I am aware I butchered the German pronunciation of Lothrigen. The language learning is still an on going process

@kingbeauregard

Жыл бұрын

Anyone who gets on your case over that might as well be a no-good filthy Lombard. You heard me.

@highmolecularweightRDX

Жыл бұрын

Dutch protip: when in doubt, make a sound like you are trying to pass a kidney stone through your esophagus

@jangelbrich7056

Жыл бұрын

Try "Law-tring-gan", that may come close. Colloguial it is shorter as "Law-trinnng", kinda

@TheFallofRome

Жыл бұрын

@@jangelbrich7056 thanks for the tip

@JosipRadnik1

Жыл бұрын

Don't worry, you were far better than the average of the YT historians I know. At least "Gewalthaufen" was pretty spot on concerning pronounciation

I swear this period of history (the fall of the Carolingian Empire to the proper establishment of the HRE) is so complex no one dares to create content on it. Thank you for being brave and teach us history and it’s legacy.

@johnmars5282

Жыл бұрын

Because the records from that time are a mess and there aren't many of them, its one of the most complicated and disputed periods of the western european Middle-Ages. Historians basically have no idea how nearly half of the counties and duchies were created.

@cardenuovo

Жыл бұрын

😂

@awabooks9886

Жыл бұрын

@@cardenuovo As an alternative, if you are covinced there are content creators out there covering this, ...perhaps list a few of the better ones. I'm sure Maria would find that much more useful.

@ninny65

Жыл бұрын

It's kind of simple since it's mostly talking about the drama of one family and it's consequences

@minka866

Жыл бұрын

HRE?

I love how this channel explains the theory and framing of history, and not just give names & dates.

@TheFallofRome

Жыл бұрын

Thanks! That’s a big part of what I’m hoping really helps the channel stand out long term. Too many channels just do the whole names and dates things. That’s like talking about science by only discussing atoms and name-dropping Einstein every now and again. There’s so much more to it than that once you scratch the surface

@craigkdillon

Жыл бұрын

That is what history is. Names & dates just gives a framework.

@theletterw3875

Жыл бұрын

History and historiography, there is no objective framing or theory

@colmlarkin8665

Жыл бұрын

That's why I subbed! It's fucking sweet.

@thomasvandevelde8157

11 ай бұрын

Yes indeed, I'm gonna watch some more videos here. Especially since my home turf is mentioned for once!

When I read the title "ghost kingdom" I immediately thought of the duchy of Burgundy which was also very highly influential in the history of Europe in that duchy's several incarnations which culminated in the Valois appanage of the 13 and 1400's that didn't quite reach the status of a kingdom when duke Charles was killed in battle with the Swiss at Nancy.But I believe had Charles lived he probably would have sought the permission of the pope and the Holy Roman emperor to elevate his duchy to a kingdom.Burgundy occupied some of the territories occupied by Lotharingia including the very important Belgium and Netherlands.

@TheFallofRome

Жыл бұрын

Yes. I don’t know if you watched the whole thing, but I go on a lengthy discussion of Charles and Burgundy at the end

@kaloarepo288

Жыл бұрын

@@TheFallofRome I made my comment before listening to your talk -I thought immediately of Burgundy because yesterday I have been watching videos on the Wars of the Roses and it was mentioned that Edward IV's sister Margaret was the duchess dowager of Burgundy.You also mentioned Rene of Anjou-whose daughter Margaret was a key player in the early phase of the wars of the Roses -Rene,as far as I can gather,was never actual king of Naples -the childless queen regnant of Naples Joanna II merely designated him as her heir but he eventually lost out to the Aragonese claimants to the throne.The kingdom of Naples was another cadet branch of the Valois -Angioini or Angevins as they are called in Italy who also ruled Hungary.Southern Italy had its own Wars of the Roses with the various Angevin Valois cousins both Hungarian and Italian fighting for the Neapolitan throne.Interesting to note that there were regnant queens in Naples in the persons of Joanna I and Joanna II -something that never occurred in France itself.

@HueyPPLong

Жыл бұрын

And it doesn’t just end with burgundy. As you say parts of it became Belgium and it’s also the reason for oddities like Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Switzerland not being apart of any true “nation” like France, Italy, Germany despite being populated by Frankish, Germanic and Italic peoples. Also France and Germany fighting over “Alsace Lorraine” in the 19th and 20th centuries…Lorraine aka lotharingia, so it could be said that WW2 was caused by the division of charlemagnes empire lol

@williamcurtin5692

Жыл бұрын

Charles the Rash was not going to be living much longer. Going out to fight the Lorrainers and Swiss in winter? If that didn't get him killed (it did), something else would have. A Conrad von Hotzendorf-level fool.

@beeldpuntXVI

Жыл бұрын

@eddy many don’t believe that, but it is one of the main indirect reasons why those conficts started.

It was a blessing and a curse for Castille / Spain to get the Burgundian Inheritance, since it shifted its focus from the Mediterranean and America to Central Europe, creating 1 too many fronts to deal with effectively, specially after the protestant reformation.

@beeldpuntXVI

Жыл бұрын

And a curse for the low lands: 80 years war, the duke of Alva resulting eventually in the split of Belgium and the Netherlands.

@celdur4635

Жыл бұрын

@@beeldpuntXVI U could see it that way, but some other power would've gotten the Inheritance so i think the Low Lands were screwed either way. An independence war had to be fought at some point. In that regard it was better for the Low Lands that faraway Spain got it, instead of France or Britain.

@beeldpuntXVI

Жыл бұрын

@@celdur4635 I don’t know, it’s history, there is no what if. There is only comprehension. History is fascinating. The past is the past, the history explanes the sensitivities…

@beeldpuntXVI

Жыл бұрын

@@celdur4635 besides that, the dead of of the duke was premature. Whitout the was with the suis the army of the burgundians was strong enough to withstand the French crown. They where a driving force the kingmakers in France.

@sebe2255

Жыл бұрын

@@celdur4635 Spain only received the low lands after Charles the 5th gave them to his son. If that hadn’t happened they would have simply remained as divided duchies and counties within the HRE

I've always been fascinated with learning about how the kingdoms (and later, modern nations) of France and Germany emerged and formed out of the remnants of the Carolingian civilization. Thank you so much for giving such a thorough and detailed explanation.

I think another reason behind Louis apportioning Middle Francia to Lothar was that the Lombard dominion positioned him for the all important role of Defender of the Papacy, the original basis for the establishment of the Empire

@TheFallofRome

Жыл бұрын

Probably, yeah. Considering that Louis appears to have thought of the empire as a holy one which worked with the papacy, I think that interpretation makes sense

@sebe2255

Жыл бұрын

Additionally, after Lothair’s death, it was Lious II who would receive Italy and the Imperial title, while his younger brothers got Burgundy and Lotharingia.

This is what the whole narrative of “Germany was only created in 1871 at which time it took Lorraine from France, which is why France wanted Lorraine back in 1914” totally misses. The Kingdoms of France and Germany had been formed after the 843 Treaty of Verdun (as the West and East Frankish Kingdoms), and the lands of Upper and Lower Lotharingia were fought over by Germany and France for centuries upon centuries, culminating in the dramatic changing of hands of Upper Lorraine in 1871, 1918, 1940, and 1945.

@ogunsiron2

Жыл бұрын

Germany as a united nation state is recent (much more recent than France) but Germany as the territory where a large group of related peoples known as the germans live is a very old concept. maybe one could argue that the part eaat of the elbe river is relatively recent addition to germania.

@bioemiliano

Жыл бұрын

@@ogunsiron2 Yeah, the concept of a German-ia is way older than the concept of a France

@ogunsiron2

Жыл бұрын

@@bioemiliano they're both old concepts and both types of peoples have existed for a very long time.

@Ghreinos

Жыл бұрын

@@ogunsiron2 In the part east of the elbe river lived the goths and Hermunduren, Burgundians, Langobards (Lombards) and so on, there were many elbgermanic tribes so what are you talking about, that they are relativly new. The burgundians lived in Poland and later came the slavs. Germanicum magna was also depicted that way. After the huns invaded europe many burgundians went to the region of Lothringia.

@LibertyMonk

Жыл бұрын

Well, Germany (and most of non-eastern Europe) wasn't really a thing until after the Napoleonic wars around 1815. The Germanic peoples were similar and nearby etc, and weren't more than nominally unified until 1871. But yeah, the concept of German peoples existed in Roman times. Honestly, France isn't that much older, as a nation, or modern state. It wasn't until the end of the Hundred Years War when it started turning into something resembling a country. Arguably it took until the times of Cardinal Richelieu or Cardinal Mazarin for France to really settle in to being France.

I've always found Medieval history to be confusing and somehow disconnected to modern history. You bring the pre-modern events into perspective and help connect them to what we regard as modern European history. Thanks for insight.

@robinharwood5044

11 ай бұрын

I’m pretty sure that the people of the time were just as confused.

@chrisschultz8598

11 ай бұрын

@@robinharwood5044 They'll say the same thing about us 1,000 years from now.

@ericthegreat7805

10 ай бұрын

Actually the most industrialised areas of the EU--the Low Countries, West Germany, Austria, Northern Italy, France and Northeast Spain--were all part of the Carolignian Empire. So there is an almost 1-1 link if you look deeply at the geopolitics and demography of Europe today.

@tomasstanek2982

10 ай бұрын

@@ericthegreat7805 Low countries, northern Italy and and west Germany, yeah. But if you are going to include France, Austria and northeastern Spain, you may aswell include Silesia, central Bohemia and its borderlands or northern Poland, so the whole analogy falls apart.

This is superb. You have elucidated some difficult concepts quite well. One cannot understand most of European history without understanding the thousand-year struggle between France and the different German regimes over Lotharingia

@sebe2255

Жыл бұрын

There were hundreds of years in between this division of Lotharingia and the German-French wars over Alsace-Lorraine (only a small part of Lotharingia) whereby neither side really cared. More like two struggles with 1000 years in between (give or take). Most of Lotharingia is made up of the low countries anyway, which neither side had a rivalry over after the treaties of Meerssen and Verdun

@ChipsGoutSmegma

11 ай бұрын

@@sebe2255 Alsace-Moselle*

@sebe2255

11 ай бұрын

@@ChipsGoutSmegma What about it

@ChipsGoutSmegma

11 ай бұрын

@@sebe2255 It is Alsace-Moselle

@11Survivor

10 ай бұрын

@@sebe2255 Your analysis is immediately proven incorrect by the fact that the French invaded west, further and further, throughout the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries so as to border the Rhine. That is far more than "two" struggles, it is 6 centuries of struggle through a dozen wars, some of which were decades-long. That is without accounting for the previous 4 centuries.

Mind = blown been looking for an in depth explanation of the origins of France and Germany from the West-Middle-East frankia perspective, and what the hell was Middle Frankia and what became of it in the first place, my wish has come true.

34:19 what a crime of the map artist to depict Spain as blue and France as yellow

@TheFallofRome

Жыл бұрын

I know! When I found the map I did think that was strange

Amazing video once more. Setting a new standard, not only for your own channel but actually also for the entire YT history community. A real historian at work here, not encyclopaedia citer!

I appreciate the centuries spanning in depth medieval politics, inheritance rights, emerging professional armies, and shifting technology and tactics covered, and more! I know you didnt feel comfortable going longer and so went to part 2, but i for one appreciate the in depth approach i was able to fill some holes and make some connections in my head going from Lothringia to Burgundy so thank you.

This was such an enlightening take on the idea of Europe itself. From the Carolingian ideal of a Christian empire to the centuries of conflict over what was once Burgundy. Thank you for creating videos that are so well researched and carefully crafted. PD: for anyone looking for a quick survey of Burgundian history, Norman Davies' wonderful "Vanished Kingdoms" has a neat chapter about it.

The Blue Banana was always fought over by ambitious men, eventually the "banana split" solution crystallized as the one that happenstance adopted.

@Yora21

Жыл бұрын

Quite possibly the the best piece of land on the planet after the Mississippi and the Yellow River networks. It's the spine on which "Europe" as a concept is based.

This is extremly interesting. I can certainly see both the arguments for seeing this as long standing conflict for united Carolingien territory and against it. It certaily clears up few pieces of 19th century history which I have been quite unclear on. Btw would you consider doing some videos on HRE and some major players within it? I find it to be quite fascinating state (if you can trully call it that).

@TheFallofRome

Жыл бұрын

Sure I can do videos on the HRE! What are you interested in?

@troo_6656

Жыл бұрын

@@TheFallofRome Honestly kind of everything, but I guess that's too broad. But I think electorates and how Habsburgs consoledated power within the HRE would be very interesting topics.

@dr.feelsbad23

Жыл бұрын

@@TheFallofRome If I can throw my hat in the ring a video on Barbarossa or Otto the Great would be appreciated

@luizarthurbrito

Жыл бұрын

@@TheFallofRome I've always been a nerd for day to day life in the hre, more specifically, trade, early manufacturing, economic development, the rise of the bourgeoisie, towns, cities, free cities, and how people lived in it. Basically the reasons why would a region become wealthy in the late middle ages. Any topic which doesn't directly deal with the nobility and the church.

@JMM33RanMA

Жыл бұрын

@@TheFallofRome The HRE, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Swiss Federation were a major influence on the founders of the US. It seems to me that the Electoral college, the elected chief executive and the coexistence of a national government with semi-independent constituent states comes from there. While studying the development of the US, I tried to read what the founders read and considered. I don't remember which source mentioned English, German [HRE], Dutch, Athenian and Swiss practice. They did not mention Haudenosaunee [5 Nations], but there is speculation that they discussed it. What you have produced so far is very interesting and includes enough hooks to intrigue weapons fanciers, political junkies and culture vultures. Keep up the good work.

I knew most of this as a Dutchie and had muost of the facts hammered into me as an archivist in training. The big picture was always there but it is nice to see you put it in perspective. The term buffer state comes to mind and the various incarnations in a 1000 years time show that it was not to be. But one can dream of what could have been, huh?

@sebe2255

Жыл бұрын

Middle Frankia was actually supposed to be the main inheritor of the Karling Empire though. Sadly it also fell victim to the infamous Frankish succession system. But it was not intended as a buffer state

This was a really well done video, amazing context

The carolingian empire the same area that was united as the founding members of the EU . The old Lotheringian regions what are now the benelux ,Alsace-Lorraine/ Elzas-Lotharingen Switserland , all these regions have places of power and goverment inside the EU and on the world stage. Its a shame not many people learn about how importand the carolingian empire and lotheringa where. There could be an entire series and movies of documentaries and or historic epics like rome about that era.

@buteos8632

Жыл бұрын

A tragedy it ended up the way it is today...If only we had more cinema production in our History, perhaps we could do better being "united".

@marcusfranconium3392

Жыл бұрын

@@buteos8632 Its a shame that we do learn a lot about the roman /greek /egyption eras and 15th century up till now but the bit in between they call the dark ages verry little is tought .as every one was told it was the middle ages /darkages while it was one of the most important eras .

@sebe2255

Жыл бұрын

Are you implying the EU (or rather the ECSC’s founding members somewhat alligned with the Frankish Empire because if that connection? Because that is absolute nonsense

this is one of the best history channels on youtube I'm glad to see your subcount rise

This was wonderful. I learned some of this in European history classes in high school, college and grad school, but the details here filled a lot of gaps. I am looking forward to further videos.

What a wonderful lecture... Subbed and looking forward to exploring all of your content - both past and future.

I am French and my mind is blown!!! Thank you so much

great video bro, just gained a new sub. Excited for part 2

Thank You for this beautifully detailed explanation of these emerging Kingdoms.

Wow. What a whirlwind tour through European history. I knew very little about any of this, and I stayed interested all the way through. In much of the English speaking world we seem to focus on England versus France, western Europe etc. to the detriment of our familiarity with what you have covered. Thanks!

Very well done I'm just finding this channel and you have my subscription. Keep up the good work.

The Swiss pikemen won several battles on the defense, in difficult terrain. We had the same thing here further to the East with Hussites. It didn't last. What made infantry warfare successful in the long run were the guns. Not because they made winning against them so difficult, but because it made winning against them so *expensive* . Basically, they'd ruin your horse, which was a huge expense.

@ohauss

11 ай бұрын

Cohesive infantry could always stand against cavalry. The only reason Hastings ended the way it ended was because some parts of the shield wall broke cohesion and opened a gap. Infantry won against cavalry at Tours, it held most of the day at Hastings, it won at Courtrai, it won at Azincourt and at countless other occasions. The chief issue was having enough a)training or b)motivation to stay in formation and not run after the enemy the moment it turned around.

@bakters

11 ай бұрын

@@ohauss "Cohesive infantry could [sometimes] stand against [low quality] cavalry" Especially behind field fortifications, especially when the enemy was silly enough to keep on attacking head-on against the said fortifications. So, that is actually true. So what? They can only stand, meaning they can't move, especially if they rely on fortifications. There was a battle of Kokenhausen, when allied cavalry was totally defeated, so the infantry was forced to occupy a high ground and stand there. The enemy didn't even care to attack them. They calmly waited for cannons to arrive, and the infantry couldn't do anything to prevent it, field fortifications and all. I could cite an example after an example, but in general it all boils down to: "Standing your ground rarely results in a decisive victory". It can, if surviving is all you care about (bitter sweet), *or* you have your own cavalry that is capable of turning mere survival into a destruction of the enemy force.

Your channel is a most refreshing discovery. And your style of presentation with your knowledge is even more so.

Totally scratched my Itch for medieval war history, great video thank you

This is a really fascinating but little known and even less understood period. It really is during the period from the middle of the ninth to the middle of eleventh centuries when the last embers of the ancient world died out and what we recognize as the modern world starts to come into being. Thanks for covering it in such great detail.

I knew next to nothing about this topic but some around it. Very interesting, I am definitely looking forwards to the next.

excellent, I was aware of this Lotharingia issue after reading Raymond Cartier's book "the 19 Europes" and now I have found an answer in your video, thanks

That was a great refresher!

Great video. Keep up the good work

Fascinating how smoothly each period flows into the next.

Very lucid explanation of this topic! Having a history degree, I really appreciate this.

@chrishaugen8648

Жыл бұрын

Great subject. This is a little known and murky time. Great lecture!

Thankyou. I enjoyed this very much. Truly you are a master in your field❤

Fascinating topic, and presented very well!

That's why I am pretty fond of the european union, with all its faults. European history is like "War, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war.....arguments about the proper shape of bananas"

@TheFallofRome

Жыл бұрын

Yes this is something we’re going to talk about in part two. Part of the reason the EU was devised after WW2 was to create an economic union to stop different countries fighting over resources. The idea was that with free trade and mutual cooperation, it doesn’t matter if Germany technically has the coal fields or Belgium utilizes the North Sea for wind power. They all share it

@baneofbanes

Жыл бұрын

@@TheFallofRome I do find it pretty interesting that the “core” of the EU is essentially the former Frankish empire.

@christopherboyle2403

Жыл бұрын

You do know fights happen within borders as well. The question becomes, distributed power vs centralised. There are some things that centralisation makes sense for but usually distributed is better (who likes being controlled?). You can do more distributed and wealth generation is easier distributed but at the cost of cohesion. Societies are usually complex and so they have to do many things, distributed power structures allow smaller zones to concentrate on specialised activities and in my opinion should be the default (see Roman REPUBLIC not a union). If you have to defend ideals or borders then distributed is bad. You might be fighting multiple fronts and you might devolve you power structure a little to better engage those multiple fronts but cohesion is more important in war then the ability to do multiple things. You are doing one thing across a large area that is time critical, the most adept at managing that one thing should lead it creating a single operational view rather then infighting / argument created by distribution of power. The euro has destroyed european economies. Areas of europe could not produce at the value of the euro and so have become indebted. The areas creating that high bar have the value of their currency brought down by those who cannot match it. With distributed economies smaller members could print (and devalue) their currency until equilibrium was achieved. Not masters of their currency means they cannot print, they must borrow. Short term the euro does not lose value because it wasn't printed but any euro borrowed has interest attached. Needed to borrow because you didn't have the spending power? well you still don't have the spending power but have an ever expanding interest burden now to manage as well. That is unmanageable unreasonable. How to enslave a state for dummies volume 1. The single view over massive geographical and cultural borders generally means those with power are disconnected from those they control. Hell even within the sliced up europe you can argue the leadership does not properly understand the concerns of their people. This is french leaders leading the french (I don't think they particularly like Macron but have no one better at the moment). The english leading the english (I KNOW they hate Boris. He promised something that he is currently in the process of backing out of again after half arsed delivering sort of in the first place). So how much worse is it when a leader in Brussels (who is not well connected with the people of Belgium) write laws for people living in Ireland for instance? No the EU is a bad idea. You want a defensive union? Maybe but you have NATO. You want an economic union? That's how you sold the EU to begin with before starting to add overreaching laws and a common currency. Maybe but you have shown you cannot be trusted to keep your nose out of business not related to this.

@AndDiracisHisProphet

Жыл бұрын

@@christopherboyle2403 yea, sure, buddy

@christopherboyle2403

Жыл бұрын

@@AndDiracisHisProphet Way to tear down my points.

You finally did it! Great!

Great video! One question I have is why the region of ‘lotharingia’ emerges fron the dark age as such an economic engine? Since we often talk about dark age continuity, it’s easy to see how for example, England goes from a backwater roman colony, to complete collapse, to european backwater kingdom, not really managing to achieve its own prosperity until the angevin empire creates an integrated economic system in the high middle ages. Italy is easier to understand, since it began wealthy and despite setbacks continued to benefit from its Roman legacy through the millennium. The Rhine region surprises me a bit. Certainly it’s good land with convenient river connections, but so is the danube, or southwest france for example. Why does the Rhine region overshadow them as ‘the wealthiest part of the Carolingian empire’ when only a few centuries before it was just Roman frontier country?

@chubbymoth5810

Жыл бұрын

Apart from looting, the Norse also traded a lot using their new found wealth, increasing the ports at the delta's of Rhine and Meuse. Improved ship designs also played their part in this story.

@baneofbanes

Жыл бұрын

I’d say the Ruine being closer to Britain, where the industrial revolution worked, and having easier access to global trade than the Danube would probably help out in that regard.

@rafaelrmaier

Жыл бұрын

@@baneofbanes Yeah but thats like almost a thousand years before the industrial revolution

@rafaelrmaier

Жыл бұрын

Thats a very good question, hopefully it gets answered

@Atomic866

Жыл бұрын

the lands of lotharingia including burgundy and the low countries are extremely fertile and valuable for trade in the smack center of western europe

nice video, i loved how despite this being a mostly "classroom" sort of video, you added visual clues and kept the content entertaining through the video. middle francia is such an interesting concept, a mixing pot of developing cultures and new languages, i always wondered how an united "lotharingian" identity would have been, very likely an amalgam of french and dutch but still unique, but at least we have walloon, flemish, dutch and the different dialects of french and german across the rhine

this is a great , insightful exploration of a rarely discussed topic !

This is the first time I've seen one of your videos and I really enjoyed it!

The polical, religious, and military history so wonderfully detailed here helped me to gain a little more understanding of the development of a European wide culture and the parallel creation of a grand strategy of Europe. Governance is about progress, progress is about Christianity, and Christianity is about permission to force your will through politics and war.

great video. The political conflict between, the carolingians and the danish kings in the first half of the 9th. century is barely mentioned when people make videos, about the carolingian empire even tho i consider it a big deal.

@TheFallofRome

Жыл бұрын

I’m happy you enjoyed it!

Thank you very much for this video. This was very delighting!

@bobavontanelorn5713

Жыл бұрын

I forgot: best regards from Germany! :-)

Great video! Thanks for the information

I love this hypothesis. Glad to finally see a video on it.

Great video, I was aware of the later parts, but not the early bits.

Very well made video. I was aware of Lotharingia but not of its importance and persistence over the centuries. I would love to see a follow-up to this video, which I believe you didn't make after looking through the channel's inventory.

You do a much better job explaining this than extra history!

Yay, a long video from you! More, please! (Ignore all the YT advice that videos should be limited to ten minutes, we have longer attention spans than they think).

great video! keep up the good work

@TheFallofRome

Жыл бұрын

Thank you!

I really enjoyed this video. I watched it 11 months after you published it. You mentioned being half done at the end of this video and invited us to look forward to the second half. I don't see anything that looks like a second half yet. Did I miss something as I scanned through the video list or are we still waiting. I saw a lot of interesting videos on your list so I subscribed. I am looking forward to some very informative and interesting history here.

Did you ever make the second part to this video? I did enjoy how you laid out the subject and found it easy to follow along Middle Ages History can get real complicated real fast when doing a video like this.

Awesomely explained, I think I even followed the minutiae of events 👍 well done sir! 👏👌

great video and info ty and keep it up

I have studied these histories as an avocation in the past. Your presentation was excellent. You filled in a few blank spots I had in my knowledge.

Great video. I've recently started studying this region. Im reading Lotharingia by Simon Winder. Any other suggestions of good material? I really love your channel. Can't wait for part 2.

The Duchy of Swabia (also called Duchy of Allemania) has a similar story, 12th and 13th century, everyone wanted it, at the end of the 13th century no one had it and it was never given to a noble ever again, but officially existed till the end of the Holy Roman Empire.

Absolutely eye-opening video.

Is there a part 2?

I have always felt that Rome never fell exactly, it just never figured out a viable form of succession. Interesting that The Pious saw the problem, and that we are working out the differentiation of state and religion even today.

41:00 -- RE: Artillery; See also: Siege Warfare, "Redoubts". Part of the improvements in early modern armies includes the know-how to build specific emplacements for artillery. Part of the charm of looking over the historical record in Europe from the early middle ages through to the early modern age is seeing how defensive fortifications changed in response to the introduction of artillery, sometimes incorporating offensive battlefield strategies (ie. earthworks) into static emplacements.

Just discovered this channel. Love it already!

This was a superb video. At the end there was a reference to a sequel video. Was this ever made?

Your channel is awesome. And good luck with your PhD !😊

\wow this is an excellent video -- instant sub

Happy that the mighty algorithm recommended this video and channel.

Its a great explanation. Thx, nothing much to add. Reading tip: Bart van loo

Great video, very well presented

Great video. I'd like to see/ hear the second part, but I can't seem to find it.

this is really good

Hi THC! It would be really nice if you could leave the auto-generated subtitles on for future videos. I understand that they aren't always accurate, but I (and probably a few others) would really appreciate them from an accessibility angle. On another note, have you ever read Hendrik Spruyt's "The Sovereign State and its Competitors"? It's a fascinating application of systems theory in understanding the emergence and dominance of the modern state in late medieval Europe. Spruyt spends a fair bit of the book analyzing competing methods of governance in the Middle Ages (e.g., trade leagues like Venice's or the Hansa) and takes the stance that the dominance of the sovereign state wasn't so much as a given as something precipitated by a number of aligning factors (such as the conflict between the two competing univeralisms of the Church and HRE). Anyways, great stuff, as always! Really happy to have found your channel, you always give a great summary of current scholarship (and helpful directions to future reading!)

@TheFallofRome

Жыл бұрын

Sure thing! I’ll add the subtitles. Didn’t realize they weren’t activated. I haven’t read the book but I’m aware of it. I’ll get to it at some point!

@highmolecularweightRDX

Жыл бұрын

I've heard that argument before but not the book, and always in a military context, that the sovereign states were simply better at bashing in heads. I read a summery/review of the book and it gives the reason that states were better at "mobilizing the resources of their societies", which always sounds like what a Soviet would say when they really just mean building the most T-55s. Does he go beyond that argument, or is it mostly a comparison of why France could mobilize a massive army but Swiss cantons could not.

@someoneelse2970

Жыл бұрын

@@highmolecularweightRDX IMO he actually goes quite a bit beyond that! It's been some while since I read it, but as I recall, his major points are (in non-faithful order), that 1. Trade Leagues had a hard time actually mobilizing armies and defending themselves, 2. The Church and HRE spent a lot of time de-legitimizing each other (this trend culminating in The Protestant Reformation, which ultimately disavowed a unviersalist Christendom), and 3. The Sovereign State allied itself, in France and elsewhere, with the Burgher/Merchant class against the landed aristocracy, facilitiating the development of commerce and proto-capitalism. Of these arguments, I think 3. is definitely the most similar to what you're saying, and I can possibly see some later portions of the book getting repetitive on this note if you're familiar with the scholarship. But his points 1. and 2. are pretty well-argued, and tbh the best portion of the book for me is his detailed look at non-soveriegn state governance in the Middle Ages (roughly the first half of the book). So I do consider it a worthwhile read, but I am neither a medievalist scholar nor a shill for this book, lol. I would be happy to hear you or THC give a critical review of the book, and what parts of his argument you found good or shaky. Cheers - SE

@highmolecularweightRDX

Жыл бұрын

​@@someoneelse2970I've been spoiled by audiobooks, but I've read the introduction and a couple select chapters and I can tell it was written in the 90s, as he describes feudalism as being more monolithic than more recent historiography, and I'd call it more outdated if he talks about "proto-capitalism" but he doesn't seem to describe anything like that. Rather his argument is that increased commerce post-1000 destabilized feudal ties (somehow) and that led to nation states. Looking at his own tables, if anything the opposite is true, the less mercantile france had a state first, while the most mercantile Italy had one last. I have a similar problem with his conclusions from the argument church, if anything conflict between the church and king/emperor seems to have slowed the rise of nation states (Also I don't think he says anything about the protestant reformation; it doesn't support his case since the Habsburgs sided with the catholics.) His two arguments as I read them are that states are more efficient because they issue standardized measures and coinage, as if modern steel grades were written by congress and gravity only exists because parlement decreed it so; and the second is that states only recognize other states as legitimate, so that makes competing institutions lonely or whatever and so they disbanded. He says he has a third argument, but it just restates the other two. All in all, a weak and contradictory book that was a total waste of an afternoon to read, or it would have been if it weren't for two pages casting doubt on the state dominance by war theory that I believe, THC has said in this video and others, and you even thought was one of his main arguments. In short, the Hansa talian states, later Swiss and Venice, and even into the pike and shot era the Dutch, all could trade blows with the most centralized states of their time. A very THC "That's not wrong, but" moment for me. It revealed a mismatch between my theory and historical fact. Spuryt gives his equally insufficient arguments as a solution, I'll need to think more about it. Maybe THC can give a better answer if he reads this.

@AttilaKattila

Жыл бұрын

@@highmolecularweightRDX I always come back to this and link these for people who want to understand how and why capitalism came to be, as I find they explain it the best, here's Robert Brenner: kzread.info/dash/bejne/qYmB2NqjdJy-Y8o.html and here's further stuff: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism#Other_views & en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism#Agrarian_capitalism

Great video my historian brother!

Great and detailed discussion, appreciate the inclusion of politics and economics with the military content.

19:25 That area is basically the Blue Banana region. Still an important concept in the European economy well over a thousand years later. (Usually also extending north to London and south to Northern Italy.)

Great video!

Thank you for taking this era on. I had a big hole in my understanding of how that French-Germany split developed. I am clearer, but it seems more like a lava lamp of coalitions, holdings, and dominions than anything sequential.

Been playing a lot of Crusader Kings and I write historical/ fiction based comics so this is good research material! Love the channel!

Now this is the proper amount of detail required for this subject. Medieval history is great.

I just stumbled on your channel and I will probably watch again. I like this content. I have a constructive criticism. And if I'm wrong just ignore me. At times it sounds like you are trying to create a voice for your videos and at times it seems your normal voice takes over. Sounds kinda like you're trying to make a subtle change. I think you have a great voice as is to be honest and if you are trying to change it, main don't? I don't know I'm just some guy on the internet. Loved the video keep it up.

Lots of detail! :D

Lovely video... have a strong crusader kings3 vibe from it. Oh the struggle until the character founding out how primogenitory works... every single time got a huge penalty when the actual character dies and his successor claim the throne and the kingdom fall apart between his children.

Loyalty because you get something out of it, actually goes back to the Germanic and Celtic relations with their pantheon of Gods. If a tribe worshipped Freya, for instance, but things don't go well for a number of years, that tribe might worship another God. That is one reason, I believe, that pagan tribes were willing to convert to Christianity after losing a big battle. The loss proved the superiority of the God, Christ. Later, this idea that loyalty had to be earned, was the basis for the Magna Carta. King John was not doing right by his nobles, so the Magna Carta was created to define things better. Which goes to another HUGE point -- western democracy has very little to do with the Roman Republic or Athenian democracy. The Magna Carta, and the Parliamons of Europe have everything to do with Germanic and Celtic tribal laws and customs, and little from the ancient world. At least, that is how I have come to view it.

@RC15O5

Жыл бұрын

It's both buddy ol' pal! They come from aryan stock. oriental despotism is evil, and when it took over Rhomania (national name for the Roman Republic/Empire), it in-turn tainted everywhere it touched. Medieval times was about the legacy of rome, so oriental depsotism spread further, intertwined with roman churches.

@commissiotibinobiliviro1408

Жыл бұрын

"The Magna Carta, and the Parliamons of Europe have everything to do with Germanic and Celtic tribal laws and customs, and little from the ancient world. " It's very much a fusion of both, modern western Europe essentially derives from the mixing of Roman statuary law (which *all* medieval kingdoms tried to copy to a certain extent) with Germanic customs. You can't have one without the other. Also, Celtic and Germanic practices were vastly different, even within themselves. Germanic kingdoms ranged from "electoral confederations", like the Alamanni or the Saxons to more centralized states like the Goths or the Franks (which it's not a coincidence, since the latter two had been thouroughly influenced by Roman customs for a couple of centuries).

@varalderfreyr8438

Жыл бұрын

@@commissiotibinobiliviro1408 Statutory law is globalistic, Common Law is unique to each tribe/ethnos. Napoleanic codes don't lead to democracy, only centralisation.

@ilikedooooooodes7963

Жыл бұрын

There’s a reason actual historians disagree with this statement btw 😂

@craigkdillon

Жыл бұрын

@@ilikedooooooodes7963 Since I got those views from historians, I am sure you are right. They don't all agree. But, the ones that talk about our democracy coming from the Greeks and Romans do not study it in detail, or depth. There is no continuity of democracy from the Greco-Roman era, but there is continuity from the Anglo-Saxon era. The book "Myths of the Rhine" gives an interesting discourse on it.

An excellent focus on a historically forgotten error.

Your thumbnails are definitely getting better

Yeah after watching this I had to subscribe. It’s always nice to watch a video for people who already know some history.

the exact history Channel I've been looking for really covering the gaps in my knowledge I've been looking to fill

@TheFallofRome

Жыл бұрын

Glad to be of use !

Thank you!!!!!

very informative and intriguing video. I'll be sure to check ur other videos out too ^^

Wow great video! Lots of information!

@TheFallofRome

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching!

Love it!

"LA" grande mutation, great content, really good video

Wow your explaning and talking and thinking is very good.

History can be likened to a tapestry with threads of many colors.

Enjoyed your history lesson. Where would I find part 2 ? 🇨🇦