A historian tells you why everything you know is wrong.
I'm a historian with a Phd in early American history. This podcast is intended to bust myths. And replace them with better ones. If you like them, please comment here or on soundcloud (www.soundcloud.com/historiansplaining), and take a look at my Patreon page to give whatever support you can. www.patreon.com/user?u=5530632
My website: www.historiansplaining.com
Пікірлер
very good video! very good to see a rare resource going into some depth into the history of central asia. a quick note on languages though, that the turkic and mongolic languages formed what is called a sprachbund, or language area, which is why they ended up becoming more similar. spanish and greek (examples you cited as languages that are becoming more different) are actually part of the same broad european language area, and thus do share traits that they might not with other indo-european languages. however, they are becoming less similar over time because they are different branches on a language family tree with very little contact (past borrowing greek words into spanish). finnish and german are actually becoming more similar (well, finnish and other germanic languages like swedish, who are in the same language area as finnish). the result of finnish adopting swedish (and other nordic) characteristics is that it is becoming more similar to german.
Great work...continually engaging...congratulations for shining light on these countries history and links to their ever developing stories
I think your thesis is correct about the fundamental importance of Sarajevo which is as central to WW1 as September 11 was to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, militarism, the alliance system, strategic rivalries where all there too, but without Sarajevo - even if these underlying factors eventually caused a war (which is not preordained), it would not have been the war that we actually got in 1914. I always thought that tipping point was Russian mobilization bearing in mind that the Tsarist Empire included Poland while nationalist Russian officers had the Tsar cornered so that he couldn't reach a compromise with the Kaiser even if he had wanted to. Given the proximity of Russian troops to the frontiers of Imperial Germany, Berlin had no choice but to react. So there's this escalatory logic driven by the fear of being placed at an imminent strategic disadvantage through any inaction. As you said, Sarajevo was the trigger but then there are these inbuilt mechanisms that keep activating. Another aspect is the lack of realism and a failure to understand what industrial warfare would mean. All sides seemed convinced that they could deal a knock out blow with the war over by Christmas. In other words, conflict broke out because in Moscow, Berlin, Vienna, and Paris war seemed like the only credible option with all parties squarely painted into a corner. I don't think anyone could have done a better job of explaining all of this as you have done in this epic series of lectures and final summary.
I agree, the full Russian mobilization was probably the most crucial escalating event after the assassination, and it was the one that made a great-power war inevitable, at the same time that political and military forces were already arrayed in such a way that there was very little chance to stop the escalation at any juncture. Thank you, I am so glad you gained something from listening!!
@@Historiansplaining Thank you, Sam ☺
My ancestors
Google Waldensians and the Voynich Manuscript
Very interesting and so clearly explained, thank you!
I visited Austria 🇦🇹 in 2024, and wished that country still had its monarchy.
Really enjoyed the video. I'd be interested in hearing a similar argument for the myth of "capitalism" as it can be defined separately from, let's say, industrial society or liberalism. Not sure if you already made an episode on this.
Myth of the Month 5 is on capitalism -- although I have been thinking that I ought to revisit that topic since it was hard to cover effectively
This channel inspires me always to do my own research and after Mr. Sam's UFO lecture, I next listened to all 14 hours of USAF Captain Ruppelt's history of Project Blue Book. So from the late 1940s to the 1950s, Blue Book and its predecessors give these airforce criteria for explaining the majority of UFOs: 1. Meteors. 2. Atmospheric anomalies such as sun dogs, temperature inversions, or ball lightning etc. 3. Reflections of the moon or city lights. 4. Astronomical phenomena such as Venus. 5. Weather Balloons. 6. Planes. 7. Birds. 8. Pilot error 9. Radar error But something is missing from the official criteria which is early US cruise missile tests. These began in the late 1940s, noting that many UFO sightings occurred near testing grounds, such as White Sands. These cruise missiles included the Matador and Regulus rockets which were highly secret because they were fitted with nuclear warheads for a first strike capability against the newly formed Warsaw Pact. It's very telling (imho) that this wasn't a Project Blue Book reporting category, though that was impossible due to the secrecy of these early cruise missile tests. Nevertheless, cruise missile flights might have been a part of the puzzle as they were very fast and could (presumably) abruptly change flight direction even in the 1940s-1950s. If they were carrying nuclear fissile materials too, then that would explain the radiation spike associated with some UFO reports. From these murky origins, it could be that the UFO trend never dies out because it is periodically recycled as a smokescreen to obscure such things as U2 spy planes (1960s), stealth technology (1980s), and in our era - advanced hypersonic unmanned drones. The thing is this: When reading historical documents like Captain Ruppelt's Report on UFOs from the 1950s, despite hundreds of pages of scientific testimony, key pieces of the jigsaw were deliberately left out.
This video is excellent and well-reasoned. Thank you.
This entire series was amazing. Thanks a lot 🎉🎉🎉
Love your podcast. I really wanted to watch the German origins but I think it was paywalled or something and stopped watching for a few months.
the Germany lecture is on patreon for patrons -- will most likely be released for the public at the beginning of October. Thank you for listening and tell friends!
I generally avoid subscription services, but Patreon is SO easy to use and change donation amounts if/when you want to, or cancel if you need to. Sam has generously set the minimum to access all his podcasts there for $1. Patreon lets you choose whether to donate per episode or per month
Great thorough content.
The series is excellent and enjoyable. In the last year, my favourite lectures were the one about Tsarist Russia and the one about UFOs. I listened to the latter video about 15 times. It's very atmospheric as it unplays like a drama with the mysterious Foo Fighters tracking allied air fleets then we go the medieval monks seeing wonders in the sky. Best podcast ever. I hope you will go back to UFOs someday or even just deconstructing ancient alien lore as a trained historian would be great to hear. Best channel for history and, may I add, Mr. Sam has the best speaking voice and calm intonation for inducing relaxation. I can't listen to most videos because I suffer from misophonia but the sound of this person's voice is perfect for someone like me.
Thanks for a wonderful and interesting review of a lovely movie! Impressive!
Would greatly appreciate your review and commentary of the Netflix series Young Royals! If you have not seen it, you should consider it.
Just people human beings like every body else
Thank you
Wonderful! Looking forward to discovering the rest of your podcasts.
Wow, that is some horse on the figurine. Looks like it's about to eat the man...
1:12:00 And what an ugly mission!! It just makes his ideas more nasty and crazy and dangerous. He was spreading evil.
Make a video on Jacob Frank. He took Sabatai's lunacy to another level, real hardcore psycho.
He looks like the dang pope in that chair. 🤔
Another really great video! This is so fascinating, and there is so much of British history I didn’t know. I watched Mary & George and recently went to Scotland and visited some of the Castles there, so I’ve been familiarizing myself with that time period a bit, but there are so many other historical figures I knew nothing about. I never quite realized how many parallels there were between Alex and Henry and real historical figures. Whether it was intentional or not, it’s still super interesting. I’m excited for the next installment in the series! 😊
I have seen Doune and Edinburgh Castle -- it's very interesting how they are represented! At Doune, everyone was taking either the Monty Python tour or the Outlander tour!
@@Historiansplaining We went to both of those. The audioguide for Doune was quite funny. We saw Stirling Castle as well, which was properly my favorite. They do 1-hour free guided tours several times a day, that covers a lot of both the military and royal history of the castle. Highly recommended, if you're ever around there again 😊
I just remembered, they filmed the scene where George is lured into a castle and almost murdered in Doune Castle
29:30, I was aware of another fundation story. The dispute between the pope and the king over the appointment of the archbishop of Canterbury. The king eventually allowed the execution of three students in Oxford, related to the culprit of a murder, to give a strong signal to the pope on where the power lies in in England. Can you tell me more about these foundation accounts?
It seems as if this particular story can be traced to the chronicler Roger of Wendover, who was a monk of St. Albans. He says it happened in 1209. It is certainly possible that it is true, and that it contributed to the migration of scholars out of Oxford-- and Roger says they went to Reading, Cambridge, and Paris. If so, it may have been a factor in the growth of Cambridge as a mecca for scholars -- but it seems that that had already begun a few years earlier, and it probably related to disputes & splits over doctrine. We don't have enough surviving documents to say for certain exactly when the university was "founded," or whether there was a single precise reason.
@@Historiansplaining thanks very much for your response. Sorry for the typos, I amended them, but I was in a rush, and as it is customary, I watch videos about medieval universities when I am late for work. Can I also ask you the source of the heretic dispute in Oxford?
I believe I read it in Cobban, "The Medieval English Universities," but searching now I don't see it exactly, but there were definitely later heresy disputes at Oxford, so I might have confused it with later events, and the reported execution in 1209 happened first.
@@Historiansplaining Thank you vey much. Appreciated.
This is beyond interesting! I have never been so invested in British royal history haha. Your analysis of the film makes me want to watch it again with more attention. Can't wait for the next episode!
Been waiting for the next installments! You’re a genius!
Thank you so much for making this! I love it and I actually can’t believe I haven’t stumbled upon this video until now. I’ve loved the RWRB book since 2020 and was properly obsessed with the movie around the time it came out last year (and still love it now). I love reading and listing to other’s analysis of it too, and I love how in depth this was. I’ve already spent too much time thinking about the mirror shots in this movie 😂 I can see the next video in the series is already up, and I’m excited to consume that when I have the time 😄❤
Thank you and I am so glad that you found it!
ideological tool ? thats pretty much tells us you are a victim of an ideological tool : Obscurantism and equivication of heart and mind . Ideological tool is ALL in a head. Myths are all about HEART and COMMUNITY. Try feeling a myth, instead of thinking about it, and then maybe you will understand myths. yes, it is true that myths, are many things , including psychological tool: This is true . However, on a long list of so many purposes and benefits of myths, "ideological tool" is WAY down on the list . Its like saying a smart phone is a flashlight. yes, thats true; the smart phone is a flashlight. PS that shit you say about thanksgiving. you read a book written by a Caine professor and think your sooooo smart . you ever consider you are the tool ? you have been lied to ? I read the original materials. you read assholes.
I think *Love, Simon* is a much better example of a gay rom-com than Bros... sorry, I needed to comment on this bc not only Love, Simon is great but it showed that gay rom-coms can be successful and Bros is just awful. lol
I watched Bros a little while after making this video and thought it was so-so. I haven't watched Love, Simon as of yet because I feel glutted with gay teen dramas but I know a lot more people like it
Wow you gave me so many more interesting aspects to think about this movei! Excited to see the following videos!
Irish is the national language of Ireland we do not use Gaelic! I wish he had researched more accurately
In Scotland, it is Gaelic, however, in Ireland, it is known only as Irish, that is the only mistake he has made
I’m very interested in the linguistics that he is speaking of however, the Irish language in Ireland is only referred to us Irish, Gaelic is a misnomer, meaning it is not used and generally speaking. If you used the word, Gaelic, you would be talking about Scots people.
Great conversation. The most appropriate honour is Benjamin Zephaniah's "No B.E." can't afford Tobias's book but I look forward to reading the Conversation article.
"First" is misspelled in the title FYI
Interesting! I listened to this yesterday and now hearing of thinking the word “culture” is really jarring. Wouldn’t some of the same criticisms be applicable to terms like “French society”, “French cuisine” or “French tradition”?
No I don't think so -- unless one uses those words in the way that we use the word "culture" -- but that would just be obviously ridiculous to the audience. The problem with "culture" is not just that it's ambiguous. All words are ambiguous to some degree. It's that it is extremely ambiguous, while at the same time it is used as if it is extremely precise and technical, and refers to something definite that has an active power in the world. It is the combination of ambiguity with grandiosity. I do not think that is the case with the other terms you cited, which make much more modest and narrow claims. Imagine an example -- eg: "France has a high rate of knife crime because of French culture." We hear statements like this all the time, and in my opinion, they are circular and meaningless. Now imagine if someone said "France has a high rate of knife crime because of French society." It's obviously nonsense, isn't it? "Society" just means a collective of people and the relationships among them. It's not a motive. Invoking "society" does not account for those people's behavior -- you have to actually point to the conditions that lead to specific actions. Now, with "cuisine" the case is different. It may be ambiguous, but still it refers to a specific sphere of norms and practices. If you say, "France has a high rate of knife crime because of French cuisine," you actually have a specific testable claim-- one which seems totally far-fetched and implausible, and hence probably wrong -- but at least it's an actual, testable claim. Same with "French tradition." It doesn't seem like a good explanation -- but heck, maybe it's true. You just have to provide a specific argument -- what traditions are you talking about? And what kind of effects do they have that lead to knife crime? The problem, I am trying to say, about culture, is that it has a deadly combination -- it is both more broad, vague, and expansive than all the other terms you cited, and at the same time it is invested with causal power, the ability to explain behavior, way beyond what we would accord to any other term or category.
@@Historiansplaining That makes sense! Thank you for replying in detail so swiftly. I've been listening to your work for a while, and it's all slowly influencing my thought process. I'm a first year university student studying history (although I might change my major to Linguistics). I think I see most of your argument here, but it might take a re-listen to fully process it, it's a pretty complicated thing to hold all at once in my mind. I guess by "some of these criticisms" I meant something like "talking about French Cuisine reinforces the idea of France as a discrete category". And that a foreign restaurant inside France might be seen as not participating in "French Cuisine" in the same way that Javnese policemen in Bali are seen as not participating in "Balinese Culture." I guess those bits weren't necessarily the main thrust of your argument, and "culture" being such a mystifying term is probably more guilty of it than more specific terms would be. I hope that all makes sense, it's late here in Australia and my brain is tired at the end of the day.
@@kirangill2862 Yes, there is a kind of nationalist or ethnocentric assumption built in to talking about things like "french cuisine" or "French music." Those things always have to be defined politically -- and it happens that France in particular puts a lot of deliberate effort into defining and delimiting what counts as "french." So there is a kind of circularity there. I think that the paradox just becomes all the more glaring and absurd when one claims that "French culture" can actually define what it means for a person or place to be "French" in the first place. It's turtles all the way down!
I'm not as confident as I would be had I read all these sonnets myself but from those mentioned in this examination it seems obvious to me that the "fair youth" is Shakespeare himself.
why do you think so?
I just tried to put myself in his shoes and of course remember that he's using poetic license; but every quote you read from every sonnet was screaming that this was an inner conflict. It would be easier to explain regarding specific portions of the presentation than to try and generally, in a broad sweeping statement sum up why I felt that way. I will listen to it again and try to make some notes to better portray the perspective that seemed so obvious to me at first blush. That is if you would really be interested in hearing them. I think it explains why he was writing these sonnets to a young man trying to urge him not to be selfish and to find a wife and provide heirs. It's not because he was commissioned by some unknown third party it's because he's writing a sort of diary talking to his younger self. It also explains why he has such an intimate affection for this young man and how he knows that this woman that he speaks of was the ruination of the young man. Also it explains how his writings are going to immortalize the young man because his writings are his key to immortalization. I think if you go back and try this POV it will be obvious to you too. Also, let me say unlike yourself, I've not read all the material you have, but for the excerpts you mentioned I had no trouble seeing these as an inner dialogue to oneself or a type of pensive reflection of memories of younger days. Also this explains why the one sonnet that is missing the last couplet is cut short as if suddenly and unexpectedly. It was signifying his actual death which always comes with our last goals unachieved or completed fully. I was also thinking about his will and leaving his "second best bed" to his wife. Did he have more than one bed or was his first best bed the one he was sleeping in now; his final resting place? I'm just an amateur though.
More relevant than ever
First and Cornish Tin built Britain?
What are the chances that this belief went underground and grew, became the core of secret societies and the cause of 9/11, the mess in Gaza, and every financial crisis. kzread.info/dash/bejne/poODybGYZMqZmqQ.html
What happened to the indo iranians of central asia when the turks came ? Did the turks mix with them ?
love simon was good this no love victor was good this no i think you are funny as fuck i would like to hang out with you you are doing stand up rightt what a trip
Madonna's Madame X rewards repeated listens. this - well i;ll never find out rewatched among a handful of people oppenheimmer baarbie thosse r even worse than this movie why dont you watch gay coming of age movie called Get Real you'll like Get Real 20 maybe more years aago but it honestly wont feel that dated
i watched it once it wasnt naauseating but it was tacky so tacky too tacky to be cringe you are talking about this film as if it were brokeback mountain
It resembles Brokeback Mountain in some respects, but it is better and more complex. Good taste is being able to say what is good without being distracted by the superficial trappings. That is the point. Thanks for watching!
its so hilarious to see such an erudite channel like this - who I just watched a Sabbatai effing Zevi vidoeo on do an hour on this insane topic OMG it was a very highly contrived premise you got that right i think you are freaking hilarious man - this comical that you do an hour of this -- you are doing comedy correct - like when i turn on lifetime movie net work and say in a real film critics voice "Eric Roberts you simply have to appreciate the dephth of darkness her portrays so brilliantly in stalked by my doctor"
I'm doing a lot more than an hour of this, because that is what the movie merits. Thanks for watching!
@@Historiansplaining youre hilarious.im I'm St Pete Beach where are you
There’s an interesting picture of queen Elizabeth II standing with every president she’s met since her coronation and it really cemented for me the rift Alex and Henry face, for Alex being first son is transient he won’t always be in the White House but for Henry he “will live and die in these walls” (Kensington) Alex is undeniably incredibly smart but I don’t think he grasps that there isn’t a day Henry can be just himself. There’s not a day when it won’t matter who he is with. Henry represents the old world cynical and tired and Alex the new of boundless enthusiasm. It’s also interesting that queen Elizabeth shared a close friendship with the obamas that the Obamas didn’t share with the prime minister. Perhaps a reflection that the close felt Alex won’t always represent this country as first son or even as a senator or president if that’s his goal but Henry will always have to represent his. Also that queen Elizabeth shared a close relationship with the Obamas
Once again, many thanks for this mega-interesting and enlightening analysis of the many symbolisms in RWRB. I enjoyed it tremendously and to be honest I have only two points of disagreement with you: first, I think that the parallels between Prince Henry and Princess Diana and Prince Harry are a bit exaggerated. Harry's bride was ostensibly welcomed and they had a St. George's chapel properly royal wedding. The notes about Diana's compassion are of course spot on, but I see Henry's visits to the children as having more to do with Henry's unresolved mourning for his father who had died of cancer, The second point is about the New Year's party. It wasn't an official White House party, but Alex' party. There was nothing official or protocolar about it, just fancy tent outside of the WH with young people dancing to young music and Alex and Nora as hosts. And thanks for mentioning Frederick the Great! Not only a gay man, but also an enlightened statesman and a superb military leader who consolidated Prussia as an European power. Again, I can't wait for the next installment. Thanks!!
Thank you! I agree that the parallels btw Harry and Henry are superficial, and the most obvious, like the Meghan relationship, are just coincidence according to Casey. There are more parallels with Diana, though, some of which I'll probably bring up in the next video. Henry's hospital visits definitely relate to his grief; many people also perceive Diana's warmth toward the public as relating to the lack of warmth in her marriage. You're absolutely right that the two parties in the first act have very different statuses, and are not parallel in that sense -- but they are set up as parallel in the context of the narrative, with the wedding being Henry's "turf," where he functions well, and where Alex is nervous & uncomfortable, and then the NYE party on the WH grounds being Henry's first time on Alex's turf (more literally), where Alex shines and Henry is nervous & uncomfortable. So it is more a comment on their contrasting personae, but I think it is also an indirect comment on their different nations and their stereotypical images.
@@Historiansplaining Thank you for your comprehensive response. It pleases me to say that your analysis has helped me discover quite a number of hidden details within this adorable movie and I'm really looking forward to read in the following weeks or months the rest of your chapters. Thank you!
That was wonderful. I loved all the history behind both the British and US relationships. I didn’t realize that the king had to agree to the marriage. Plus I did notice that Henry was on the stage at the end with the Democratic political party even though it was with Alex and I figured that might be a no-no and cause a bit of a scandal.
That was great. You brought up things I hadn’t thought of.