Pornocracy? Finally I've found my political home.

@Ulyssestnt

2 жыл бұрын

me too;=)

Some remarks: True, the HRE due to it's domestic issues wasn't able to project power westwards, but it wasn't a pushover either. From the 960's up until the 1640's it's borders remained pretty much the same, meaning none of it's neighbors were able to conquer large (or even small) parts of it via military force. In fact local powers like the Hanseatic League, the Swiss Confederation, the Rhein Confederation, the Swabian Confederation of towns were able to stop or even defeat major players at the time like Denmark, Poland, France, Burgundy or Milan. It took France 700 years to even consider taking some territories during the 1640's in Alsace and if you look at the map how little they have taken and how much money and manpower it actually took, Voltaire's words come off as salt. 😏 Btw, the (Habsburg) emperor was busy fighting the Swedes, the Ottomans and the Hungarians of Transylvania so his forces vwere nowhere near the Western border. (Although the Spanish were protecting this area due to family ties) In the beginning of the 18# century emperor Leopold was able to hold his own against Luis XIV, while simultaneously kicking Ottoman ass and conquering like 200 000 square kilometers of territory (practically doubling the size of the Habsburg Empire) while the western front moved 1-2 kilometers back and forth. The collapse of the HRE in 1806 was due to multiple reasons: dimwit rulers in both Prussia and Austria, armies stuck in the 18# century with outdated equipment, tactics and doctrine, no real buffer state in the west (both Prussia and Austria were in the East), the third power Bavaria siding with France, overall low public order due to feudalism and medieval authocracy. West German states greeted French troops as liberators and were keen to adopt modern forms of government like the code civil and capitalism. Capitalism transformed the Rheinland from a mediocre vine producing region to a center of German industry, thanks to Napoleon's brother Jerôme, king of Westphalia.

@TonyqTNT

Жыл бұрын

By capitalism do you mean merchant mercantile economy. I thought the actual commercial capitalist economy developed in England in the late 1700s coinciding with the industrial revolution?

@alexandermalinowski4277

Жыл бұрын

@@TonyqTNT Capitalism originated in Italy in later Middle Ages.

@davidbowie50yearsofbowiean23

Жыл бұрын

Aspects of both capitalism and socialism have existed and been practised for aslong as both governments have existed and the market has existed. So using your argument, the mesopotamians and Egyptians made both socialism and capitalism. But the reality is, the collection and naming of such practises to be formed into one unified documented idea and form of economy was written by a Scott and first practised in England. At least in capitalisms case.

Yeah, John XII died of a stroke in the bed of a married woman while in his mid 20s. Guess he "stroked" too hard. Stay away from sin, kids.

@theletterw3875

3 жыл бұрын

Imagine being the bishop trying to explain to a young prince why this was a bad way to go out, all while your teeth give you a permanent migraine from decay

Voltaire omitted to mention that his name wasn't really Voltaire.

@colonelautism9957

3 жыл бұрын

*Kek*

Now my evening routine is not to watch some silly shows on TV - but to watch your videos. Fascinating! Neuronal stimulation is much more enjoyable than mindless sitcom/reality TV 'entertainment'.

You're giving the Holly Roman Empire a bad rap. Decentralized authority is a good thing for the actual people living there, even if it's not the best thing for a historian trying to keep track of who's in charge. Also realize that the conventional historical perspectives we received as Americans are from an anglo-centric point of view and they tend not to give us much credit to the accomplishments of Germans in the past.

@zshivkonezshivkov380

2 жыл бұрын

Decentralized authority is a good thing but the problem is that the local authority in the HRE is unstable and restrictive. You are a serf bound to the land you work and every year you can be ruled by a different lord who is too busy trying to stabilize his political hold than improve his holdings.

@LTrotsky21stCentury

2 жыл бұрын

Nope.

@liamconverse8950

2 жыл бұрын

@@LTrotsky21stCentury wow you must be a deep thinker who totally doesn't fall for the mainstream biased narratives of History

@dlugi4198

18 күн бұрын

Nah, fam. It's actually your anglo-centric that makes you say smt like that. Decentralized authority was bad thing for actual people living there, cuz their local ruler had much bigger authority to fuck them over and they couldn't get help from bigger bully (king / Kaiser) to bully their bully. Also, it became really shit when the petty administrative units started to wage war against one another. I am excluding imperial cities, but those become a thing only later on (and were also used as a tool of monarch to combat nobels) In the Middle Ages the monarch and the commoners were often on the same side, struggling against the nobles.

As the always brilliant "Yes, Minister" said it "the Napoleon Award is granted to the statesman who has made the greatest contribution to European Unity, since Napoleon... Unless you count Hitler". Dissolving the mess that was the HRE certainly helped.

@dlugi4198

18 күн бұрын

TBF the greatest contribution to European Unity has historically always made the monarch whose everyone else feared. So it was dominated by sultans

What a great channel and resource this is!! Thankyou!!

Something that survives for 1000 years is no mess

@squakrock

4 жыл бұрын

Pepe The Great Right cause I’m sure you know exactly how to run a civilization . “10,000” yeah you were born in 2002 for sure .

@squakrock

4 жыл бұрын

Pepe The Great Was the largest state in Europe for 800 years. Held firmly to its borders on both sides from 800-1800 . That’s what the double headed eagle represents. Through all this talk about a “mess” it worked pretty smoothly. If you don’t understand how it worked then you just don’t understand feudalism.

@rockstar450

3 жыл бұрын

It was a mess. The fact large parts of it were irrelevant to other parts make it a failed political apparatus. Multiple currencies and always at war within itself, it’s ineffectiveness for such a large landmass made for interesting developments with its neighbours. Many of the countries within it were not a mess, but what the “empire” was certainly was.

@aramhalamech4204

2 жыл бұрын

The HRE is like Cancer. Just because it won't die doesn't mean that it's good.

@ShadowedOne413

2 жыл бұрын

I beg to differ. Theristes nailed it

"Ok, whatever, who cares?" 🤣

@SaulKopfenjager

3 жыл бұрын

14:28 reference point, yeah, haha!

Very informative!

U should grow. Ur video quality is amazing

@fuzzydunlop7928

5 жыл бұрын

@dʒeɪms This is kind of true - TIK is one prominent exception to this rule - though his content has been quite lacking since he committed to the '1 video a week' doctrine.

Interesting that Byzantine Emperors are not considered Roman Emperors but the Germanic Carolingians are despite not having a direct connection to the Roman Empire like the Byzantine Empire which was created by Constantine the Great.

@alanpennie8013

3 жыл бұрын

Oh the Byzantine Emperors are definitely considered Roman emperors. Though the Ottonians called them Greek emperors when they wanted to be mean.

@hachibidelta4237

2 жыл бұрын

Contantinople was created by Constantine but the east was basically the same Roman empire.

@cardenuovo

9 ай бұрын

Says who?

Awesome video, thank you. Keep up the good work. :) However i have a minor remark: as far as i know the Hungarian rulers were not exactly pushed by the HRE to convert, because the Hungarians themselves invited the missionaries by their own will. This theory is supported by the later HRE-Hungarian wars in which the Hungarians have beaten the Imperials very badly several times, meaning they were not afraid of the HRE (see the campaign of Conrad II for example in 1030). The conversion of Géza and Vajk can be accounted to their ability to predict what must be done in order to unite the basin. It just happened to be they invited German missionaries. :)

AMAZING!!

Well @Thersites the Emperor was in a strong position during the Ottonian, Salian, and Hohenstaufen eras. It truly fragmented after the power vacuum that emerged after that dynasty was deposed. There was a 60 year interregnum that saw the remaining power of the monarchy shattered. The HRE had a chance of centralizing as it was slowly doing so during the Renaissance. Had the 30 years war not occurred, Germany’s religious unity and the Hapsburg political vice-grip wouldn’t have been shattered.

@Ennio444

2 жыл бұрын

I'd argue the HRE was doomed to the opposite route France or England took (centralising slowly between the 1150's and the 1400's) after Frederick II essentially solidified his rule over Sicily and Naples by giving ecclesiastic and secular German princes ample powers and privileges. By that point, the path of least resistance was down. The Thirty Years War is more of a symptom than a last nail in the coffin. The seeds were already there

How to surmize the HRE in a second: A F**KING MESS.

@ThersitestheHistorian

6 жыл бұрын

I can't argue with that. I would only add that it is a mess that aged worse than any other state that I can think of.

@Alexeiyeah

6 жыл бұрын

I was reading Hellen Zimmern's book on the Hansa cities and she talks about how Frederick Barbarossa looking for international gains/lands made his internal power kind of weaker, leaving alone the ducs, counts, princeps and all that to sought their own affairs. Maybe, if he focused on a centralization of his country, like others were doing by that time (like France *winks at Caroligian to Capetians video*), HRE would not be on the F**KING MESS road, methinks. Of course, the precedent set by the election of Henry, the Fowler really got things going downwards, but I feel like the mess could be avoided somehow. Instead, they just kept leaving everyone to their business and things just got more and more downhill. On the another side of the road, I guess that could be the destiny of countries, like France, where regional lords had much power. The kings were trying to take one step at the time to really concentrate the powers on himself, by slowly building a national burocracy, controlling the money related business, instead of delegating it to feudal lords and municipalities (Le Goff's book Money and the Medieval Ages is a great book on that subject), lik you talked on the video. So, if you take that slow steps and the kings relegated on persuing external gains, they would be some kind of Holy Roman Emperor-thing. Maybe they wouldn't have an election system, but still... A internally-weak ruler. But that's just alternate history.

@Alexeiyeah

6 жыл бұрын

On a not related note, would be interested in having subtitles and translated subtitles? Some people have a better time reading than hearing and I know some people that would be interested in the content, if they understood english. I don't know how complicated it is to allow subtitles to your videos, but, hey, it's an option.

@ThersitestheHistorian

6 жыл бұрын

That does seem to be the case with Frederick Barbarossa so far as I can tell. He was one of the few emperors with the power and prestige to enact major reforms and he bungled his opportunity. He may have felt like leading a crusade was easier than confronting his own nobles and maybe it would have been, had he just known how to properly cross a river.

@ThersitestheHistorian

6 жыл бұрын

As for the subtitles, that might be a bit beyond my technical capacity at this juncture.

22:55 I think you made a mistake, or I didn´t get your argument: When Voltaire says that the Holly Roman Empire wasn´t "Roman", he meant, that it had not the culture of the roman empire, or the still existing eastern roman empire, on the opposite, the HRE consisted of complete barbarians, pretty much the opposite of "Rome" or "Roman"... Even including Rome wouldn´t make you "Roman", since being "Roman" is an attitude and a culture and a state-form, and the HRE was nothing of all that...

@radonrodan8332

2 жыл бұрын

That used to exist when it fell in 1453. It's successor states(Morea and Trebizond) fell in 1460&1461.

@hannibalburgers477

2 жыл бұрын

The way I see it, becoming the Rome means three things Either you hold the city of Rome (yea, I know) by the right of conquest similar to 3rd century emperors and later, Or you continue on the Romatitas, the Roman way of living that's systemised by Cato Maior, and then Augustus (Which is arguably ended with the death of Diocletian, I emphasize arguably) Or you are what is left of the Roman Empire. Because everybody call themselves successors of Rome. Ottomans did on their golden age, Russians did while owning none of the Roman lands

Keep up the good work🤓

Thank you so much for these very informative videos very much appreciated

@ThersitestheHistorian

6 жыл бұрын

I'm glad that you enjoyed this video.

so the Pope calls himself The Authority in all things regarding Christianity. then he makes himself THE Authority to name Emperors. I'd say the Pope forgot his role. no wonder the Eastern Church was against him. never knew this piece of fact. i always thought that Leo III named Charlemagne Emperor of Rome because, at THAT moment, the seat was vacant, since only Irene of Athens was on the throne. and since she was a woman, it was unacceptable for a woman to have the title. but to actually pull this "ancient power" out of his butt in order to protect himself... wow. Adaptability was strong with him.

@daneaxe6465

3 жыл бұрын

The pope abandoned his role in administering the church and became a worldly king interested in earthly wealth and playing politics as well as commanders of armies.

Mieszko was not a King, but a Prince, he was the first ruler of Poland, not the first King (his son Boleslaw the brave became the first King) and He did not became a vassal of HRE.

@alexandermalinowski4277

Жыл бұрын

Mieszko had equal status to eastern lords of HRE, so effectively he was a vassal. The origins of Polish independence from HRE was church independence and kingdom status, both date from Boleslaw

@TrajGreekFire

10 ай бұрын

A vassal that kicked their ass in Cedynia

"Established norms?" Bit blinkered don't you think?🤔

I love your videos. I have a suggestion: a review of the game "Crusader Kings". Think your take on the game would be very interesting!

Great video as always. Just a heads up, Mieszko is pronounced as "Mye-shkoh".

Doubt the 18 year old that's fair but an 18 year old name octavian, 18 year old octavians have done well before

@alanpennie8013

3 жыл бұрын

Octavian by name, rubbish by nature unfortunately.

@mattpliska

3 жыл бұрын

@@alanpennie8013 the most effective autocrat in world history.

So...what what about Count Dracula, he's got a cool Cape right?

Hohenzollern castle you have on your photo was actually built in 19 century, so lol, this cool castle is not a result of HRE castellation 😉

Should have talked about the Investiture Controversy.

Your videos are great but do you think you could edit them a little more? E.g. when you talked about those dates & between the 20s & 30s you could have edited that in in just a line of text or so. Also maybe listing ( briefly) the other duchies when you talked about Franconia.

@ThersitestheHistorian

6 жыл бұрын

With a lot of the videos from last fall, I was teaching a course and I was putting out several long videos a week, which accounts for some of the oddities in those videos.

@aLukepop

6 жыл бұрын

Thersites the Historian Fair enough. Great video btw. So little English-speaking content on this subject outside of like, wikipedia articles and occasionally video games? EDIT: By that I mean your presentation is pretty easy to understand and helpful. I'm a little surprised by your low level of popularity. Maybe the length of the videos? Whatever it is, keep up the great work dude. You're a godsend.

@aLukepop

6 жыл бұрын

Also you kind of covered it here but have you considered doing a video on the (medieval & close medieval) history of Sicily & Naples? EDIT: Maybe consider splitting your content up into a couple of different channels. Idk if that'd be a good idea but it's a suggestion.

The only thing you got wrong was that Austria was not a rival of the HRE but in fact WAS the HRE. The HRE post-1200 is essentially Habsburg Austrian domination of Germany

@alanpennie8013

3 жыл бұрын

I'd say he's right. In "Austria" the Habsburgs were hereditary absolute rulers, in the rest of The HRE they were elected and their authority was very limited.

@TheLocalLt

3 жыл бұрын

Alan Pennie their authority was not “very limited” in the rest of Germany until after the 30 years war and Prussia’s independence from Austria and Poland, as at that point Prussia began swaying the nominally Habsburg protestant duchies. Prior to Prussia’s ascendancy and the weakening of the empire through civil war, the habsburgs and their predecessors controlled dynastic politics throughout the empire, in fact one of the main motivations for the Seven Years War was Habsburg interference in Fredrick the Great’s affairs

@alanpennie8013

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheLocalLt The "Austria" of those days was not at all the same as the modern Republic. For one thing it included the Czech lands. For another it didn't include Salzburg, which was an independent city state under its bishop.

@TheLocalLt

3 жыл бұрын

Alan Pennie interesting but it has nothing to do with my point. The point is that Austria was part of, and post-1400s in charge of, the HRE, as opposed to a “rival” to it.

@alanpennie8013

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheLocalLt I wrote it because I thought it might interest some hypothetical reader of this thread.

Very interesting, thank you. A subject that is for some reason completely ignored in Anglo-Saxon and Dutch written histories

@alanpennie8013

3 жыл бұрын

It's very complicated. Personally I love The HRE. A highly decentralised state was suitable to an age of slow travel and communication.

@daneaxe6465

3 жыл бұрын

I think it was later in history the people in the Rhine delta region started identifying themselves as "Dutch". The north part of modern Netherlands, Friesland/Fries, was a distinct tribe in an established area even before Roman times. The central part along the rivers was a more fluid mix over the centuries especially when Rome arrived. The Fries don't really consider themselves as "Dutch" having their own language although its a half-sibling to the Dutch language.

yeah it would be kind of interesting if such a divided state had survived in to modern days...

@ThersitestheHistorian

6 жыл бұрын

Agreed. The international politics of the present tend to favor propping up existing states, so I imagine that the HRE would not be put under much pressure to enact political reforms. Economically, however, I'm sure that the rest of Europe would force economic reforms which would by default strengthen the emperor's authority at the expense of the local princes. Still, I have to imagine that a modern HRE would be a lawyer's wet dream.

@danihennessy8988

6 жыл бұрын

ha ha ha yeah a lot of holes, odds and overlapping laws, lawyers would have so much fun :) I sometimes think that our National states have cause a lot of problems since they have set up a norm that one people should form one state and since almost no part of Europe is a "clean" national state with only one kind of people, religion and so on...

@histguy101

5 жыл бұрын

@dʒeɪms You mean property tax? Yeah, it's way too high where I live. We should revolt. Does the local high school really need a 3.2 million dollar olympic sized swimming pool? They can't even fix the roads around here. A single road can take months, sometimes years to finish because they only work on it one day a month.

@ronaldderooij1774

4 жыл бұрын

@@ThersitestheHistorian I see the European Union as the successor of the HRE.

@alanpennie8013

3 жыл бұрын

@@ronaldderooij1774 It definitely is.

23:46. I find that to be a really bad definition of an Empire. Could you name a single country in the world that according to that definition isn’t an empire?

@ThersitestheHistorian

6 жыл бұрын

It is an accurate definition even if it is underwhelming and not all that helpful. Most states are more in conflict, but many of them are homogeneous in terms of being centered around a particular region or people group. In that case, the origin of the state is a shared identity and the military aspect of their birth is incidental/instrumental rather than causal.That being said, states of all kinds are difficult to describe, define, and differentiate with complete precision. The thing that sets the HRE apart is that there was basically no identity apart from a vague sense of being German.

There are so many different definitions of "empire" that I've heard...

@ThersitestheHistorian

6 жыл бұрын

It is a hard concept to totally pin down. The debates on the definition of "state" are far more involved and complicated, however.

SUMMON THE ELECTOR COUNTS

in those days most men that were found dead in a married woman's bed died of sudden on set strokes.

Technically speaking the Holy Roman Empire covered all of western Christendom and any Catholic ruler whether German or not could be elected as Holy Roman Emperor as long as they had the money and support.A notable example of a non-German trying to be elected was the great Renaissance French king Francois the First who tried to be elected but was defeated by the Habsburg Charles the Fifth.Earlier in the Middle Ages Spaniards and Englishmen had made bids to be holy Roman Emperors -king John of England's son is an example.

@TheBarca1889

5 жыл бұрын

Richard of Cornwall actually got elected and crowned king.

@kaloarepo288

5 жыл бұрын

Thanks!Richard of Cornwall's son was known as "Henry d'Almain" in old French that means Henry of Germany -so the connection with Germany carried on.Henry d'Almain himself was assassinated in a church in Viterbo,near Rome by the de Montfort brothers as revenge for the killing of their father Simon de Montfort.

@Siegbert85

5 жыл бұрын

The elective office was that of a king of Germany rather than the emperor. So, that didn't have much to do with the Holy Roman Empire theoretically covering all of Catholic Europe. The German king was the only one however who could be crowned Roman emperor by the pope later on.

John XII indeed died of a stroke in the bed of a married woman. In contention is that some have alleged that the married woman's husband, with a STROKE of his fist, defenestrated John XII to the pavement below to his demise.

Oh, come on, holy roman empire was nice

Otto i was crowned on february 2nd

In 20:00 you say Stefan and Mieszko converted to catholicism. Actually it was one church. So, they converted to christianity in reality. St. Stefan of Hungary celebrates on 20.08.

@catholiccrusader5328

3 жыл бұрын

@@Jesus.purple go away troll.

I originally thought "pornocracy" was clickbait. Thanks for the clarification.

@alanpennie8013

3 жыл бұрын

It's a perfectly scholarly term meaning, rule of the unworthy. However the term saeculum obscurum (Dark Age) is also used to refer to this nadir of The Papacy.

@johnquach8821

3 жыл бұрын

@@alanpennie8013 Ok. Thanks for the clarification.

@alanpennie8013

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnquach8821 No problem.

Your videos are very interesting I'm not being mean. Just messing around.

@ThersitestheHistorian

5 жыл бұрын

It's all good.

Was Louis the II also known as Louis the German?

@alexandermalinowski4277

Жыл бұрын

No, he is talking of the son of Lothair, because Italy was part of the Middle Kingdom en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_II_of_Italy

You pronounced "subatai" sub a tie and then soo bah tie in the same video. Although I'm no expert in mongolian

" The HRE is like a life form between a mold or a spore and a plant." haha good!

Byzantiam bizantiam byezantiam respectively

Otto the Great defeated the Hungarians on the Lechfeld and unified the Germans for the first time!

@deutschermichel5807

Жыл бұрын

No. The first ruler to unite all German tribes under his rule was Charlemagne. Konrad I was the first non-karolingian German king

In Voltaire's time the Holy Roman Empire was basically the Hapsburg Austrian Empire. Rome was an Elective Monarchy originally before the Republic.

@aramhalamech4204

2 жыл бұрын

"Elective monarchy", but all the Kings were non-native Etruscans... ...Okay.

@Kuudere-Kun

2 жыл бұрын

@@aramhalamech4204 Wrong, only the last 3 of the 7 were Etruscans.

@aramhalamech4204

2 жыл бұрын

@@Kuudere-Kun if you go by the mythological sources the romans give us then yes. But many modern scholars assume that the earlier Kings were Etruscan too.

@Kuudere-Kun

2 жыл бұрын

@@aramhalamech4204 Highly unlikely given that Romans a completely different language, Etruscan isn't even classified as Indo-European much less Italic. Rome clearly started as something separate that came under Estruscan influence for awhile later.

@aramhalamech4204

2 жыл бұрын

@@Kuudere-Kun Yes, but it is much more likely that Rome was conquered early by them. The 4/3 Ratio doesn't make much sense.

P- what?

Hard and soft " c,s " in your greek and latin

I wish my society were a real pornocracy; it's such a great word.

Yet another Carolingian Emperor - there is factual error at 1‘16“ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnulf_of_Carinthia

Wait a second, father of Louis 2nd was also an emperor, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothair_I Is it Material mistake in 1‘16“?

There are 2 key facts about the Holy Roman Empire. 1) It was not holy 2) It was not Roman

Never heard someone be more bored by history.

Etc etc

1. Learn to pronounce "philosopher". 2. Come up with an excuse to call The Holy Roman Empire a "monster".

I am sorry, but this video is waaaay too short, and skips over too much, effectively skipping the entire high middle ages to the era of Voltaire obfuscates things, it does not explain things.

Charlemagne was a fictional character.

@aramhalamech4204

2 жыл бұрын

Prove it

Sounds like you're trying to avoid speaking of something which isn't immediately obvious, but becomes so the more that attention is paid.

@-newuser-707

5 жыл бұрын

Edit: Wait a second! What do you mean? Perhaps there is more to this than I've given you credit for. Please explain! {snip}

@-newuser-707

5 жыл бұрын

Actually I was talking about something more in tune with the phrase "Dark Ages."

It's intereting that even from the begining of the Vatican and the popes, it seems the Catholic Church wasn't primarily a spiritual organization - but a political one. That forgery the :Document of Charlemagne" was it, is truly amazing! So the popes took it upon themselves the right to legitimize whoever they chose to be the emperer. What chutzpah!! They didn't offer the Carolingians any money to be their military protectors, just offered them a title. Reminds me of diploma mills that are basically worthless in terms of education, but provide a piece of paper that can advance a career, or fiat money that only has value because of the power of consensual validation. I also find it interesting that when the HRE took control of a territory like Hungary and Poland was it?, the king converted. It sounds as if these were forced conversions at the tip of a sword, like the Islamic fundamentalists are doing today, and what Islamic leaders with large cavalry units did when they swept through Africa and other places - convert or die.. Then once the King or crown prince of a place the HRE gained control over converted, the people had to submit or be killed. It was mass conversion from the top down - not a 'bottom up" grassroots movement. And those who didn't convert were forced to practice their indiginous pagan religion in secret. . It sounds like the European people were never really INSPIRED to become Christians, it was forced upon them. I'm starting to think that all of organized Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus at all, at it's centers of power. Eric Zuesse, who writes mostly on geo-politics also wrote a very interesting book on how the Early Christian church, after the death of Jesus was quickly usurped by Paul of Tarsus who was really working on behalf of the Roman Empire. As Lenin said once "How do you overcome the opposition...??? By leading it." Zuesse's book is Christ's Ventriloquist. According to him the REAL leadership of the followers of Jesus was headed by John the Younger, the brother of Jesus and his followers were poor, mostly uneducated Palestinians, not a match for someone like Paul with the political saavy and family connections to the wealthy Roman elite and government to subvert the teachings of Jesus to advance his own agenda. The vatican is sounding more and more corrupt even from its beginning. Maybe someday you'll also make some videos on the horrible mass starvation, mass rapes and other atrocities inflicted on the German civilians after tne end of WW2. I just bought 4 books on the subject because I wasn't sure I believed the horror stories two commenters on a comment section made, so I asked what their sources were. There is a lot of historical documentation on the subject, it seems, even though none of it is taught to us in grade school. Maybe you can look into it as well. Two of the books just came today Gruesome Harvest by Ralph Franklin Keeling and Hellstorm by Thomas Goodrich.

@Invisibile

5 жыл бұрын

Obviously Vatican State has been always a political institution, but your assumptions are not correct. Your first doubt is about why a religion could be such influent, making a similar comparison with what happened with Islam. Well, that's not true. Basically during III-IV Century AD,with roman political crisis due to corruption and military coups d'etat, Christians communities all around Europe built up new institutions( including the main ones, bishops), that could assure lawfulness and welfare between consociated, and primarly, they were elected by the "base". That's why Constantine decided to enact Milan Edict(idk how to translate it in english, sorry) in 313AD and to convert himself. That 10% well organised Christians living in the Roman Empire were obviously very influent, and the wise Constantine wanted to avoid a potential and dangerous civil war (just 10 years before took place Diocletian persecutions). Now that's a little resume, just to let you understand why all kind of kings plead for religious blessing at the time basically. On the other side, i'm awake that for a "protestant culture" everything related to Vatican and Catholic is similar to the devil, but there's a theological strong and wide Catholic line of thought nowadays that is trying to "erase" what was incongruent with the original Christian spirit. If you're interested in doing some research, unfortunally i can't suggest you english books, but here some key words: -Acclamatio -Sutri donation -Sol Invictus -Nicae conference

@Jesus.purple

4 жыл бұрын

Christianity and Catholicism are not the same. It's a big lie! The Catholic Church is the Beast and seat of Satan!

@alanpennie8013

3 жыл бұрын

@@Invisibile You could say the the early Church was the first representative democracy. In the High Middle Ages it morphed into the Papal Monarchy.

@Invisibile

3 жыл бұрын

@@alanpennie8013 Yes, i was referring to early Catholic Church obviously

@alanpennie8013

3 жыл бұрын

@@Invisibile I suppose I was too. The Eastern Church had a different trajectory. Nothing like the Papal Monarchy ever developed there.

You really ought to focus more on rote memorization of dates rather than providing profound and relatable context for historical events. Final answer.

“Neither holy nor Roman nor an empire” hilarious . We should probably be careful who we look up to. Holy as in crowned by the pope defenders of the faith Roman as in king of the romans and they took land through imperialistic measures. Really not that hard to figure out. They’re not saying that they’re Roman .

Great I listen all the time. But your pronounciation of the latin an Greek is really bad, your Arabic is hilarious. And even your English could do with some work. 😎

@ThersitestheHistorian

5 жыл бұрын

In point of fact, my Greek and Latin pronunciation is completely within established norms. I never claimed to know Arabic, by the way.

@ryanwilliams5093

3 жыл бұрын

Hey Nathan, shut up please. Ok?

I'm from the UK. Established norms in American english don't really apply to someone who lives less than a kilometre from the queen. Your English is crap Haha. 😎

@lovelyd2929

4 жыл бұрын

nathan moore what the hell I Your ploblem?

@lovelyd2929

4 жыл бұрын

CRINGE ADULT

Charles the Bald was also an Emperor: factual error at 1‘16“. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_II_of_Italy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_the_Bald

He was also the Emperor. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_the_Fat