and exchange. Latins were in fact undergoing the same process. Romans united the Latins under their boot but reality is that they faced serious opposition with lots of rebellions and resistance. However in their case, Rome had grew far stronger and had its basis of power right in the hearth of Italy so they could put out each and every rebellion and make sure none rose again (mostly by taking the men of the subdued Latin tribes and sending them abroad in the legions and installing them as colonists in far fetched lands, replacing them back home with slave force in the creation of the latifundia, i.e. the big industrial-like farms rich Romans founded). All in all, as I see it, we really need to distinguish terms such as "state", "tribe" and "ethnic group". With the word "nation"' I really do not know, I am giving up, its loss is irreversible by now. And it is a shame.
@@kilpatrickkirksimmons5016 I am also noticing a slightly different usage of the term "greek" and "hellenic" in your text, which is also the result of propaganda of which you are the victim. The terms "greek" and "hellenic" are identical and interchangeable. If the word "hellenic" was then in later Roman times used by Jews and Christians to denote "pagans" that has nothing to do with the time-framework we speak and then even then it was a short lived period 200 AD to 500 AD and then the term "Hellenic"' is used again in its original format. To be noted the distorted usage "Hellenic=pagan" was mostly done in the Middle East, not in mainland Greece. This is a fact that even historians do not pay attention much to it - they just blindly read texts and don't count on their provenance. Also the relatively new term "Hellenistic", used to describe the culture of the Greek-founded kingdoms in the post-Alexander era makes the term "Hellenic" in the eyes of foreigners to sound somehow "a more generic term than Greek". Which is plain wrong. A neologism (i.e. a new definition of a word) cannot be applied retrospectively back to history! As such Greek=Hellenic=Ionian (note: Asiatic people use the term "Ionian"' as an ethnic term for all Greeks). Greek is used in the West, Ionian is used in the East and Hellenic is used by Greeks themselves. Semantics! They are very important! The very word comes from the Greek word "Simantikos" which means.... well... important! Hehe! Really we need to pay attention to our definitions.
@@ThersitestheHistorian Yea, idk. Im a staunch BC/AD advocate. I personally really hate BCE cause it secularizes the calendar and tries to hide the religious and historical background of the calendar. I feel like using BCE/CE is just a cop out for the intelligentsia to pretend Christianity hasnt had a profound impact on our society. Ik, i shouldnt get this mad about this type of stuff but idk. I love your videos nonetheless. Found you a week ago, prolly watched at least 50 of your videos
@@klausmascarenhas3873 the secular BCE means "before the common era." CE of course means "common era." I prefer BC and AD but if I were atheist or just another religion I can see why it'd stick in the craw to say "year of our Lord." Either one is fine.
IT IS GOOD TO LEARN GREEK AND YOU SPEAK BUT YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MANY WORDS THAT YOU SPEAK GREEK ROOTS DO YOU KNOW?IF YOU SEARCH HOW MANY WORDS ARE GREEK THOSE WHO HAVE ROOTS IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE WILL BE SURPRISED
Pyrrhus is such an interesting character! It's a shame that he is mostly known for that Pyrrhic victory expression. Pyrrhus of Epiros is Alexander the Great without a successful father!
or without aristote
I know it's kinda randomly asking but do anyone know a good website to stream new movies online ?
@Abdiel Brayden Try FlixZone. You can find it on google :)
@Rocco Davis Yup, have been watching on Flixzone for since april myself :D
@Rocco Davis thanks, I signed up and it seems like they got a lot of movies there :D I really appreciate it!!
"These dont look like barbarians, we will see what they can do." -Pyrrhus of Epiros
I believe it was said when he was looking at the Roman camp before the battle of Heraclea.
That sounds like something that Pyrrhus would say.
Phyrrus was used to fighting Barbarians his entire life. He also grew up with the Illyrians (who were barbarians) up to the age of 11 if I'm not mistaken so he knew how unorganized they were in battles. That's why he was so surprised to see the Roman formation
@@georgegkagka1773 Not really. Illyrians were no strangers to Greeks. Even if considered as foreigners, thus barbarians, by their immediate Greek neighbors to the south, namely the Epirotans and Macedonians, they were still quite influenced by Greeks particularly in military affairs adopting Greek-style weaponry and tactics. Dardanians (possibly related to Illyrians), who were allies of Athenians, had in fact adopted phalanx tactics earlier than the Macedonians and Epirotans who were Greeks (in fact more than half of Greeks never adopted phalanx tactics). Illyrians had of course adopted quite a number of other elements of Greek culture and of their onomatology we can only say that their names were often "quite very Greek" without being names imported from Greeks, a possible sign that their language may had not been that distant from Greek language, possibly a cousin language like what was Phrygian to Greek (Phrygian had some intelligibility with Greek, so close).
Of the Roman army, Pyrrhus was not at all surprised by their formations which were pretty bad. He was rather surprised of their HUGE numbers, their ability to replenish their HUGE losses battle after battle and their logistics.
@@georgegkagka1773 it’s also because Pyrrhus was informed by his Greek and Italian allies that they were barbarians.
@@historyrepeat402 yeah, he was like what is this, why are these barbarians fighting in a Greek phalanx formation?
Pyrrhus. So brave. So bad at diplomacy. Underestimater of the Romans. Slaughterer of his own troops. Quite the legacy though I'm sure not the one he wanted.
Tbf he was pretty close to getting rome to capitulate.
Greeks of that era had a bad habit of killing their own armies.
@@austinford1530everyone who had a major war with the Roman’s imagined they were close to capitulating.
Regarding the Battle of Beneventum:
The Roman consular army unintentionally encountered King Pyrrhus's forces while already moving south to leave Italy and invade southern Greece (Peloponnese), where his interests were threatened by other Greek powers. The Romans immediately took and fortified a nearby hill, adopting a defensive stance. King Pyrrhus ordered an immediate attack from two sides, but it was not successful. Although the Romans did not leave their fortified camp, Pyrrhus had no reason to remain there and risk a difficult battle that-even if he emerged victorious-would not have yielded any strategic gain. The road was clear for him to continue his Greek expedition.
If Pyrrhus had lost the battle, it is obvious that he would not have been able to proceed with his invasion of Greece. His army remained largely intact (the term "Pyrrhic victory" is an exaggeration, referring not to his actual losses, which were not so great, rather highlighting the fact that he couldn't replace his experienced fallen soldiers). For the Romans, it was a so-called "honor of the arms" victory; they stood their ground but definitely did not win the battle. Had they won, Pyrrhus’s army would not have been able to sail and invade southern Greece, where he continued fighting.
The strategic Roman decision to fortify a nearby hill and adopt a defensive position was a key factor in the outcome of the battle. By holding their ground and effectively deterring Pyrrhus's forces from attacking, the Romans were able to avoid a direct confrontation and potential defeat. Though this allowed Pyrrhus to retreat and continue his campaign in Greece, but it also prevented a crushing blow to the Roman army.
And again !! It is important to note that the term "Pyrrhic victory," which associated with these battles, is somewhat of an exaggeration. While Pyrrhus may have suffered some losses, they were not as devastating rather is a highlight to the fact that he couldn't replace his experienned veteran fallen soldiers.
I think "warrior" is a pretty good description of him. Though doubtlessly brave and inspiring, nothing I read about him indicates someone who could win lopsided victories like the more famous "great captains" of the ancient world.
On a related note, I wonder why Pyrrhus was rated so highly by Hannibal, when he and Scipio had won far more impressive victories. Perhaps (I'm guessing) the ancients put a lot of value on personal bravery in their leaders than we do today. Or perhaps Hannibal knew/believed Pyrrhus' victories to be more impressive than we think today.
Epirus was a backwater , barely Greek small kingdom.
Pyyrhus befriended Ptolemy, fought under antigonus gonatas, he defeated the Romans twice while outnumbered both times, he went to sicily and defeated the carthaginians, he went to Macedonia and won it's throne.
Pyyrhus and pyyrhus alone had the epirotes punching well above their weight for years and years
Pyyrhus is also the last Hellenic general who used the pike phalanx correctly, he supplemented it with specialist light troops and medium infantry to compensate for it's inflexibility.
You can count on one hand the men in history as bad ass
@@blakeboles2848 this is exactly why, Rome has a much larger population, economy, army, land for a defense in depth, Pyrrhus is operating a campaign across a body of water that of infested by Illyrian pirates at the time and possibly the small Roman navy, Rome has the allies
His victories are akin to little Alexander victories. Basically Alexander on a small scale but the Romans are much better troops than the Persians.
There is also the kinship between the two on an ideological and technical level that I think we should account for.
Pyrrhus' army in a lot of ways was nearly identical to the Carthaginian army. It was a rag-tag makeshift motley crew of poor fighters who were able to fight the mustered force of the roman Republic very efficiently due to cunning and bravery on behalf of leadership. It is my belief that Hannibal saw much of himself in Pyrrhus
The last Hellenic eagle to ever soar the skies and the greatest of them all!
Which is kinda strange to say since he was not the greatest and yet for some unfathomable reason he was.
Now you know how I felt writing the script for this video.
He seemed the most humble.
Pyhrrus was not Hellenic, Epirus never was Hellennic Kingdom. Molosians, Chaons, and Thesprotians are Illyrian tribes.
@@hilmimehmeti5348
Epirus was indeed a Hellenic Kingdom. Molossians etc were Greek speakers.
Pyyrhus is as captivating figure.
He never lost a battle while losing every war.
A tactical mastermind. A strategic cluster fuck.
The most underrated and my favorite general in history.
Interesting. I think he is overrated. 😂
@@hunterharpool4001i think hes underrated. Alexander with competent enemies and severe ADHD.
Pyrrhus ADHD wasn't just severe, it was full blown chronic. It killed him... indirectly
cant wait to listen to this, Pyrrhus is awesome
Pyrrhus the eagle of epirus 🇬🇷
I just realized Pyrrhus got a free chicken dinner every time he busted open someone's spleen infection.
Hannibal thought extremely high of him. He only put two men above himself as a general, Alexander and Pyrrus.
Pyrrhus' life is a wild ride. Amazing video my man. Looking forward to (what I assume will be the final) on Antigonous II.
Antigonus II will be the last person covered in terms of chronological date, but I plan on going back to cover at least a few more minor figures. My video on Antigonus II will release tomorrow and it won't be very long since I plan to revisit Antigonid Macedon in the future.
Pyrrhus of Epiros
Defeated by rooftile 272 BC.
*Killed by a roof tile throwing old woman whose son he killed in 272 BCE
@@darrynmurphy2038 wait whatbi thought he just was stunned and then beheaded
Because of the love I have for Pyrrhus I have subscribed to this channel
Pyrrhus was the last great ancient Greek. He was the second greatest warrior after Achilles. Achilles Pyrrhus and Alexander
Incredible work. Truly. I was looking for a biography of Pyrrhus, this was my second video watched, and it is so superior to the first, I am a bit stunned. I feel like I read a book on this incredible flawed warrior-king. Thanks.
Funny how Pyrrhus is probably the most well-known Successor to the average joe (ala his name being used to describe a type of win condition ) despite being a minor player in the grand scheme of the Diadochi wars.
another great video your channel is going to grow
Im glad i saw this! Pyrrhus is one of those words ive only ever read and never heard spoken so i never knew how it was supposed to be pronounced until now.
Excellent video 👍
Who would win? A weak simp Attic helmet or Chad stronk tile clay Boi?
Lol
Good lecture
I love how casually he said “ ima conquer the entire italian peninsula, then defeat carthage (the big cock power of the time) and then go on vacation”
That turned out great
The whole “leaving a wrestling ground for the Roman’s and Carthaginians” never made sense to me because he was leaving the area to go fight the Romans! If he genuinely believed that they would not only survive his oncoming war, but become big enough to take on Carthage, then why did he leave to go back and fight them?!? I believe the quote was never actually said
If pyrrus had access to roman census, he knew he don't hv manpower to defeat them.
I just finished watching a Kings and Generals videos about him. Thanks Thersites.
Btw do you think that Michael VIII could have re-instated a thematic system of sorts in the remaining Byzantine Anatolian holdings?
Where can i find the illustrated
1:04:40 That's what we call a Paul Harvey "Turn the Page" moment. ;)
the Diadochi fight like World of Warcraft clans
Pyrrhus was more interesting than successful, in the same vein as how the Dos Equis guy isn't James Bond.
What an insane analogy. Good job
Hpeiros = Apeiros
Koinon Apeirotan 🇬🇷
A damn legend.
Too many ads
@1:03:15, but was it murder?
Spartacus! Spartacus! Spartacus! facebook
അച്ചായന്റെ വീഡിയോ കണ്ടതിനുശേഷം വന്നവർ ഉണ്ടോ?..
Great adventurer and warrior...terrible strategist.
57:35
wtf
Macedonian was what? An ethnic identity? Are you nuts? Do you consider Athenians and Spartans as having separate ethnic identities? What is wrong with you Americans mixing up the definition of "ethnic" with "state". Yes, we know you call your state a "nation" but in the true sense of this multi-raped word, it is anything else other than a nation. The word "ethnic" implies 1) Same blood 2) Same language 3) Same religion 4) Same customs. Macedonia, a region of north Greece containing the Greeks' holy mountain Olympus and original homeland of the Dorian tribe was akways populated by Greek tribes, of Dorian stock, that is where they started. If Macedonia was occasionally invaded by non-Greek enemies from the north that strengthened even further their character as Greeks. Macedonians participated in the Olympics that had more strict ethnic/blood laws than Hitler's Nazi regime and they did so even back when they were an ailing poor kingdom on the verge of collapse.
You calling them "an ethnos" and implying a separate ethnic identity from other Greeks, let alone from the Epirotans who were basically the same Dorian tribes speaking the exact same Greek dialect, is totally un-historic and well into the realm of para-political propaganda.
On the contrary you have too broad a view. I would consider Spartans and Athenians as separate ethnicities, but both Greek: one Doric, one Ionian. I think you came off way too strong assuming Thersites agrees with the Slavs in current "Macedonia." Everyone acknowledges the ancient Macedonians as Hellenic. In any event the ancients certainly noticed a difference. As for your point about Americans, it's incoherent. You've made the American point, as Americans typically are the ones to lump people together into larger groups
@@kilpatrickkirksimmons5016 Well, then you are changing the meaning of words. Not only people adopt a new meaning for the latin word "nation" but now even the Greek word "ethnos" (i.e. ethnic group) is being changed. I think to have this discussion we need first to agree on a common definition of the words nations/ethnos.
The word "nation" is latin. Initially it was the direct translation of the Greek word "ethnos". It meant the collective group of people with common origin, language and religion/customs who shared a common consciousness of their belonging into a common human group irrespective of whether belonging to the same state or not, irrespective of whether they were militarily affiliated or fighting among each other. The word "ethnos" maintains the very same meaning to this day as per Herodotus (same blood, same language, same religion, same customs) and there can be no other definition for this word. The word "nation" though, having been widely used in Western and Eastern Europe for the state creation of the various European states either on the basis of indeed existing ethnic grpups but sometimes on the basis of kings and aristocrats whims (e.g. Belgium a nation?don't think so! France and Britain and Russia also incorporated different ethnic groups within etc.). However it was in the Anglosaxon world and in particular in the states of USA, Canada and Australia where the word "nation" just took a holy different meaning implying merely the state.
As such, using the new meaning of "nation:" as merely a state, people have started talking about "nations" when referring to the ancient Greek states. It is weird but this is the case increasingly for the past 20-30 years, it is a recent phenomenon really. As absurd as this can be, it went beyond those boundaries to start now having people talking about "different ethnic groups' when referring to Dorians and Ionians and Macedonians and such - with the later even doing a separate categorisation, only God knows why and under what motives!
And my question is : what is wrong with the word "tribe"? What is wrong with the term "tribal". Why do they need to use distorted usage of the word "nation:"' and then even go to the extent of start abusing the Greek word "ethnos" to put it in that propapandist narrative. Is that how we want to do history?
I an all against this. Greek history is crystal clear. You have a collection of Greek tribes. Talking Greek dialects, having the same customs, same belief sets, same basic culture with whatever regional differentiation which you will find in every single ethnic group around the world. The fact that they lived in separate states fighting among each other was the norm back then, it was not what made them into "separate nations". Egyptians when not living in a single kingdom (a proto-Empire) were fighting among each other as well. So did the Semitic tribes, so did the Iranian tribes, so did the Indian tribes, the Chinese, the Japanese, everyone. Without a unifying power, usually kings or aristocracies, ethnic groups were always divided in tribal settings and fought among each other. Unification usually was done under duress, under threat of an imminent invasion and that is what happened in Greece during the 2nd Persian invasion, albeit short lived and then again under the leadership of Philip II and his son, Alexander the Great. This happened quickly and not organically (Greeks needed a couple of centuries more to fuse organically- but Philip II mastered the Panhellenic alliance under pressure to face off the imminent Persian threat which was rising up again at that time) so that it met with resistance by the previous powers namely Athens, Thebes and Sparta as well as a rising Rhodes so that the eventual unification was not possible, thus Greeks falling pray to expanding Romans. This would be the same result if Athens or Sparta had managed to do that unification - and this is well understood by everyone. None could unite Greece back then, it had to be an organic process that required at least a couple of centuries more of collective work and exchange.
Latins were in fact undergoing the same process. Romans united the Latins under their boot but reality is that they faced serious opposition with lots of rebellions and resistance. However in their case, Rome had grew far stronger and had its basis of power right in the hearth of Italy so they could put out each and every rebellion and make sure none rose again (mostly by taking the men of the subdued Latin tribes and sending them abroad in the legions and installing them as colonists in far fetched lands, replacing them back home with slave force in the creation of the latifundia, i.e. the big industrial-like farms rich Romans founded).
All in all, as I see it, we really need to distinguish terms such as "state", "tribe" and "ethnic group". With the word "nation"' I really do not know, I am giving up, its loss is irreversible by now. And it is a shame.
@@kilpatrickkirksimmons5016 I am also noticing a slightly different usage of the term "greek" and "hellenic" in your text, which is also the result of propaganda of which you are the victim. The terms "greek" and "hellenic" are identical and interchangeable. If the word "hellenic" was then in later Roman times used by Jews and Christians to denote "pagans" that has nothing to do with the time-framework we speak and then even then it was a short lived period 200 AD to 500 AD and then the term "Hellenic"' is used again in its original format. To be noted the distorted usage "Hellenic=pagan" was mostly done in the Middle East, not in mainland Greece. This is a fact that even historians do not pay attention much to it - they just blindly read texts and don't count on their provenance. Also the relatively new term "Hellenistic", used to describe the culture of the Greek-founded kingdoms in the post-Alexander era makes the term "Hellenic" in the eyes of foreigners to sound somehow "a more generic term than Greek". Which is plain wrong. A neologism (i.e. a new definition of a word) cannot be applied retrospectively back to history!
As such Greek=Hellenic=Ionian (note: Asiatic people use the term "Ionian"' as an ethnic term for all Greeks). Greek is used in the West, Ionian is used in the East and Hellenic is used by Greeks themselves.
Semantics! They are very important! The very word comes from the Greek word "Simantikos" which means.... well... important! Hehe! Really we need to pay attention to our definitions.
Why do you use BCE? Seems pointless not to use BC or AD.
It really comes down to personal preference and I have always preferred the look and sound of BCE and CE.
@@ThersitestheHistorian Yea, idk. Im a staunch BC/AD advocate. I personally really hate BCE cause it secularizes the calendar and tries to hide the religious and historical background of the calendar. I feel like using BCE/CE is just a cop out for the intelligentsia to pretend Christianity hasnt had a profound impact on our society.
Ik, i shouldnt get this mad about this type of stuff but idk. I love your videos nonetheless. Found you a week ago, prolly watched at least 50 of your videos
@@MinecraftLivelyTrue BCE of what? Cristo! So use BC...
@@klausmascarenhas3873 the secular BCE means "before the common era." CE of course means "common era." I prefer BC and AD but if I were atheist or just another religion I can see why it'd stick in the craw to say "year of our Lord." Either one is fine.
@@kilpatrickkirksimmons5016
I guess that once one goes
AD/BC, its hard to go.back !! :)
Isn't it epirus not epiros
The actual Greek suffix is "-os". The "-us" suffix is Latin.
Original Greek literal transliteration would be with the "os".
Ty guys , I love the comments 👍
IT IS GOOD TO LEARN GREEK AND YOU SPEAK BUT YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MANY WORDS THAT YOU SPEAK GREEK ROOTS DO YOU KNOW?IF YOU SEARCH HOW MANY WORDS ARE GREEK THOSE WHO HAVE ROOTS IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE WILL BE SURPRISED
Epiros is the greek name while epirus is yhe Latinised