Spears are everywhere bows,are everywhere, roofs are everywhere, farming is everywhere, shoes are everywhere There's so so so many things invented on every continent by every people But as soon as it's a pyramid it's "OMg WhY ARe ThE Y EvErYWhErE MuSt Be GLoBaL AliEn CiViLiZAtiOn"
I mean those are all things related to human needs, we don’t need beliefs about anything to come up with simple and effective tools. But pyramids, and I’m not trying to support the alien conspiracies, just don’t follow a simple logic for burial or worship. Why would people all over the world choose megalithic structures instead of more intricate rituals with less manual labor and material requirements? But there is a more fundamental incorrect assumption; human societies weren’t separate all the way back. We do see that our myths around the world connect a very very long time ago via constellation based myths and orbit analyses and so there is a pretty reasonable logic to say that pyramids/worship are just really freakin old ideas that spread around the world with diasporas.
@ it’s just really nice to make a post on a subject an get replies about that subject. Not some wild tangent to a tangent to the subject so you stay on the app arguing about that. No you just get a find some article they post and {shock horror} read the article. Perhaps it’s a home brew with 7 views or a news page with a billion you still get _that_ prompted and not some random bullshit.
also a big fan of how easy it is to prune your timeline. Someone being a dick? Remove their ability to quote post you or reply! Then block and forget forever!
As someone who grew up in the Deep South, the lost cause myth and its myriad of sister myths were incredibly frustrating to deal with once you learned the truth. History is rough, bleak, and amazing at the same time. We do no one a service by trying to wash away the grit and grim of our reality. We are meant to learn from it, not hide it away.
I will say, though, the people who think the Ancient Egyptians built the Pyramids with advanced futuristic technology all their own, those people come up with some of the craziest worldbuilding ideas, like that the Great Pyramid generates and transmits "energy" and the different chambers fulfill different functions as part of that... man, I wish I could design a dungeon that was that creative
Same dude. I'm addicted to watching their videos for the creative fiction. They'll see a rock Peru, read an article about ants lifting 10x their bodyweight and construct an elaborate alien ant-human hybrid culture from those prompts alone. "And the Nazca lines? It's proof of alien ant overlords" type shit
It's vindicating whenever a historian uses facts and logic to explain how yes, humans *could have* built the Pyramids, across many cultures, at many points in time!
On your bit about imperial powers dehumanizing their opponents and destroying records, this is exactly what happened with the Roman conquests of Gaul. The Gauls were a much more developed and civilized people than believed with a proud craft-driven and artistic culture, and they were a sort of near-peer of Rome who had even sacked Rome at one point, but there's this pervasive myth of them being backwater barbarians and savages too stupid to even have a writing system because the Romans destroyed every record Gaul had that they could get their hands on. There are surviving written records from the Gauls out there, but it's extremely esoteric knowledge and hard to find. These people were also renowned for "inventing chainmail" (the reality of this is a bit muddied, but it shows how prominent it was for their smiths and high class warriors to be known for it) and yet people always depict them all as too stupid to have armor and going into battle naked... Because it was a thing *some of them* would do.
As a Roman history nerd, the Romans conquered like that a lot but hey, The Gauls and celts got to be auxiliaries and were granted citizenship after their service was done. So not denying the bad stuff (ofc) but you can’t deny that Caesar took a big leap of faith when he went to go conquer Gaul for the republic, hell he even did another leap of faith and discovered Britannia for the Romans. Also the myth about the Gauls being naked in battle, yeah I dislike this too since it really doesn’t make sense and ancient people were still people so they would still have definitely worn at least some clothing in battle but yes there were some who fought without clothing, that being rare though. Roman propaganda really helped alot in painting the Gauls and other groups they didn’t like as savages but hey I can’t really get mad when i’ve poured hours upon hours into studying Ancient Rome from it’s formation as a little Latin town all the way to 1453 when the last bastion of Rome finally fell. Again I am not an expert so don’t judge me too much if I got somethings wrong. Also I would like to point out Celtic helmets had cool little birds on them and Celtic helmets and armor did influence Roman armor in some ways wether it be the Gallic helmets (this term is disputed) or the Lorica Hamata (yes that’s the chain mail). the celts had these cool war horns called a “Carnyx” which sounds pretty terrifying. I thought this would be interesting to share so I don’t seem too one sided. Anyways I’m just sayin I can’t really blame the Romans for being a product of their time, they were a growing power and they wanted more land and more glory just like any empire that ever existed, hell even the celts conquered and fought themselves and the Germans from time to time. Shame a bunch of modern historians make the mistake of thinking that the Gauls were like super tribalistic though yeah. I think some Romans actually respected the Gauls as fighters cause the auxiliary Gallic units, there was one cavalry unit called the “Ala gallorum et thracum classiana invicta bis torquata civium romanorum” (yes this is real) which I think if I remember correctly, they were a major force in winning alot of battles thus earning them the long title.
Also a roman history nerd but they were really good at eliminating a cultures history and values in the eyes of everyone else. Romes greatest strength was taking a population, chewing it up, and spitting out anything that wasn't of value to the state. Well that and logistics. Good god they were good at logistics.
@@DesksAndDorks yep, can’t deny that the Romans were good at assimilating and destroying peoples they didn’t really like, like the carthaginians lol. Also yeah, logistics did go hard.
It's one of the things that interests me the most about the second punic war. We still know so much about how great Hannibal was despite him being Romes number 1 enemy. I suspect it is due to how much admiration Scipip Africanus had for him but still.
Loving this! Really hyped to talk to you soon :) Quick nitpick: Eratosthenes' experiment was not to prove the Earth was round - it was already assumed to be the case through simple observation for a very long time by the time he showed up. His intention was only to calculate the circumference of the planet, which he did (he was slightly off due to the Earth not being a perfect sphere, but a two percent margin of error is nothing when you're measuring a planet with a couple of sticks.) Still pretty shocked by that comment you mentioned about Mansa Musa being "Insignificant". I mean, the man's loose change destabilized the economies of several countries for years when he travelled through them :/
I was always under the impression that ancient people were actually geniuses. I feel like the increase in people who don't understand how they did what they did indicates a loss of basic knowledge on the things those ancient people considered trivially easy.
My biggest pet peeve is imposing modern morality and ethics on historical figures and events rather than judging them by their own standards, aka “presentism” which completely ignores the complexity and nuance of historical, cultural, and political context.
This is pretty context dependent. If we're discussing for example Andrew Jackson as a historical figure, yeah, we should judge him in context of the early 1800's, but, if we're discussing if he should be venerated today as a great American hero, we DO need to look at him through a modern lens to see if he would be considered a hero if he lived today.
@@DesksAndDorks Like, again, done as a joke. "Some guy you've likely never heard of. Ghengis... Kahn? I dunno, don't think he ever did anything." Something like that.
I'm a pirate history enthusiast. And the amount of misconceptions I see still perpetrated by pop culture and even pop history documentaries is staggering. You have no idea.
Writing and telling history "Objectively" AKA, with no Political or Moral goal behind the telling, is something that We came up with in the 20th century, and have since began to Idolise. What we acknowledge, but fail to understand is that history is an Art, not a science. Humans learn best from the examples of other humans, and when we attempt to tell history as a science, we deny ourselves the very best of that learning. When we refuse to write the past with purpose, we also are refusing to write the future.
That's a glorified way to write propaganda and phone something into what it isn't. It's up to the researcher or reader to make an opinion and add their own feelings to it for THEMSELVES. Books/reports putting anyone or anything in some political retrospective instead of stating the findings for everyone to contextualise themselves is moronic and borderline dangerous
@@kurodo9926 Its only dangerous if you dont think that the Morals and Rights respected today deserve to be believed in and put to good use in the future.
@@datdabdoe1417 ah yes. Because current age is supposed to be the arbiter of righteousness over every other timeframe in history despite everyone still being human. Not only that, you so needlessly bunch up todays Morals and Rights like they are the same everywhere on the globe. As if outside of US half the time people won't throw a stone into a gay dude instead of seeing them as human. You also talk as if the current trends are impossible to just be a trend for the time being, as if no future happenings will weaponize the ideals into, idk... war?
@@datdabdoe1417 ah yes. Because current age is supposed to be the arbiter of righteousness over every other timeframe in history despite everyone still being human back then too. Not only that, you so needlessly bunch up todays Morals and Rights like they are the same everywhere on the globe. As if outside of US half the time people won't throw a stone into a dude instead of seeing them as human because they're lgbt. You also talk as if the current system is perfect, as if no future reports or happenings will weaponize the ideals into harmful propaganda by framing the atrocities into a narrative made to manipulate and put people at each others throats.
The Mesopotamian civilizations have always interested me. The one that I really like are the Assyrians, mainly due to them being contributors of science, warfare, literature and culture (Library of Ashurbanipal), architecture (Possibly the ones who actually did the hanging gardens of Babylon but at the capital city Nineveh), and much more. They get a bad reputation for being very cruel and brutal due to their own battle depictions on many murals. First of all, I found out recently during the Neo-Assyrian empire that they treated their subjects well, and only went punished them harshly if they rebelled. Secondly, they depicted their conquest in murals to 1. scare off any would-be rebellions spearheaded by governors or vassals 2. their culture glorified war and conflict.
@@DesksAndDorks Also hot take here, the Egyptians are overrated in the bronze age. They would not have had it made if they were not near the nile nor have geographical advantages.
The funny thing about the ancient alien conspiracists is that they consistently nitpick and scrutinize the work of archaeologists, but then when some whackjob says something that makes no logical sense, they all just go along with it without question.
idk how to best say this but it's the people who diminish or elevate people's achievements based on ethnicity who are trying to insert politics into history
History is incredibly political by its nature. Every historian has a political outlook and many historians or contemporary writers have interpreted and will continue to interpret history through the lens of their own beliefs. The Tudors are a great example of this -- in Victorian times, historians, headed by James Anthony Froude, defined Henry VIII as a strong and great king, while seeing Elizabeth I as weak and useless. While the latter impression has faded, the idea of Henry as an aspirational or at least impressive figure has not. The fact of the matter is that every monarch of the House of Tudor was a ruthless despot, but Henry was one of the worst and also pretty lacklustre in terms of most historic accomplishments. On top of this, historical figures and, consequentially, historical writers are themselves politicians or politically aligned, pushing their own narratives and ideas in their works. History is written by the victors and every victor must be politically capable. With this all in mind, I find it baffling that someone could be so blind to knowledge to believe that history and politics could be discussed separately (ignoring all of the people who are abusing the idea for their own political gain and therefore actually inherently politicising the discussion of history) unless they actually know almost nothing about history and so shouldn't be considered authorities on interpreting history. Also, could someone please explain to me how a person could hear "This guy single-handedly ruined local economies with the amount of gold he chucked around for free" and say "Ah yes, a small and insignificant local leader"? I know that British imperialist historians were the worst (looks at CJ Rhodes with murderous intent) but what??
We have so much evidence about the evolution of pyramid construction. The stepped pyramid shows how they went from square tombs to the general shape, and the bent pyramid shows how they refined the design through trial and error
Hearing someone call Mansa Musa a local lord of little relevance is like the biggest faux pas that I didnt even know existed. This is a take that I thought wouldve been impossible. Richest man before the indistrial revolution in human history? Destabilized the global economy by giving a small portion of his riches in alms? Character in Poptropica? Yeah no but hes Muslim and from Africa which basic just means he was a small tribal leader If I had to come up with the 1000 most influential men in human history, Mansa Musa would be nearer to the top of that list than a lot of Historical figures I have seen these types gooning over
I have thought back on this more and I am even more confused. From a Euro-centric perspective, Mansa Musa is STILL one of the most influential men in History because he is the main reasons Europeans even began viewing Africa as a place of great wealth and resources. Outside of Egypt, it is arguable that Mansa Musa is more important to the Middle East and Europe than he is in Africa just because of the effect he had on these regions perception of Africa. This is so much more racist because Mansa Musa is the most recognizable African Leader in ancient history to the West, to the point that he may be the only historical African king people are taught about throughout primary education outside of Egypt, which just has strong ties to the Roman and Christian historical narratives, and this guy still tried to downplay his influence. I DOUBT he can name another African King, meaning he likely considers all of Africa and all Africans to be entirely historically irrelevant
I think people who complain about politics in history (like me) would actually agree with you. What we mean is that current-day politics should not justify lying about history. There's a concerning ammount of people who believe it is okay to alter history on , making it less accurate in educational material or other depiction for the sake of politics. It doesn't matter if you are left or right, history should be about showing the truth and justifying statements with sources or evidence. Making stuff up or changing it is NEVER okay.
Ok, ok, but... Available evidence shows a very strong political bias. Writing was made by and for specific classes, wars were fought by certain classes on behalf of others. When evidence is dug up it's been interpreted by people from modern classes with a similar bias (look at historians still glazing Cicero). Also, I doubt tons of people have made the discission that lying about history is ok for political aims like you said, you probably just disagree with them or didn't like the depiction. The truth is the majority of human experience is left out of the historical record due to political biases that strongly correlate with modern political biases in academia (elitism most of all). The historical facts about women, children, working classes, populations without writing, and many others, have been neglected and that neglect is reproduced in modern settings. A great deal of our understanding about the past is based on assumptions regarding evidence or a lack thereof. History has always been an imaginative process as much as an evidence based one, it's part of how our views of history changes over time. If you're actually proposing people stop changing history, then history as we know it stops and would remain a reflection of the 21st century. But that's just my historically contingent and politically biased opinion.
Even as someone who has only done enough research into topics to do the worldbuilding I do, some of these ideas are so asinine. It really takes someone not doing any amount of critical thinking to believe some of the things they do about how ancient people lived.
Good on you for calling out the notion of “keeping politics out of history.” The idea that “politicizing history” is some new postmodern incursion on an imaginarily pure, more high-minded tradition of history and historiography is naive at best, and intentionally disingenuous at best. Historians of both the distant and recent past viewed and interpreted history through a political lens to no less of a degree than modern historians.
@@CantusTropus “Depravity” by the standards of Spanish dudes trying to take the area over who would stand benefit from exaggerating them? Everything depraved they have done has been done by Europeans. Yes, I do realize the Mexica were not popular, but they would likely not have lasted much longer considering the Puripecha had beaten them before. The Aztecs were a warrior people yes, but they also had cleaner cities than Europe and public schools. The Spanish did not improve the lives of those they conquered either because most were just enslaved anyways.
I thought Aztecs were judged based on morality that was appropriate to the time period. Unless you think Catholicism had a lukewarm reaction to human sacrifice back then. Which would be an even more insane take.
One which annoys me is the 'Britain invented concentration camps' misconception. Britain was fighting an assymetric war against the Boers and tried to make an early analogue of refugee camps to evacuate the local populace out of the line of fire by 'concentrating' them into small, easily defendable locations. Because there were no neutral, supranational organisations like the U.N to take care of thing Britain used it's own soldiers. This legitimised the camps as a valid target so convoys and communications to and from these camps were targeted. A lack of supplied coupled with medical knowledge from this period being less than our own turned this poor attempt at humanitarianism into a disaster with both soliders and civilians suffering from supply shortages and disease outbreaks as conditions nosedived. Shitler's minions took inspiration from the worst aspects of these camps as the foundation of their own atrocities, but ffs Britain wasn't gassing people it wanted to work for it.
Love when a channel gives me a good surprise when it comes to reality. Have you seen miniminuteman? His whole channel has a lot of your vibes about how our ancient alien conspiracies are really dismissive about human achievement
I'm not really involved in the ttrpg space and I'm not super knowledgeable on world history by any metric, but I'm glad I stumbled across your channel. I think the first one I watched was "Low Fantasy is Best Fantasy" or something like that. It's very interesting listening to you speak on these topics and how they can be applied to rpgs and worldbuilding, and hearing your actually educated perspective on these things. You've gained a sub. Your channel is a gem.
I've been learning a lot more about ancient peoples societies, it's so cool getting out of the narrative that we're the most developed people ever, and that they all had lives and societies and problems of their own
I find when people complain of politics in history, they are complaining about viewing history thtough a modern political lense. As this can distort what actually happened in favor of the historians political bias.
To add to carbon dating, there's also those of us who were taught about caron dating, but not actually taught about carbon dating. We were told that it's fake and/or doesn't work by figures in power, when we were young, before we knew what the scientific method was.
@ yeah the idea that it was only second sons and it was only about gold and land. As hard as it is for my former high school history teachers to believe, people were Christian in the Middle Ages. Not that gold and land weren’t taken, but the primary goal was the defense of Christendom.
@WolfgangOSS well they're not right about the second thing but they are spot on about the land/wealth. While their were definitely crusaders who fought for faith and bought into the idea of doing it for the lord it seems pretty apparent the majority of the command structure and governance (including many church officials) were in it for land and wealth.
@DesksAndDorks That's the Marxist interpretation of the Crusades, which hasn't been widespread in academia for decades. It's a flatly ridiculous concept, on par with saying that most of the people who want to live on Mars are in it for the money. It only exists because Marxists need to squeeze everything into their materialistic dialectic.
I like your explanation of the politics cannot be divested from history point. My only "disagreements" would be that modern politics and modern morals should be kept seperate from politics. Attempts to apply these to historical events or cultures is disingenuous and often used to condemn rather than understand the cultures being studied. Politics of the past are important and a part of history, but modern ones are not beyond understanding the lens we are viewing the past through.
My gripe isn’t with politicised history on its own, it’s when it begins to involve modern events and factors we still need to deal with. And that can’t be helped. It’s why, in my opinion, Ancient History is extremely appealing to people as, in Medieval Times, you’re dealing with Christianity and Islam and that involves the Crusades, a topic so densely politicised and subjected to victim narratives and boasting that it’s nauseating at times. IMO, either sides don’t come across as better than the other in substantive ways to make me root for one side over the other. People will cite the massacre at Jerusalem but not the siege of Antioch in 1268 wherein the Muslims carried out one of, if not the deadliest massacre of the crusading period, while also lying and deceiving those inside and selling 100,000 in slavery. There’s also the factor of whether the Crusaders fought for God or Gold, IMO, both were extremely important for each strata of command, especially considering the dangers and how ungodly expensive this trip would be. And this is only more so the further down the hierarchy and chain of command you go. To return to the main point, of course Ancient History can and is politicised, but it doesn’t hang as such an ‘overt’ shroud when you’re reading about it.
A lot of English academics, while entertaining, still promote myths and misconceptions to keep the old narrative alive. Stuff like the difference between "professional soldiers" and "warriors" being a difference in fighting style than semantics despite what period sources say. Claiming that "Celt" is a modern exonym and not a historic endonym, despite what historical sources say. Calling everything that they don't understand ceremonial, rather than acknowledging a lack of illuminating information. Lumping vast historic periods together to create a fantastical and unrealistic impression of a people group. Digging up homicide victims and claiming they were human sacrifices without any oral or written tradition of human sacrifice in the culture the person was from. Etc.
It's almost like they had a vested interest in discrediting native and indigenous people....weird how that works. But seriously, I hadn't even considered the difference between warrior and soldier.
@@DesksAndDorks Even Sandhurst still makes a big deal about creating an ideological distinction between warriors and soldiers. While US military academies, like the rest of the US military, use the term warrior and soldier interchangeably when describing a professionally trained combatant. Which feels like the more intellectually appropriate thing to do.
@flyboymike111357 it certainly does for the modern era. I can maybe MAYBE see making that distinction during the early days when standing armies were fist being established but trying to call the zulus warriors when they were a standing army for example, just seems wrong.
@DesksAndDorks That may make sense if one were using the term warrior to mean a militant. But less so if one used the term to apply to skirmishers, or Indo-European "proto-knights" and their war bands. These warriors may have sometimes had full time civilian professions, but they were recorded as often having skill at arms equal or greater to some standing forces of their time. And if we look at the broader history of standing armies, it would be hard to imagine a regiment of soldiers from the 18th or 19th century winning against a decent war band from antiquity. Even in the old west, the US army leaned heavily on allied native warriors and irregulars to fight off hostile warriors and outlaw gangs. Because being in a professional soldier in a standing army doesn't necessarily equate to having a proficiency skill at arms, a solid understanding of practical battle drills, a working knowledge of how to use terrain, or discipline and good order. Likewise being part of a warrior class or an irregular combatant doesn't preclude any of the above. A warrior might have spent their entire youth learning basic survival skills learning to be part of a fighting force as the prerequisite to take part in their right of passage. And many irregulars spent their lives in the local environment using weapons to hunt/fight off wildlife while learning skills like droving that translate easily to military skills. It's just one of those things that falls more into semantics than a practical distinction.
My only qualm about the history of the pyramids of Egypt, I don’t think that it was a tomb. Every other pyramid we have seen is a temple to the gods, including many chambers for priests which was an important part of their culture. I don’t doubt that there may have been catacombs underground beneath the pyramids which may house important people, but there’s too many open rooms in the pyramid interior layouts I used for a super powered WW2 game for me to believe it wasn’t mostly a place of worship and dedication to the gods, no tomb has that many rooms and chambers that are large enough for people to live in with ventilation tunnels and slots for lighting.
I think this may be a misunderstanding of Egyptian burial practices in relation to our own. The idea that it was a complex makes sense given the idea thay the dead would need everything there when they rose again in eternal life. Building a tomb that serves as a fitting complex for ruling and governance for a dead Pharoah does seem to track.
In the first, Preach! One of the larger issues I have had as a historian (especially a medievalist) is overcoming the nationalistic, Euro-centric Victorian BS. From Mansa Musa and Great Zimbabwe to the Guptas and Angor Wat, there are marvels which wildly exceed anything that those wing-chair historians at their private clubs could ever dream of. Regarding the pyramids, there's so much more there which is truly mind-blowing beyond the 'how they did that' (though that's fascinating). The biggest thing for me is the mind-boggling longevity of the Egyptian dynasties. We currently are closer in time to the last Pharaoh (Cleopatra VII), a paltry 2050 years, than she was to the construction of the pyramids (@2600-2500 years). Even more astonishing, these were built when the Egyptian dynasty was over 500 years old! Concerning your last point, I would argue that there's a balance to be made. Folks in the past (specifically, before 1800) certainly weren't stupid/lazy or morally destitute. Neither were they 'noble savages' nor brilliant savants with the keys to ancient mysteries. They were people like us today, some genius and some not-so-much. Incredibly good content. I'd love to hear more.
I love the bubbling, sublimated rage juxtaposed with optimistic acoustic background while discussing imperialist historical revisionism... Eh, I guess those are my big words for the day lol
Until the mid 14th century, every English king was a local lord of little significance. William the Conqueror is trivial outside the history of Britain.
On politics in History: Basically, people will twist a telling of history to strengthen their political narrative. To deny that fact is to simply allow them to continue unchecked. My favorite example: The Black Legend
Mansa Musa[a] (reigned c. 1312 - c. 1337[b]) was the ninth[5] Mansa of the Mali Empire, which reached its territorial peak during his reign. "A small lord of little importance" is probably the leasr accurate thing you could say about this man. Julius Caesar was just a small governor of little importance.
I feel like a lot of people who say we should keep politics out of history are saying that we shouldn’t add *modern* politics into history, i.e. saying the Greeks were very pro-lgbt or that the Egyptians were all black. Similar to the Lost Cause myth, it makes past civilizations more appealing to modern audiences or even gives credence to certain ideological groups who want to change history to make their worldview more appealing and justifiable to themselves. I’m not sure if that’s where you were going with this point but it’s just something interesting I wanted to bring up.
The pyramids blocks didn’t even have to be dragged most of the time they’d be rolling or in water. Because it’s really really dang easy to move things in boats.
Fun fact, when people say "remove politics from history",, it’s not really what they want to do! They just want history to conform to their regressive reactionary worldview, which in itself is highly political!
You cannot divest politics from history. Politics are a human story, and an important part of history. What should never be done is the denial or twisting of the facts for the sake of modern politics. A good example of this is nazi archaeology, as led by Himmler, which set out to prove the "historical superiority" of the aryan race. Another good one is the Lost Cause, the denial of the facts to support modern political ideas of the South - including idealizing the Confederacy to be some kind of liberty-centric state and not a regressive mirror of the U.S.
@@DesksAndDorks wait, really? I've never heard of this, do you have something to point me to as to the reasoning behind the civil rights photography? I will also mention, I focused on radically nationalist rewriting of history but I'll also say that I have a lesser, but still existing problem with less extreme stuff like the black cleopatra in netflix's docuseries. It's not as harmful but the historical-figure-race-swaps do frustrate me because if you're really gonna put that much a focus on race then there are lots of good stories from every single human culture you can look to! No need to try and claim others'
While I acknowledge that Imhotep was a brilliant engineer/architect and his "blueprints" taught the Egyptians everything they needed to know when building every pyramid that followed, even if wrongly built examples were made, they would not have survived to be part of our record.
So glad you opened up by saying that history is inextricable from politics. Great stuff, glad to have stumbled on your video about knights and town guards to see your newer stuff like this.
It’s frustrating that sometimes opinions from the Victorian period continue to survive. you know the era when they beloved that everything including their own ancestors were vastly inferior to the Victorian era.
Your passionate expression regarding politics and the historical propagandized revisionist biases extant in the zeitgeist speaks volumes to your integrity. And honestly, IMHO, one cannot be a successful builder of worlds that hold together if one has not integrity of soul. "Trojan horsing" - a man after my own heart.. lol. The game system i am developing has a simulationist bias that Trojan horses existentialism and self-reflexive awareness of the quintessential difference between the player and their character, making sure the difference is ever plain and incentivizing immersion in the fully psychologically sandboxed world as experienced by them. The mechanic reinforces this at every turn. You and your PC are not the same person! Integrity.
I appreciate that, man. It's been rough to watch as someone who loves history (even if I'm not a practicing historian). I appreciate your comment a ton!
It's been really hard. Finding out there was a concerted effort to use black and white images for civil rights events when color images existed was a trip.
The idea of keeping politics out of history is absolutely bonkers, especially since the patrons of historians through much of history were literally people who conceived of, and executed policy. You know, the political class.
Another pet peeve I have, adjacent to the idea that old humans are stupid, is that people expect ancient people to be way more self-serious than modern ones. Rome had graffiti, adverts and celebrities. Half the cave paintings are probably just bored artists doodling.
My theory on people wanting to believe all galley-rowers and Pyramid-Workers where slaves is that they subconciously don't want to accept how shitty paid labour can be. And still is for many people, to the point of being very close to slavery. Maybe in a few hundred years people will assume that Sweat-Shop-workers or even lower Amazon - employees must have been slaves.
A yes a local lord with little importance thats richer than literal emperors... Yeah thats, a powerfull lord. I think thats what a emperor is. He is a emperor
11:36 In the cartoon Asterix and Cleopatra they make the joke that the pyramids were actually built by paid workers with 8 hour shifts. (I think it's a very funn yjoke: one guy stays for overtime, but he can't move the huge stone alone.) Funny how that joke turned out to be true.
I enjoy your content, but hearing you talk about exploring gender studies alongside smacking down the racist and being a Southern American hell, yeah, man. You are cool.
It's why I have faith we won't blow up the planet or destroy ourselves. I think humans are kind of awesome! Glad you liked the video and I appreciate the comment!
Who the heck thinks ancient people were dumb????? Most folks i know, tend to think that the modern version of H. sapiens sapiens is a LOT dumber than their ancestors tended to be. As evidence i offer the presidential debates between Lincoln and the other guy whose name nobody really cares about - vs more recent presidential "debates" 😁
The idea that Europeans showed up to the America's with guns to effectively stone age humans is wild. On the US civil war my thoughts are pretty much, cool story how about not owning people. On pyramids, ancient humans would crap a pyramid if they saw a skyscraper.
Loved the video! (ESL) Small comment about carbon dating, it's the radioactive isotope of carbon (C-14) the atom that decays and it's radioactivity measured to estimate its age, not the basic elemental carbon (C-12). Most carbon dating is used to estimate the age of once alive organic material like bones or other tissues like wood but sometimes it's found around inorganic materiales too!
People seem to forget that ancient people were people XD You got time sheets and cafeterias, they had regulation drill sizes. Is this what happened in history class while I zoned out due to ADHD and the ganja? XD
This is a wonderfully made video. I just wanted to point out though that I think some people have a point when they say let's not look at history thru the lens of "current affairs". And since history is entrenched in religion, the same can be said when people who look at history thru a religious lens and that is also not great because now we're teetering on mythological levels. I think the best example I can give is when people say the Emperor Elagabulus was a trans individual, but when you look at it holistically and consider his Levantine descent, people calling him effiminate were just straight up racist and made fun of Syrian and Canaanite men for wearing makeup and perfume Idk if im making sense here. I would love for criticism for anything that I said ❤
Very cathartic to hear someone else rant about the "keep politics out of history" bs. And as much as I agree, I can't help but laugh as I listen to a man talk about the serious real world consequences of that way of thinking while hearing this cheery guitar strumming in the background, lol!
The idea to leave out politics of history… I mean, sure, it's one thing that "everything is political", but even if disregard it, what we call "history" is a shorthand of "political history." Under the subject of history we're not learning the advancement of science or philosophy, we're not learning natural history or geological history, we're learning about kings and wars, it's politics itself.
One thing I find hard with history is separating modern sensibility, with actions of the past. Obviously, good morales should be followed and considered. Everyone in history could be seen as monsters if you can't try to understand ancient mindsets. History can't be an utter good or an utter evil because most societies had a heavy mixed bag. Interesting hurdle to leap. Im a big Rome guy, and to deny their brutality is silly, but to say they did nothing or had no good people is also silly. Nuance is important and is often lost to fulfill the idea that history is a forward story of preogression. Interesting stuff.
People who say keep politics out of history must really think politics are a new thing and have never existed ever in human's short time on this planet huh
Only nitpick i would say: you can't carbon date rocks. Carbon dating only works on organic matter because that's how you get an equal ratio of carbon14/carbon12 as you have in the atmosphere which can then give you an approximate date of death for the organic matter.
Yeah this is a pretty big error on my part. I think in my brain I was conflating radiometric dating and carbon dating but those Teo aren't the same thing. Thanks for the correction!
@@DesksAndDorksHappened to me all the time in school! Plus most people only know carbon dating anyway and simplifying it for a wider audience in a shorter form video is understandable. Honestly the annoying online archaeologist got the better of me and I had to say something 😂😅
@KyleGrimes96 it's much appreciated man! I've been trying to do as many of the historical rpg vids as I can (assuming you've watched those) Super grateful for the support!
@KyleGrimes96 no I appreciate it! I was trained as a medievalist but never made a career of it so it's nice having folks chime in and offer help when they can.
Hey found your this video in my feed and i appreciate what you had to say about Islam! I researched Islam from the perspective of a Catholic and was surprised by the amount of similarities that arent spoken about in most America-Catholic spaces I've been apart of. Most of it was wrapped up in the politics of post 9/11 America. I found the similar practice of utilizing rituals and academic understanding of the texts to directly intersect ones faith with their modern life in a meaningful way to be similarly inspired. Truly, two parallel Abrahamic bridges to Heaven! Keep up the good work! God bless!
I had the pleasure of learning under a religious scholar who was well versed in Muslim history and Islamic scripture. I gained a great deal of respect and insight from him, and that carried over into my adult life. ..glad you enjoyed the video!
@CantusTropus correct it is the teaching of both faiths that neither knows thier path to be true. We simply have faith. Sadly the path to theological arrogance like yours (belief in spiritual superiority inclusive of atheism) is foolish and has led to the death of millions more Muslims than Christians. This is a human problem, not one derived from any ONE belief system
I'm curious to hear what you would call it. We learned it in chemistry class as part of our units on the elements, so I'm genuinely not sure where/how else you would classify it.
@DesksAndDorks a physics concept. Chemistry is only focused on study of how elements bond and change these bonds with reactions Or just how their properties change in case of radicals. And half-life is part of nuclear physics.
The aliens didn’t build the pyramids, I did
Apex lifeform detected.
Don't lie. You didn't build the pyramids.
Your mom did!
This comment has been fact checked by real American patriots: fact check status TRUE
What kill the Dinosaours?
My self
Well of course you did, you are a dragon, only a dragon cour make a tribute to such arrogance.
Spears are everywhere bows,are everywhere, roofs are everywhere, farming is everywhere, shoes are everywhere
There's so so so many things invented on every continent by every people
But as soon as it's a pyramid it's "OMg WhY ARe ThE Y EvErYWhErE MuSt Be GLoBaL AliEn CiViLiZAtiOn"
Lol that is so true.
And why would the pyramids not be more similar across the world then?
@thurbine2411 "Hey, did you know, there's this really good way to stack rocks that is very durable and large" - aliens, probably
Hey hold on, everyone eats. That cant be a coincidence
I mean those are all things related to human needs, we don’t need beliefs about anything to come up with simple and effective tools. But pyramids, and I’m not trying to support the alien conspiracies, just don’t follow a simple logic for burial or worship. Why would people all over the world choose megalithic structures instead of more intricate rituals with less manual labor and material requirements?
But there is a more fundamental incorrect assumption; human societies weren’t separate all the way back. We do see that our myths around the world connect a very very long time ago via constellation based myths and orbit analyses and so there is a pretty reasonable logic to say that pyramids/worship are just really freakin old ideas that spread around the world with diasporas.
Mansa Musa: The small, local lord of little importance who collapsed the economy of an entire empire while on vacation
Massive respect for calling out that idiotic Mansa Musa take 👌
It was a take thay needed to be addressed.
@@DesksAndDorks Also make a Blue Sky, I am sick of all the social media that is not them. Not sponsored.
+1 on a Bluesky account!!
@ it’s just really nice to make a post on a subject an get replies about that subject.
Not some wild tangent to a tangent to the subject so you stay on the app arguing about that. No you just get a find some article they post and {shock horror} read the article.
Perhaps it’s a home brew with 7 views or a news page with a billion you still get _that_ prompted and not some random bullshit.
also a big fan of how easy it is to prune your timeline. Someone being a dick? Remove their ability to quote post you or reply! Then block and forget forever!
As someone who grew up in the Deep South, the lost cause myth and its myriad of sister myths were incredibly frustrating to deal with once you learned the truth.
History is rough, bleak, and amazing at the same time. We do no one a service by trying to wash away the grit and grim of our reality. We are meant to learn from it, not hide it away.
Could not agree more
Its historical fact.
@@walleras surely you don’t mean “the lost cause” is historical fact?
@dionysues7449 Did I stutter?
@@wallerasunfortunately, it seems you did not. Hope you have a good rest of your day.
I will say, though, the people who think the Ancient Egyptians built the Pyramids with advanced futuristic technology all their own, those people come up with some of the craziest worldbuilding ideas, like that the Great Pyramid generates and transmits "energy" and the different chambers fulfill different functions as part of that... man, I wish I could design a dungeon that was that creative
Oh as a source of entertainment those folks go hard!
Same dude. I'm addicted to watching their videos for the creative fiction. They'll see a rock Peru, read an article about ants lifting 10x their bodyweight and construct an elaborate alien ant-human hybrid culture from those prompts alone. "And the Nazca lines? It's proof of alien ant overlords" type shit
I absolutely love those nutjobs
@@punishedbarca761 Peru mentioned, My people!
Leech their schizoid energy for your own grand designs
It's vindicating whenever a historian uses facts and logic to explain how yes, humans *could have* built the Pyramids, across many cultures, at many points in time!
I am glad you appreciated it!
On your bit about imperial powers dehumanizing their opponents and destroying records, this is exactly what happened with the Roman conquests of Gaul. The Gauls were a much more developed and civilized people than believed with a proud craft-driven and artistic culture, and they were a sort of near-peer of Rome who had even sacked Rome at one point, but there's this pervasive myth of them being backwater barbarians and savages too stupid to even have a writing system because the Romans destroyed every record Gaul had that they could get their hands on. There are surviving written records from the Gauls out there, but it's extremely esoteric knowledge and hard to find. These people were also renowned for "inventing chainmail" (the reality of this is a bit muddied, but it shows how prominent it was for their smiths and high class warriors to be known for it) and yet people always depict them all as too stupid to have armor and going into battle naked... Because it was a thing *some of them* would do.
10000 percent. It's one of the ways to defeat and dehumanize a culture.
As a Roman history nerd, the Romans conquered like that a lot but hey, The Gauls and celts got to be auxiliaries and were granted citizenship after their service was done. So not denying the bad stuff (ofc) but you can’t deny that Caesar took a big leap of faith when he went to go conquer Gaul for the republic, hell he even did another leap of faith and discovered Britannia for the Romans. Also the myth about the Gauls being naked in battle, yeah I dislike this too since it really doesn’t make sense and ancient people were still people so they would still have definitely worn at least some clothing in battle but yes there were some who fought without clothing, that being rare though. Roman propaganda really helped alot in painting the Gauls and other groups they didn’t like as savages but hey I can’t really get mad when i’ve poured hours upon hours into studying Ancient Rome from it’s formation as a little Latin town all the way to 1453 when the last bastion of Rome finally fell. Again I am not an expert so don’t judge me too much if I got somethings wrong.
Also I would like to point out Celtic helmets had cool little birds on them and Celtic helmets and armor did influence Roman armor in some ways wether it be the Gallic helmets (this term is disputed) or the Lorica Hamata (yes that’s the chain mail). the celts had these cool war horns called a “Carnyx” which sounds pretty terrifying. I thought this would be interesting to share so I don’t seem too one sided.
Anyways I’m just sayin I can’t really blame the Romans for being a product of their time, they were a growing power and they wanted more land and more glory just like any empire that ever existed, hell even the celts conquered and fought themselves and the Germans from time to time.
Shame a bunch of modern historians make the mistake of thinking that the Gauls were like super tribalistic though yeah. I think some Romans actually respected the Gauls as fighters cause the auxiliary Gallic units, there was one cavalry unit called the “Ala gallorum et thracum classiana invicta bis torquata civium romanorum” (yes this is real) which I think if I remember correctly, they were a major force in winning alot of battles thus earning them the long title.
Also a roman history nerd but they were really good at eliminating a cultures history and values in the eyes of everyone else.
Romes greatest strength was taking a population, chewing it up, and spitting out anything that wasn't of value to the state.
Well that and logistics. Good god they were good at logistics.
@@DesksAndDorks yep, can’t deny that the Romans were good at assimilating and destroying peoples they didn’t really like, like the carthaginians lol.
Also yeah, logistics did go hard.
It's one of the things that interests me the most about the second punic war. We still know so much about how great Hannibal was despite him being Romes number 1 enemy. I suspect it is due to how much admiration Scipip Africanus had for him but still.
Loving this! Really hyped to talk to you soon :)
Quick nitpick: Eratosthenes' experiment was not to prove the Earth was round - it was already assumed to be the case through simple observation for a very long time by the time he showed up. His intention was only to calculate the circumference of the planet, which he did (he was slightly off due to the Earth not being a perfect sphere, but a two percent margin of error is nothing when you're measuring a planet with a couple of sticks.)
Still pretty shocked by that comment you mentioned about Mansa Musa being "Insignificant". I mean, the man's loose change destabilized the economies of several countries for years when he travelled through them :/
Dude I'm hype to talk to you! Yeah that take was....
Wild.
I was always under the impression that ancient people were actually geniuses. I feel like the increase in people who don't understand how they did what they did indicates a loss of basic knowledge on the things those ancient people considered trivially easy.
My biggest pet peeve is imposing modern morality and ethics on historical figures and events rather than judging them by their own standards, aka “presentism” which completely ignores the complexity and nuance of historical, cultural, and political context.
This is pretty context dependent. If we're discussing for example Andrew Jackson as a historical figure, yeah, we should judge him in context of the early 1800's, but, if we're discussing if he should be venerated today as a great American hero, we DO need to look at him through a modern lens to see if he would be considered a hero if he lived today.
@ even so, we can recognize someone’s achievements and celebrating them while also acknowledging their faults so as to not deify them.
@@RevDungeonMaster Looks like this UA-camr doesn't agree since he didn't heart your comment.
*every few minutes* go off, king
I'll be honest it feels nice every now and again.
My therapist: "Angry Kyle doesn't exist, he can't hurt you."
UA-cam: "Desks And Dorks uploaded: The Historical Misconceptions That Anger Me The Most"
Just a blurry jpeg of me with glowing red eyes.
Angry Kyle exists, but unless you talk shit about history, he won't hurt you.
I've only heard downplays of Mansa Musa said as a joke. People say it seriously? That's just sad, and the racism is obvious.
I mean it is sad but for mire common then I'd like
@@DesksAndDorks Shame.
@@DesksAndDorks Like, again, done as a joke. "Some guy you've likely never heard of. Ghengis... Kahn? I dunno, don't think he ever did anything."
Something like that.
I love the ghengis khant jokes but yeah legit the number of folks is higher then it should be
I'm a pirate history enthusiast. And the amount of misconceptions I see still perpetrated by pop culture and even pop history documentaries is staggering. You have no idea.
Writing and telling history "Objectively" AKA, with no Political or Moral goal behind the telling, is something that We came up with in the 20th century, and have since began to Idolise. What we acknowledge, but fail to understand is that history is an Art, not a science. Humans learn best from the examples of other humans, and when we attempt to tell history as a science, we deny ourselves the very best of that learning. When we refuse to write the past with purpose, we also are refusing to write the future.
Americans love to say they do this, but it's a lie. American historians are some of the worst liars.
That's a glorified way to write propaganda and phone something into what it isn't. It's up to the researcher or reader to make an opinion and add their own feelings to it for THEMSELVES. Books/reports putting anyone or anything in some political retrospective instead of stating the findings for everyone to contextualise themselves is moronic and borderline dangerous
@@kurodo9926 Its only dangerous if you dont think that the Morals and Rights respected today deserve to be believed in and put to good use in the future.
@@datdabdoe1417 ah yes. Because current age is supposed to be the arbiter of righteousness over every other timeframe in history despite everyone still being human.
Not only that, you so needlessly bunch up todays Morals and Rights like they are the same everywhere on the globe. As if outside of US half the time people won't throw a stone into a gay dude instead of seeing them as human.
You also talk as if the current trends are impossible to just be a trend for the time being, as if no future happenings will weaponize the ideals into, idk... war?
@@datdabdoe1417 ah yes. Because current age is supposed to be the arbiter of righteousness over every other timeframe in history despite everyone still being human back then too.
Not only that, you so needlessly bunch up todays Morals and Rights like they are the same everywhere on the globe. As if outside of US half the time people won't throw a stone into a dude instead of seeing them as human because they're lgbt.
You also talk as if the current system is perfect, as if no future reports or happenings will weaponize the ideals into harmful propaganda by framing the atrocities into a narrative made to manipulate and put people at each others throats.
The Mesopotamian civilizations have always interested me. The one that I really like are the Assyrians, mainly due to them being contributors of science, warfare, literature and culture (Library of Ashurbanipal), architecture (Possibly the ones who actually did the hanging gardens of Babylon but at the capital city Nineveh), and much more. They get a bad reputation for being very cruel and brutal due to their own battle depictions on many murals. First of all, I found out recently during the Neo-Assyrian empire that they treated their subjects well, and only went punished them harshly if they rebelled. Secondly, they depicted their conquest in murals to 1. scare off any would-be rebellions spearheaded by governors or vassals 2. their culture glorified war and conflict.
It's crazy how much we get from mathematics and the sciences from early mesopotamia
@@DesksAndDorks bro their shit is so advanced that it makes Pythagoras and his cult looks like fools for essentially worshipping his math.
@@DesksAndDorks Also hot take here, the Egyptians are overrated in the bronze age. They would not have had it made if they were not near the nile nor have geographical advantages.
@noahyoung6524 I can agree with the Nile and geographic advantages but overrated is a hot take
@@DesksAndDorks wait how so? I thought whenever people think of the ancient age, Egypt comes to mind.
The funny thing about the ancient alien conspiracists is that they consistently nitpick and scrutinize the work of archaeologists, but then when some whackjob says something that makes no logical sense, they all just go along with it without question.
Yeah that sounds pretty much right
Also, somehow all impressive architecture made by white people is never claimed to be the work of aliens.
idk how to best say this but it's the people who diminish or elevate people's achievements based on ethnicity who are trying to insert politics into history
Yes
History is incredibly political by its nature. Every historian has a political outlook and many historians or contemporary writers have interpreted and will continue to interpret history through the lens of their own beliefs. The Tudors are a great example of this -- in Victorian times, historians, headed by James Anthony Froude, defined Henry VIII as a strong and great king, while seeing Elizabeth I as weak and useless. While the latter impression has faded, the idea of Henry as an aspirational or at least impressive figure has not. The fact of the matter is that every monarch of the House of Tudor was a ruthless despot, but Henry was one of the worst and also pretty lacklustre in terms of most historic accomplishments.
On top of this, historical figures and, consequentially, historical writers are themselves politicians or politically aligned, pushing their own narratives and ideas in their works. History is written by the victors and every victor must be politically capable.
With this all in mind, I find it baffling that someone could be so blind to knowledge to believe that history and politics could be discussed separately (ignoring all of the people who are abusing the idea for their own political gain and therefore actually inherently politicising the discussion of history) unless they actually know almost nothing about history and so shouldn't be considered authorities on interpreting history.
Also, could someone please explain to me how a person could hear "This guy single-handedly ruined local economies with the amount of gold he chucked around for free" and say "Ah yes, a small and insignificant local leader"? I know that British imperialist historians were the worst (looks at CJ Rhodes with murderous intent) but what??
This this this this this.^
You hit the nail on the head.
Did aliens create (thing)?
Im so using that as a meme.
The sole exception to the rule being stone henge.
We have so much evidence about the evolution of pyramid construction. The stepped pyramid shows how they went from square tombs to the general shape, and the bent pyramid shows how they refined the design through trial and error
Hearing someone call Mansa Musa a local lord of little relevance is like the biggest faux pas that I didnt even know existed. This is a take that I thought wouldve been impossible.
Richest man before the indistrial revolution in human history? Destabilized the global economy by giving a small portion of his riches in alms? Character in Poptropica? Yeah no but hes Muslim and from Africa which basic just means he was a small tribal leader
If I had to come up with the 1000 most influential men in human history, Mansa Musa would be nearer to the top of that list than a lot of Historical figures I have seen these types gooning over
I think the issue is skin color to be honest. Those people baffle me.
I have thought back on this more and I am even more confused. From a Euro-centric perspective, Mansa Musa is STILL one of the most influential men in History because he is the main reasons Europeans even began viewing Africa as a place of great wealth and resources. Outside of Egypt, it is arguable that Mansa Musa is more important to the Middle East and Europe than he is in Africa just because of the effect he had on these regions perception of Africa. This is so much more racist because Mansa Musa is the most recognizable African Leader in ancient history to the West, to the point that he may be the only historical African king people are taught about throughout primary education outside of Egypt, which just has strong ties to the Roman and Christian historical narratives, and this guy still tried to downplay his influence. I DOUBT he can name another African King, meaning he likely considers all of Africa and all Africans to be entirely historically irrelevant
Recently discovered your channel and wow is it so underrated. Keep up the good work Dork!
Thanks man I'm doing what I can!
I think people who complain about politics in history (like me) would actually agree with you. What we mean is that current-day politics should not justify lying about history. There's a concerning ammount of people who believe it is okay to alter history on , making it less accurate in educational material or other depiction for the sake of politics.
It doesn't matter if you are left or right, history should be about showing the truth and justifying statements with sources or evidence. Making stuff up or changing it is NEVER okay.
Ok, ok, but... Available evidence shows a very strong political bias. Writing was made by and for specific classes, wars were fought by certain classes on behalf of others. When evidence is dug up it's been interpreted by people from modern classes with a similar bias (look at historians still glazing Cicero). Also, I doubt tons of people have made the discission that lying about history is ok for political aims like you said, you probably just disagree with them or didn't like the depiction.
The truth is the majority of human experience is left out of the historical record due to political biases that strongly correlate with modern political biases in academia (elitism most of all). The historical facts about women, children, working classes, populations without writing, and many others, have been neglected and that neglect is reproduced in modern settings. A great deal of our understanding about the past is based on assumptions regarding evidence or a lack thereof. History has always been an imaginative process as much as an evidence based one, it's part of how our views of history changes over time. If you're actually proposing people stop changing history, then history as we know it stops and would remain a reflection of the 21st century. But that's just my historically contingent and politically biased opinion.
Even as someone who has only done enough research into topics to do the worldbuilding I do, some of these ideas are so asinine. It really takes someone not doing any amount of critical thinking to believe some of the things they do about how ancient people lived.
I think it also speaks to a lack of faith in themselves. Some of them are like if I couldn't do it then how could they?
Good on you for calling out the notion of “keeping politics out of history.” The idea that “politicizing history” is some new postmodern incursion on an imaginarily pure, more high-minded tradition of history and historiography is naive at best, and intentionally disingenuous at best. Historians of both the distant and recent past viewed and interpreted history through a political lens to no less of a degree than modern historians.
I've found that most of the folks who say to keep polotics are the ones trying to make history fit a narrative.
Hot Take I hate:
“ Don’t judge Rome based on modern ideals of morality, but the Aztecs deserved to be conquered due to human sacrifice.”
Yeah the Roman's were (and still are) one of the poster children for the excesses and problems of empire building.
I don't give Rome a pass, but they didn't reach anywhere near the level of depravity that the Aztecs did.
@@CantusTropus “Depravity” by the standards of Spanish dudes trying to take the area over who would stand benefit from exaggerating them? Everything depraved they have done has been done by Europeans.
Yes, I do realize the Mexica were not popular, but they would likely not have lasted much longer considering the Puripecha had beaten them before. The Aztecs were a warrior people yes, but they also had cleaner cities than Europe and public schools. The Spanish did not improve the lives of those they conquered either because most were just enslaved anyways.
Yeah, Rome routinely exterminated entirely populaces and species. They're on par.
I thought Aztecs were judged based on morality that was appropriate to the time period. Unless you think Catholicism had a lukewarm reaction to human sacrifice back then. Which would be an even more insane take.
One which annoys me is the 'Britain invented concentration camps' misconception.
Britain was fighting an assymetric war against the Boers and tried to make an early analogue of refugee camps to evacuate the local populace out of the line of fire by 'concentrating' them into small, easily defendable locations. Because there were no neutral, supranational organisations like the U.N to take care of thing Britain used it's own soldiers.
This legitimised the camps as a valid target so convoys and communications to and from these camps were targeted. A lack of supplied coupled with medical knowledge from this period being less than our own turned this poor attempt at humanitarianism into a disaster with both soliders and civilians suffering from supply shortages and disease outbreaks as conditions nosedived.
Shitler's minions took inspiration from the worst aspects of these camps as the foundation of their own atrocities, but ffs Britain wasn't gassing people it wanted to work for it.
Aliens been real quiet since this video dropped
I stand against the TIIIIIIIDE
Love when a channel gives me a good surprise when it comes to reality.
Have you seen miniminuteman? His whole channel has a lot of your vibes about how our ancient alien conspiracies are really dismissive about human achievement
I have! Really admire his work and his commitment to ancient people.
I'm not really involved in the ttrpg space and I'm not super knowledgeable on world history by any metric, but I'm glad I stumbled across your channel. I think the first one I watched was "Low Fantasy is Best Fantasy" or something like that. It's very interesting listening to you speak on these topics and how they can be applied to rpgs and worldbuilding, and hearing your actually educated perspective on these things. You've gained a sub. Your channel is a gem.
I really appreciate it. Hopefully it encourages you to try some games!
This was great! Took a different turn from what I was expecting but this was done and presented very well. Thank you for putting out this video.
I've been learning a lot more about ancient peoples societies, it's so cool getting out of the narrative that we're the most developed people ever, and that they all had lives and societies and problems of their own
It is so refreshing to see that ancient peoples are finally getting their due!
I find when people complain of politics in history, they are complaining about viewing history thtough a modern political lense.
As this can distort what actually happened in favor of the historians political bias.
I know Eratosthenes didn’t actually know what he was doing because he didn’t have a calc
Looooool
(Calc means calculator chat)
To add to carbon dating, there's also those of us who were taught about caron dating, but not actually taught about carbon dating. We were told that it's fake and/or doesn't work by figures in power, when we were young, before we knew what the scientific method was.
My condolences man that sounds brutal
The second sons theory about the crusades pisses me off a lot.
If you're referring to the concept that only second sons went on crudade, then I get that.
@ yeah the idea that it was only second sons and it was only about gold and land. As hard as it is for my former high school history teachers to believe, people were Christian in the Middle Ages. Not that gold and land weren’t taken, but the primary goal was the defense of Christendom.
@WolfgangOSS well they're not right about the second thing but they are spot on about the land/wealth. While their were definitely crusaders who fought for faith and bought into the idea of doing it for the lord it seems pretty apparent the majority of the command structure and governance (including many church officials) were in it for land and wealth.
@DesksAndDorks That's the Marxist interpretation of the Crusades, which hasn't been widespread in academia for decades. It's a flatly ridiculous concept, on par with saying that most of the people who want to live on Mars are in it for the money. It only exists because Marxists need to squeeze everything into their materialistic dialectic.
@@WolfgangOSSDon't believe him.
Barbie starlight adventure mentioned🎉
Yup! I designed the music mini game levels and the space maps for the browser game when I was an intern!
Very good video you magnificent dork
Thank you my friend I do what I can!
Chat is this real?????????????
Chat confirms that we are in fact COOKING
Me when some guy 2000 years ago lies (this cannot be!)
I like your explanation of the politics cannot be divested from history point. My only "disagreements" would be that modern politics and modern morals should be kept seperate from politics. Attempts to apply these to historical events or cultures is disingenuous and often used to condemn rather than understand the cultures being studied.
Politics of the past are important and a part of history, but modern ones are not beyond understanding the lens we are viewing the past through.
This is precisely what I want. Thanks for the comment!
My gripe isn’t with politicised history on its own, it’s when it begins to involve modern events and factors we still need to deal with. And that can’t be helped. It’s why, in my opinion, Ancient History is extremely appealing to people as, in Medieval Times, you’re dealing with Christianity and Islam and that involves the Crusades, a topic so densely politicised and subjected to victim narratives and boasting that it’s nauseating at times.
IMO, either sides don’t come across as better than the other in substantive ways to make me root for one side over the other. People will cite the massacre at Jerusalem but not the siege of Antioch in 1268 wherein the Muslims carried out one of, if not the deadliest massacre of the crusading period, while also lying and deceiving those inside and selling 100,000 in slavery.
There’s also the factor of whether the Crusaders fought for God or Gold, IMO, both were extremely important for each strata of command, especially considering the dangers and how ungodly expensive this trip would be. And this is only more so the further down the hierarchy and chain of command you go.
To return to the main point, of course Ancient History can and is politicised, but it doesn’t hang as such an ‘overt’ shroud when you’re reading about it.
A lot of English academics, while entertaining, still promote myths and misconceptions to keep the old narrative alive. Stuff like the difference between "professional soldiers" and "warriors" being a difference in fighting style than semantics despite what period sources say. Claiming that "Celt" is a modern exonym and not a historic endonym, despite what historical sources say. Calling everything that they don't understand ceremonial, rather than acknowledging a lack of illuminating information. Lumping vast historic periods together to create a fantastical and unrealistic impression of a people group. Digging up homicide victims and claiming they were human sacrifices without any oral or written tradition of human sacrifice in the culture the person was from. Etc.
It's almost like they had a vested interest in discrediting native and indigenous people....weird how that works.
But seriously, I hadn't even considered the difference between warrior and soldier.
@@DesksAndDorks Even Sandhurst still makes a big deal about creating an ideological distinction between warriors and soldiers. While US military academies, like the rest of the US military, use the term warrior and soldier interchangeably when describing a professionally trained combatant. Which feels like the more intellectually appropriate thing to do.
@flyboymike111357 it certainly does for the modern era. I can maybe MAYBE see making that distinction during the early days when standing armies were fist being established but trying to call the zulus warriors when they were a standing army for example, just seems wrong.
@DesksAndDorks That may make sense if one were using the term warrior to mean a militant. But less so if one used the term to apply to skirmishers, or Indo-European "proto-knights" and their war bands. These warriors may have sometimes had full time civilian professions, but they were recorded as often having skill at arms equal or greater to some standing forces of their time. And if we look at the broader history of standing armies, it would be hard to imagine a regiment of soldiers from the 18th or 19th century winning against a decent war band from antiquity. Even in the old west, the US army leaned heavily on allied native warriors and irregulars to fight off hostile warriors and outlaw gangs. Because being in a professional soldier in a standing army doesn't necessarily equate to having a proficiency skill at arms, a solid understanding of practical battle drills, a working knowledge of how to use terrain, or discipline and good order. Likewise being part of a warrior class or an irregular combatant doesn't preclude any of the above. A warrior might have spent their entire youth learning basic survival skills learning to be part of a fighting force as the prerequisite to take part in their right of passage. And many irregulars spent their lives in the local environment using weapons to hunt/fight off wildlife while learning skills like droving that translate easily to military skills. It's just one of those things that falls more into semantics than a practical distinction.
100 percent agreed just trying to work at it from the other end. Formal military training, regardless of culture, should classify you as soldier
My only qualm about the history of the pyramids of Egypt, I don’t think that it was a tomb. Every other pyramid we have seen is a temple to the gods, including many chambers for priests which was an important part of their culture. I don’t doubt that there may have been catacombs underground beneath the pyramids which may house important people, but there’s too many open rooms in the pyramid interior layouts I used for a super powered WW2 game for me to believe it wasn’t mostly a place of worship and dedication to the gods, no tomb has that many rooms and chambers that are large enough for people to live in with ventilation tunnels and slots for lighting.
I think this may be a misunderstanding of Egyptian burial practices in relation to our own. The idea that it was a complex makes sense given the idea thay the dead would need everything there when they rose again in eternal life. Building a tomb that serves as a fitting complex for ruling and governance for a dead Pharoah does seem to track.
In the first, Preach! One of the larger issues I have had as a historian (especially a medievalist) is overcoming the nationalistic, Euro-centric Victorian BS. From Mansa Musa and Great Zimbabwe to the Guptas and Angor Wat, there are marvels which wildly exceed anything that those wing-chair historians at their private clubs could ever dream of.
Regarding the pyramids, there's so much more there which is truly mind-blowing beyond the 'how they did that' (though that's fascinating). The biggest thing for me is the mind-boggling longevity of the Egyptian dynasties. We currently are closer in time to the last Pharaoh (Cleopatra VII), a paltry 2050 years, than she was to the construction of the pyramids (@2600-2500 years). Even more astonishing, these were built when the Egyptian dynasty was over 500 years old!
Concerning your last point, I would argue that there's a balance to be made. Folks in the past (specifically, before 1800) certainly weren't stupid/lazy or morally destitute. Neither were they 'noble savages' nor brilliant savants with the keys to ancient mysteries. They were people like us today, some genius and some not-so-much.
Incredibly good content. I'd love to hear more.
As always, i look forward to reading your comments! I am very grateful you enjoyed the content and the video!
I love the bubbling, sublimated rage juxtaposed with optimistic acoustic background while discussing imperialist historical revisionism... Eh, I guess those are my big words for the day lol
Big words but much appreciated!
Top 10 videos of all time (I haven’t watched it yet)
I appreciate the pre like!
Usually when people talk about not having politics in history, they mean modern politics, not politics at the time of the event
Until the mid 14th century, every English king was a local lord of little significance.
William the Conqueror is trivial outside the history of Britain.
On politics in History:
Basically, people will twist a telling of history to strengthen their political narrative. To deny that fact is to simply allow them to continue unchecked.
My favorite example: The Black Legend
Just a few minutes into the video and all I can say is
POP OFF KING!!! ANCIENT ALIENS STUFF IS JUST RACISM IN COSPLAY
That is really accurate
"Keep politics out of history" half of history is just politics that already happened.
Mansa Musa[a] (reigned c. 1312 - c. 1337[b]) was the ninth[5] Mansa of the Mali Empire, which reached its territorial peak during his reign.
"A small lord of little importance" is probably the leasr accurate thing you could say about this man. Julius Caesar was just a small governor of little importance.
Right a 25 year reign over an empire of tens of millions? It's crazy stuff
Love this channel, you do some damn good work.
Thank you man! That means a lot.
I'm very glad I found this channel.
Glad you found us!
I feel like a lot of people who say we should keep politics out of history are saying that we shouldn’t add *modern* politics into history, i.e. saying the Greeks were very pro-lgbt or that the Egyptians were all black. Similar to the Lost Cause myth, it makes past civilizations more appealing to modern audiences or even gives credence to certain ideological groups who want to change history to make their worldview more appealing and justifiable to themselves.
I’m not sure if that’s where you were going with this point but it’s just something interesting I wanted to bring up.
The pyramids blocks didn’t even have to be dragged most of the time they’d be rolling or in water. Because it’s really really dang easy to move things in boats.
Fun fact, when people say "remove politics from history",, it’s not really what they want to do!
They just want history to conform to their regressive reactionary worldview, which in itself is highly political!
Coooooorrectomundo
Always happy to see more of your videos!
I 🫡 you sir
Re-writing history has taken on a whole new level of insanity recently, in the USA most especially.....
We've gotten good at not teaching a lot.
You cannot divest politics from history. Politics are a human story, and an important part of history.
What should never be done is the denial or twisting of the facts for the sake of modern politics. A good example of this is nazi archaeology, as led by Himmler, which set out to prove the "historical superiority" of the aryan race. Another good one is the Lost Cause, the denial of the facts to support modern political ideas of the South - including idealizing the Confederacy to be some kind of liberty-centric state and not a regressive mirror of the U.S.
10000 percent agree.
To add to that The use of black and white photos for the civil rights movement is another example of this.
@@DesksAndDorks wait, really? I've never heard of this, do you have something to point me to as to the reasoning behind the civil rights photography?
I will also mention, I focused on radically nationalist rewriting of history but I'll also say that I have a lesser, but still existing problem with less extreme stuff like the black cleopatra in netflix's docuseries. It's not as harmful but the historical-figure-race-swaps do frustrate me because if you're really gonna put that much a focus on race then there are lots of good stories from every single human culture you can look to! No need to try and claim others'
While I acknowledge that Imhotep was a brilliant engineer/architect and his "blueprints" taught the Egyptians everything they needed to know when building every pyramid that followed, even if wrongly built examples were made, they would not have survived to be part of our record.
So glad you opened up by saying that history is inextricable from politics. Great stuff, glad to have stumbled on your video about knights and town guards to see your newer stuff like this.
Glad you liked it man!
It’s frustrating that sometimes opinions from the Victorian period continue to survive. you know the era when they beloved that everything including their own ancestors were vastly inferior to the Victorian era.
When's the no 1:42 intro version coming out?
Probs never my guy.
Your passionate expression regarding politics and the historical propagandized revisionist biases extant in the zeitgeist speaks volumes to your integrity. And honestly, IMHO, one cannot be a successful builder of worlds that hold together if one has not integrity of soul. "Trojan horsing" - a man after my own heart.. lol. The game system i am developing has a simulationist bias that Trojan horses existentialism and self-reflexive awareness of the quintessential difference between the player and their character, making sure the difference is ever plain and incentivizing immersion in the fully psychologically sandboxed world as experienced by them. The mechanic reinforces this at every turn. You and your PC are not the same person! Integrity.
I appreciate that, man. It's been rough to watch as someone who loves history (even if I'm not a practicing historian). I appreciate your comment a ton!
@DesksAndDorks i love history too, the less adulterated the better. I resonate with its having been rough to watch.
It's been really hard. Finding out there was a concerted effort to use black and white images for civil rights events when color images existed was a trip.
I am incredibly here for Angry Historian Kyle
It doesn't happen often but glad you liked it!
The idea of keeping politics out of history is absolutely bonkers, especially since the patrons of historians through much of history were literally people who conceived of, and executed policy. You know, the political class.
*Morgan freeman voice.
He's right you know.
people say you study history to not repeat it, to be able to not repeat it you must apply current politics to most of history
White people, encountering competent architecture and clean cities for the first time in their lives: *gasp* Sky people must have done this!
Lul, imagine thinking Mansa Musa was a nobody. The sheer wealth of the man turned every path he took on a trip into the silk road on crack.
That is one of the best descriptions of thay I've heard. Very apt.
SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE
Blood for the blood god!
Another pet peeve I have, adjacent to the idea that old humans are stupid, is that people expect ancient people to be way more self-serious than modern ones. Rome had graffiti, adverts and celebrities. Half the cave paintings are probably just bored artists doodling.
This is very accurate. Crusader grafiti is funny as hell too
My theory on people wanting to believe all galley-rowers and Pyramid-Workers where slaves is that they subconciously don't want to accept how shitty paid labour can be. And still is for many people, to the point of being very close to slavery. Maybe in a few hundred years people will assume that Sweat-Shop-workers or even lower Amazon - employees must have been slaves.
Cool! Very cool! ❤
❤️
A yes a local lord with little importance thats richer than literal emperors...
Yeah thats, a powerfull lord. I think thats what a emperor is. He is a emperor
11:36
In the cartoon Asterix and Cleopatra they make the joke that the pyramids were actually built by paid workers with 8 hour shifts. (I think it's a very funn yjoke: one guy stays for overtime, but he can't move the huge stone alone.) Funny how that joke turned out to be true.
You should definitely do another one of these!
Duly noted!
I enjoy your content, but hearing you talk about exploring gender studies alongside smacking down the racist and being a Southern American hell, yeah, man. You are cool.
I have a deep love for the south but man knowing the bill of goods they got sold makes me mad. Glad you liked the content
Being a Past edgelord doomer, i really liked your conclusion about Humans.
It's why I have faith we won't blow up the planet or destroy ourselves. I think humans are kind of awesome!
Glad you liked the video and I appreciate the comment!
Who the heck thinks ancient people were dumb????? Most folks i know, tend to think that the modern version of H. sapiens sapiens is a LOT dumber than their ancestors tended to be. As evidence i offer the presidential debates between Lincoln and the other guy whose name nobody really cares about - vs more recent presidential "debates" 😁
Oh man there are so so many
How can you keep politics out of history, when politics is 90% of what we call "history".
The idea that Europeans showed up to the America's with guns to effectively stone age humans is wild.
On the US civil war my thoughts are pretty much, cool story how about not owning people.
On pyramids, ancient humans would crap a pyramid if they saw a skyscraper.
Yes, they absolutely would.
I'd love to bring an engineer from Egypt to see the bass pro pyramid
Loved the video! (ESL) Small comment about carbon dating, it's the radioactive isotope of carbon (C-14) the atom that decays and it's radioactivity measured to estimate its age, not the basic elemental carbon (C-12). Most carbon dating is used to estimate the age of once alive organic material like bones or other tissues like wood but sometimes it's found around inorganic materiales too!
Thank you I knew I was missing something from carbon dating!
People seem to forget that ancient people were people XD You got time sheets and cafeterias, they had regulation drill sizes.
Is this what happened in history class while I zoned out due to ADHD and the ganja? XD
Lol, probably or in fairness to you, they cut a lot of history programs, so it may not be your fault 🤣
@DesksAndDorks just found your videos but love your work!! Using it to inspire my own ttrpg ideas :0
Good man! If I can get one person to start making their own games it's worth it!
This is a wonderfully made video. I just wanted to point out though that I think some people have a point when they say let's not look at history thru the lens of "current affairs". And since history is entrenched in religion, the same can be said when people who look at history thru a religious lens and that is also not great because now we're teetering on mythological levels.
I think the best example I can give is when people say the Emperor Elagabulus was a trans individual, but when you look at it holistically and consider his Levantine descent, people calling him effiminate were just straight up racist and made fun of Syrian and Canaanite men for wearing makeup and perfume
Idk if im making sense here. I would love for criticism for anything that I said ❤
Not sure it was sandy when pyramids were built. The Nile may have move?
Very cathartic to hear someone else rant about the "keep politics out of history" bs.
And as much as I agree, I can't help but laugh as I listen to a man talk about the serious real world consequences of that way of thinking while hearing this cheery guitar strumming in the background, lol!
I'm glad that was funny that was the intent behind the cute guitar music!
Coming for the rpg, staying for the ethics and how cool you are 😊
Awww shucks I appreciate it! But also yay discussions on ethics
The idea to leave out politics of history… I mean, sure, it's one thing that "everything is political", but even if disregard it, what we call "history" is a shorthand of "political history." Under the subject of history we're not learning the advancement of science or philosophy, we're not learning natural history or geological history, we're learning about kings and wars, it's politics itself.
The misrepresentstion of the holy inquisition really enrages me lol
One thing I find hard with history is separating modern sensibility, with actions of the past. Obviously, good morales should be followed and considered. Everyone in history could be seen as monsters if you can't try to understand ancient mindsets. History can't be an utter good or an utter evil because most societies had a heavy mixed bag. Interesting hurdle to leap. Im a big Rome guy, and to deny their brutality is silly, but to say they did nothing or had no good people is also silly. Nuance is important and is often lost to fulfill the idea that history is a forward story of preogression. Interesting stuff.
I agree. I try not to judge the actions of those in the past but to be aware of the possible motivations
People who say keep politics out of history must really think politics are a new thing and have never existed ever in human's short time on this planet huh
Only nitpick i would say: you can't carbon date rocks. Carbon dating only works on organic matter because that's how you get an equal ratio of carbon14/carbon12 as you have in the atmosphere which can then give you an approximate date of death for the organic matter.
You are 100 percent correct. I conflated carbon dating with radiometric tests because I am a goober.
Mansa musa may have been a local lord but was still important.
Carbon dating really only works for organic materials not stone.
Yeah this is a pretty big error on my part. I think in my brain I was conflating radiometric dating and carbon dating but those Teo aren't the same thing.
Thanks for the correction!
I absolutely love the video though and would love to see more videos!
@@DesksAndDorksHappened to me all the time in school! Plus most people only know carbon dating anyway and simplifying it for a wider audience in a shorter form video is understandable. Honestly the annoying online archaeologist got the better of me and I had to say something 😂😅
@KyleGrimes96 it's much appreciated man!
I've been trying to do as many of the historical rpg vids as I can (assuming you've watched those)
Super grateful for the support!
@KyleGrimes96 no I appreciate it! I was trained as a medievalist but never made a career of it so it's nice having folks chime in and offer help when they can.
Hey found your this video in my feed and i appreciate what you had to say about Islam! I researched Islam from the perspective of a Catholic and was surprised by the amount of similarities that arent spoken about in most America-Catholic spaces I've been apart of. Most of it was wrapped up in the politics of post 9/11 America. I found the similar practice of utilizing rituals and academic understanding of the texts to directly intersect ones faith with their modern life in a meaningful way to be similarly inspired.
Truly, two parallel Abrahamic bridges to Heaven!
Keep up the good work! God bless!
I had the pleasure of learning under a religious scholar who was well versed in Muslim history and Islamic scripture. I gained a great deal of respect and insight from him, and that carried over into my adult life. ..glad you enjoyed the video!
Really? The religion that did more damage to Christendom than any other is willed by God as a parallel path to Paradise? 😂
@CantusTropus correct it is the teaching of both faiths that neither knows thier path to be true. We simply have faith. Sadly the path to theological arrogance like yours (belief in spiritual superiority inclusive of atheism) is foolish and has led to the death of millions more Muslims than Christians. This is a human problem, not one derived from any ONE belief system
Calling half-life a chemistry concept made me rage
I'm curious to hear what you would call it. We learned it in chemistry class as part of our units on the elements, so I'm genuinely not sure where/how else you would classify it.
@DesksAndDorks a physics concept. Chemistry is only focused on study of how elements bond and change these bonds with reactions
Or just how their properties change in case of radicals. And half-life is part of nuclear physics.
Huh I had never considered it like that but broken down in that way it does make sense.