[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/his/ - History

Historical Discussion

Catalog

Infinity Never
Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Infinity Cup II status- rip

Allied boards - [ Philosophy ]


YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

22487f No.31495

I mentioned Extra History on the 'The Great War' channel opinions thread. I went overboard on my explanation and hardcore shilling so I moved it to a new thread to ask you guys your opinions on it.

If you're unfamiliar with EH, they have covered about 7 topics (and are on episode 5 of the Admiral Yi series) that consist of 5-8 episodes (x episodes of content plus 1 of James talking about shit that they got wrong as noticed by them or pointed out by comments, clarifying some things that confused people, and getting in a neat story if he can. Trigger warning: some of them have figuratively painful audio.)

Their first topic was the Second Punic War with a super quick cover of the first for backstory. It primarily follows Hannibal around and then ends at the destruction of Carthage. If you already know about the battles I don't recommend the video. I also don't recommend the video as your first video. It was a one time thing as they were given funding for it, but was brought back about a year later thanks to popular demand and patreon.

For the lazy:

Warring States Japan: Sengoku Jidai (follows Nobunaga, Hideyoshi, and Ieyasu)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDsdkoln59A&list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5Aq7g4bil7bnGi0A8gTsawu&index=10

England: South Sea Bubble (I really liked this one because I knew *NOTHING* about this)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1kndKWJKB8&list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5Aq7g4bil7bnGi0A8gTsawu&index=17

Africa: Zulu Empire (covers Shaka and shit. I think a bit after he dies, but it's been a while since I watched it)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZLGKFWlRzY&list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5Aq7g4bil7bnGi0A8gTsawu&index=23

Byzantine Empire: Justinian and Theodora (covers up to the conquest of Rome. Ignore the minarets on the Hagia Sopeea, they cover that on lies and James admitted his shamefur dispray)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_2E0RxVHH4&index=28&list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5Aq7g4bil7bnGi0A8gTsawu

Europe: The First Crusade (haven't seen it yet. pls be good)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIs5B2U7US0&list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5Aq7g4bil7bnGi0A8gTsawu&index=35

World War I: The Seminal Tragedy (this does not follow the battles and is also shorter than the newer ones. It's personally my least favorite but I don't dislike it. It's about the start IIRC).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-wSL4WqUws&index=5&list=PLhyKYa

820656 No.31503

>>31495

It's funny how extra history turns out to be a better show then their main show extra credits


8cd7f8 No.31507

They're not historians, they're edutainers: pop education media that's meant for high school and college teachers looking for presentations a little more engaging than a textbook or a powerpoint. So their material is just whatever you'd get out of a standard textbook or popular history reader.

It's far better than their game series simply because history is not their original focus so they defer to standard texts more than their own opinions.


300721 No.31511

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>Extra credits

AVOID, AVOID, AVOID

Do not fucking listen even ONE FUCKING WORD about them without verifying it yourself, they have been proven to be a bunch of biased leftists whose only objective is to introduce their agenda in fucking history lessons.

They are also terrible in their video game videos, and the "Dev" is actually a failed indie who worked a couple years in a big company.


db2513 No.31531

>>31511

>Real Crusades History

the guy is literally an expert on cherry picking nevermind the fact he is literally a catholic extremist.


e076cd No.31535

>>31511

>EVIL LEFTIST PROPAGANDA

>PLEASE LISTEN TO GOOD RIGHTIST PROPAGANDA


8cd7f8 No.31545

>>31511

This video got posted here with some anons giving their own detailed input on both it and Extra Credits

>>>15867


8cd7f8 No.31547

>>31545

Guess I need to find out how cross-thread linking works here

https://8ch.net/his/res/15867.html


3db4bc No.31549

>>31547

I love how the one series I haven't watched is the one that gets shit on. Fuckin hell.

>>31511

My point exactly on the "attack the people themselves" I'm a mostly right-winger and still really liked james as a person when I met him last year (he was at magfest). He was super civil and admitted points where he could be wrong.

Yeah they're lefties but they're far from radical. They don't push some fucking agenda talking about whatever topics are voted on.

Oh fuck, actually I see it now! You're right! I can really see the leftist agendas when talking about the Sengoku Jidai and Admiral Yi! It's really there!

>>31503

As someone who's been watching EC for years (although not as much lately cause work) I agree completely.

>>31507

I partially agree. They are edutainers but they never claimed to be historians, nor is being an edutainer bad. They're just people who like history. You're flat out wrong about the high school book thing though, unless it was strong as fuck hyperbole (is it super well researched? Mostly no, but it depends on the series. It's not high school retardation though)High school history talks more about the why and what happened after than the what happened during the wars and how were they fought. When I took ancient civ we covered the times between 5000 BC and the fall of Constantinople. We covered less than 15 battles. The ones we did cover were only because our teacher was great and told prescribed curriculum to fuck off.

In AP Euro the south seas company wasn't mentioned once, we didn't talk about a *SINGLE* roman battle, and the crusades were spent jacking off muh muslim scientific superiority and maths.

They're entry-level content to get people interested enough to dig deeper for themselves


8cd7f8 No.31553

>>31549

>You're flat out wrong about the high school book thing though

I didn't say high school book, I said high school teachers looking for something more than what they get out of a textbook.


95715e No.31555

File: 1445993400175.jpg (25.71 KB, 300x264, 25:22, 435675635.jpg)

Aren't these the same idiots blabbing on about psuedo science and how we're going to run out of bandwidth in the sky?


a88873 No.31561

File: 1445996696283.jpg (45.72 KB, 680x680, 1:1, 1435982496397.jpg)

>>31549

>They're entry-level content to get people interested enough to dig deeper for themselves

Normalfags don't dig deeper for themselves though, they never do. They just treat what some asshole says on Youtube as fact. They don't actually read history books because history books are long and often written dryly. Ask anyone short of a history major to pick up not one, but several 400-1000 page history books to even begin to get a good knowledge of a given topic, and they stop reading 100 pages into the first book.

>but what about the 0.1% of people who do go on to look things up for themselves

They would have gone on to do so anyways, but now they have to unlearn all of the bullshit they learned from the EC guys.

This, combined with the fact that the EC guys treat their opinions as fact and never say "well, this source says this but this other source says something diametrically opposite, let's see the historiography and put it into context" because they have to stuff their talking points into a video short enough for their Youtube audience.

Now, compare and contrast with Dan Carlin's podcasts. At this point they take 4-6 months to produce and are 4-6 hours each, exactly because he's gradually ramped up all the accountability and historiography in his podcasts. He very carefully delineates what is his opinion, what is the opinion of the author, what the modern consensus is on a subject, what the contemporary consensus is on that subject, and carefully lays out his sources. Even then he spends most of his time going on about how he isn't actually a historian, just a fan of history, and fucking tells you to look everything up yourself if you give even the slightest bit of a shit. Dan Carlin knows that he knows nothing, and he tells you that. He's internally ethically and morally consistent and doesn't want to mislead people.

But the EC guys don't have that record, don't go to those detailed lengths, and have spent years lying and misrepresenting pretty much any facts they encounter so that it fits their narrative. They are so ignorant and clueless yet so assertive in their opinions that they aren't even self-aware enough to consider that they could be wrong. See the muh bandwidth muh cell phone frequencies debacle as a case study in this.

>tl;dr nobody actually digs deeper for themselves, the EC guys are as trustworthy as a used car salesman, and actively encouraging the shamefaced and willfully-made misrepresentation of history in the hopes of reaching "someone" makes you some of the lowest scum on Earth


018571 No.31565

>>31561

>Normalfags don't dig deeper

>They just treat Youtube as fact

I really hate this. Youtube or podcasts edutainment should not be taken seriously, just listen to them when you're having your tea, dammit.

>>31511

> Extra History biased leftists

I've never seen any of their video. Please give some examples.

>>31549

>the leftist agendas when talking about the Sengoku Jidai and Admiral Yi! It's really there!

I'm going to watch these videos.


7f7686 No.31567

SHIT. SHIT. SHIT. SHIT.


0a426b No.31569

File: 1446004513359.png (14.89 KB, 481x383, 481:383, disgust.png)

>Extra Credits

Webm that shit at least.


effacd No.31570

Extra Credits is comprised of some of the least talented and intellectual people on Youtube, which is a website literally filled with people making fan theories about Five Nights at Freddy's and putting Linkin Park on everything.


a88873 No.31571

>>31565

>I really hate this. Youtube or podcasts edutainment should not be taken seriously, just listen to them when you're having your tea, dammit.

I'm going to expand a bit on what I said and extend it to pop history books. Beware any history book that is immediately readable by joe random on the street. It's usually readable not because of the language, but because it gives simple axioms and statements and expects the reader to take them as a given. They often have no real historiography and tend to have either dreadfully few sources, or way too fucking many quotations and citations.

I think the best example of this would be Jared Diamond's work. All of it is easily readable, easily digestable, and makes the average person feel smarter for having read it. From there, they don't actually go deeper, they just treat it as fact and spout off Diamond's opinions as their own. They purposely avoid having the reader think too much about it because any reader with a critical mind will actually dig through the points he makes and realize that they are all pretty flawed to a large extent.

Meanwhile, there are two examples of readable history that doesn't skimp on historiography and aren't just vessels for the writer to push their ideological slant:

The Crusades by Thomas Asbridge, which gives a great overview of all the crusades to a rich level of detail while remaining readable and striving for historical neutrality rather than the modern wide brush "muslims good, christians bad."

The Civil War: A Narrative by Shelby Foote. He's a southerner writing in the 50s and 60s so the Civil War and its aftermath are still in living memory and at the forefront of his contemporary politics. However, since he's a fucking historian at heart but not in training, so he strived for neutrality and factual accuracy as much as possible. Since he was also a novelist by training, his writing is quite easily readable. He stuck to mostly military history but didn't shy away from recollecting personal accounts of soldiers and civilians on both sides at given battles and campaigns.

Both of these works were great because they posed questions to the reader and strived for objectivity rather than falling to the trap of postmodern history where historians give up on objectivity entirely.


018571 No.31578

>>31549

I've watched Admiral Yi, and honestly I don't see leftist agenda from these videos.

I expected them to shat on the idea of the "Great Man Theory", since this seem to be quite popular amongst the Left. But no, they did not do such thing.

Okay, how about belittling European achievements when comparing it with a non-European achievement. For example, downplaying Columbus and praising Zheng He to no end. None of this happened in these video as well.

I can't see the Leftist agenda in the Admiral Yi videos I've watched. It's interesting, and good enough for a short video series. I'm pretty sure there are errors but that kind of expected given the time constraint they face (one week per video). Art is alright. When detailing battles, I think they should show us maps instead.


35b63d No.31589

>>31571

>where historians give up on objectivity entirely.

Ive found that earlier works step on the toes of objectivity more than any modern work, maybe im reading the wrong works but care to put up some examples?


ee070e No.31605

>>31511

>AVOID EXTRA CREDITS

>recommends BiasedCrusadesHistory

M8, I don't want to defend Extra Credits (and I won´t) but that video you posted (and the channel in general) is as biased, if not more, as Extra Credits. I think he is even worst.


ee070e No.31606

>>31578

>I expected them to shat on the idea of the "Great Man Theory", since this seem to be quite popular amongst the Left. But no, they did not do such thing.

You don't need to be a leftist to "shat on" the "Great Man Theory" of history, as it is not a usefull model of analisis to explain historical development


c6065e No.31624

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>Extra Credits


300721 No.31630

>>31531

>>31535

>>31605

Why are you calling him biased? Can you point out where he's so biased?


3db4bc No.31634

>>31624

Why'd I fucking watch this even.


c6065e No.31637

>>31634

It can be interesting to watch as a sort of fairytale, I guess


3db4bc No.31638

>>31637

Yeah, but when it gets into science I feel great pain. Took Earth-Space (aka earth science) last year and astronomy this year. I had to take a break when he talked about polar shifts.


01edb2 No.31646

They seem ok with the less politically charged stuff, but they do the whole "ebil christians attacking innocent muslims in the ebil crusades" bit

Watch their Asian videos, avoid "crusade" videos


e076cd No.31659

>>31630

>Why are you calling him biased? Can you point out where he's so biased?

Usually when this happens (im talking by experience in this board) someone will call out a video for being leftist/rightist propaganda, then post a video of opposite rightist/leftist propaganda that agrees with his worldview, needless to say its not anywhere near as objective as the poster wants to believe.

Plus its pretty obvious from seeing the video yourself, cherry-picking information, supplanting narrative rather than overarching objectivity, etc. If you really want to see it though for yourself just watch the fucking video


300721 No.31668

>>31659

>Usually when this happens (im talking by experience in this board) someone will call out a video for being leftist/rightist propaganda, then post a video of opposite rightist/leftist propaganda that agrees with his worldview

So it's not actual experience with the maker?

>Plus its pretty obvious from seeing the video yourself, cherry-picking information, supplanting narrative rather than overarching objectivity, etc. If you really want to see it though for yourself just watch the fucking video

So using an Armenian cronicle of the 11th century to confirm the fact that the muslims did oppress the christian population is not cherrypicking? Or stating that one of the causes of the first crusade was that the turks conquered most of minor asia?


300721 No.31683

>>31668

"is cherrypicking"


76c31d No.31684

>>31646

Their crusade videos are okay. I think they have a leftist slant, but they talk about atrocities commited on both sides. The crusades were morally gray, and that's how they seem to mostly portray them.


ce0720 No.31687

>>31630

>>31668

He's biased towards his audience, who over the years have changed from history enthusiasts looking for something more strictly academic when it came to anything about the Crusades to a political reactionary core with modern anti-Muslim and anti-Leftist beliefs. From his choices of primary sources (and his silence about others) he works towards a conclusion meant to mollify his audience's preconceptions.

It's why his particular video about ECH is titled DEBUNKED.

Aristakes's chronicle isn't cherrypicking. What it is, however, is an example of RCH's current style of only focusing on his targeted conclusion and not an exploration of a subject to fully critique ECH's outdated narrative. How did an Armenian chronicle reach Urban? Why was there no outreach between the Catholic Church and the Armenian Apostolic Church leading up to the First Crusade? Why not reference more direct Byzantine chronicles about the nature of the Seljuks, which presents a slightly different timeline of events regarding the origin of the violence in Urban's sermon? Why did Gregory VII's call to arms much closer in time to Aristakes's account go unheeded compared to Urban II's call decades later, and after the crumbling of the Great Seljuks that RCH brings into his counter narrative?

His subsequent points are a repeat of this trend, and in fact much weaker as explained here:

https://8ch.net/his/res/15867.html#q27475

https://8ch.net/his/res/15867.html#q28421


5936fd No.31699

>>31630

You mean the guy who had a red flashing sign that says LOSER written on Saladin's forehead while he proceeded to inaccurately describe a well documented battle?

And no, I am not joking. A red flashing sign saying LOSER.

Also he will often take one source, get a single quote from it that suits him, and never ever use that source again, because it mostly disagrees with his view point.

He also often uses whataboutism to excuse bad christian conduct, as well as saying that X was common for the time, but then he turns and bashes muslims for doing that same X thing.


300721 No.31702

>>31699

link?


5936fd No.31720

File: 1446186182550.webm (1.11 MB, 1293x775, 1293:775, loser.webm)

>>31702

>"Richard executed every prisoner and surrendered soldier, but its justified, because he couldnt march with so many prisoners."

In every other video he says christians are noble enough to ransom prisoners and never kill them or sell them into slavery like barbarians.

>"When the crusaders neared Jaffa, Saladin panicked, and launched a massive assault on the christians in a desperate attempt to stop them."

In reality he was ghosting them and harassing them, but part of his force broke formation to get off their horses and shoot from the ground, as to have better aim.

>"Richard's men were ready and he ordered a charge"

When in reality his own army, tired of being shot with arrows, also broke discipline and formation, and some of the knights charged, by pure luck exactly as the arabs were dismounting to shoot better.

Basically both armies had a bunch of low discipline morons break formation and do stupid shit, and thus the fight began, when neither commander wanted a proper fight.

>After this defeat Saladin couldnt get his troops to fight Richard and only ran around cowardly collecting men.

Yes, because after you lose a battle you are supposed to avoid more battles until you regroup and reform the army.

And it was quite the opposite, he had problems getting his troops to not attack Richard, as they were all a bunch of proud religious zealots who wanted to punish him for what he's done.

>Richard would've taken Jerusalem, but he was deeply concerned about what would happen to the city when he leaves, so he didnt.

He didnt take it, because his army was in absolutely no condition to siege, nor attack, and because Saladin, by dodging fights and running around like a coward, had collected a much bigger force.

LOSER LOSER LOSER etc. If you can watch 3-4 of his videos and not see how biased you are, I am afraid you might have a very strong bias yourself.


1516fc No.31722

>>31561

>Dan Carlin

thanks for mentioning him. Watching his channel now.


1516fc No.31723

>>31722

>>31561

and I just visited his forum, I feel more comfy in here.


5936fd No.31724

>>31722

>watching

>an audio podcast

¿que?


1516fc No.31725

>>31724

I visited youtube before searching through prism bot google.


faf6b8 No.31726

>>31561

>This, combined with the fact that the EC guys treat their opinions as fact and never say "well, this source says this but this other source says something diametrically opposite, let's see the historiography and put it into context" because they have to stuff their talking points into a video short enough for their Youtube audience.

This right here. EC is a decent jumping off point for a topic but is ultimately concerned with presenting a historical period like a narrative. Discussing the actual historiography of a topic counteracts this goal and makes the topic at hand a good deal more complicated. The place in their brain where plebs keep the plot of Game of Thrones is the same place where they keep the 'storyline' of any historical event they know about.

It's why you end up with people having a less than nuanced understanding of history, especially when it has to do with contentious periods like the Crusades. It was an exceptionally complex period spanning continents and hundreds of years, but to most people it boils down to a simple narrative of "Evil white Europeans went and killed poor innocent brown people for religion."


f9a4d3 No.31727

>>31726

>Evil white Europeans went and killed poor innocent brown people for religion

This is of course wrong, and I am sorry people are left with that impression.

However, the suggested alternative of "Evil brown Asians went and killed poor innocent christian people for islam" is equally wrong, and equally embarrassing to see people agreeing with.

Read the facts, acknowledge where you are speculating or loosely interpreting them, and allow other people their own reasonable interpretations. Science aint an exact science, and thats twice as true for history. We simply dont have enough facts to get the complete story.

And thats not even mentioning the absolute universal truth that things arent black and white, and that viewpoints are relative, and that just because something is wrong by modern morals doesnt make it wrong by the morals of the day.


de97cc No.31736

>>31495

>>31495

"The islamic domination/imperialism was benign!"

It's pure shit.


f53d25 No.31743

>>31726

People aren't interested in nuance that they haven't discovered on their own. Even among historians, the great scholars of the past are those who usually had a talent for writing a grand narrative.

It's why RCH and ECH are so successful. They each present a narrative rather than nuance. What makes them biased is what they barrel over with that narrative versus what they leave for their audience to speculate about. One leaves only room for conspiracy about why the 'truth' is being ignored today by obstructive leftists, and the other only leaves room for gratification on understanding our primitive, selfish ancestors who we have surpassed.

At this point, a Game of Thrones style narrative would be a huge improvement. At least there almost all sides and levels of the story are given some depth and focus, where motivations and characterization run deeper than the usual historical narrative.


ea358b No.31744

>>31561

Fair points.

On reading long history books: Even though I love history, I often have trouble reading super long/dense pieces of writing as the words become jumbled and literally difficult to read (not because I lack knowledge of the english language, it just becomes hard to read the words. It's hard to explain). This doesn't apply to videos or podcasts though so I'll check this Dan guy. What does he generally cover?


300721 No.31749

>>31720

Alright, I can see now that he's biased.

So is there ANY good history channel around?


b94015 No.31752


5936fd No.31753

>>31752

Errr…. no. His stuff is mostly speculation and loose interpretation of facts.

Very entertaining, but not history.


b94015 No.31755

>>31753

Lindybeige is senpai


b94015 No.31756

File: 1446240766461.png (2.52 MB, 2800x1622, 1400:811, utriggered.png)


95715e No.31757

File: 1446244164663.jpg (15.72 KB, 375x375, 1:1, 1399082136319.jpg)


faf6b8 No.31758

>>31727

I probably should have indicated that the same un-nuanced conception leads to "Evil brown Asians went and killed poor innocent christian people for islam" for reactionary neocons.


0a426b No.31760

>>31758

Out of curiosity I have to ask, what was the deal with the first crusade if not an "evil [race] kill innocent [race] because religious differences"? It would seem like the first crusade was a response to conquests done by Islamic empires at the time. Granted there was the killing of arab christians, which would obviously put crusaders in the morally ambiguous category, but it would seem to me the christians were the more justified party. Not to say that the muslims were any kind of special evil (many empires did conquests, and far worse, after all), but the followers of our lord jeebuscrust seemed to be more sympathetic than the snackbars.

And if you could, is there a good source to learn about the other crusades? It's hard to find a source that isn't "x religion oppressed y religion".


300721 No.31761

>>31752

*Besides lindybeige.


faf6b8 No.31762

>>31760

Well the Crusades is no specialty, but from what I understand the first crusade was a reaction to the gains of the Seljuk's at the expense of the Eastern Roman Empire. The Byzantine emperor basically appealed to western Christendom for assistance and the Pope obliged. There's an argument that the Papacy hoped that by aiding the Eastern Roman Empire they might be able to encourage the reunification of Christendom as well. (the Eastern/Western Christian schism in 1054 was fairly recent history at that point.) There was also the investiture controversy in 1075 which had been a direct challenge to papal authority.

I've read theories that another cause was a disaffected knightly/warrior class in Europe who had nothing to do. You combine this with an atmosphere of increasing inter-religious conflict (Reconquista, for example) and you can see how the Pope was so readily able to encourage his fellow Christians to action.

As for a good source, Asbridge's 'The Crusades', which was mentioned previously, is a well done overview.


f53d25 No.31763

>>31760

The First Crusade was a combination of several different political and eschatological events.

One one side you had Urban II, a reform pope struggling with a rival antipope backed by the HRE. While scoring small moral victories now and then, his hold on Rome was precarious, and the constant existence of a rival harmed papal prestige that he and his mentor Gregory VII had been trying to build.

Another side was Alexius I Comnenus, a Byzantine emperor who had spent his whole career trying to defend the Balkans from Normans and Pechenegs only to have Anatolia, his breadbasket and source of manpower, cut off by a series of rebellions by Greek, Armenian, Frankish, and Turkish vassals.

In Anatolia you had these rebels, an assortment of independent principalities only some of which were actually held by Turks, and of which none were Seljuk vassals (the empire having just lost the sultan and fallen into civil war). On the eve of the Crusade a rebel Seljuk princeling escapes from Iraq and begins to unite the once Byzantine Turkish holdings into a new kingdom, while the Armenians consolidate their own in Cicilia and others in the east try and fail to put down roots as independents.

And throughout Western Europe you have a wave of end-times frenzy, thousands upon thousands ecstatic about the signs of the end of the world and the hype of living within the possible last generation on Earth one thousand years after the coming of Jesus. They're convinced they must be at Jerusalem when the happening arrives, and that the holy lands must be cleansed in preparation.


f53d25 No.31765

>>31763 (cont)

Urban II and Alexius were on friendly terms before in their talks on mending the Great Schism, but now the emperor reached out to ask for his help in organizing an army. This also helped Urban as the prestige from reuniting with the eastern church would catapult his papacy beyond his rival's reach.

With his French connections and Alexius's own connections in the Low Countries, they organized several nobles and purposefully led them through the Balkans and Anatolia to knock off rebels one by one, from the Serbs, to Nicaea, to Smyrna, and through Central and Eastern Anatolia. In the East Alexius has appointed the more trustworthy Franks as new vassals of the empire while his own army shadows the rest of the force on their way to Antioch.

It's here things get a little crazy. The mob that first roused up in Germany and France wanted to move on to Jerusalem once Antioch fell, but the nobles bickered endlessly about who should take the city, and whether their vows to Alexius should be honored after the death and departure of both his and Urban's agents in the army. A large section moves onto the south, bypassing every city in exchange for supplies, and takes Jerusalem in a bloodbath meant to satisfy the end-times prophesy the pilgrims had come for.

After the mob left, the remaining Frankish nobles who did not receive territory from the emperor or won it for themselves at Antioch spread out to conquer the Levant, while Bohemund returned to Italy and France to use his fame as a hero of the war to drum up anti-Byzantine sentiment and a new campaign to conquer the ERE itself, which failed.


b94015 No.31768

>>31757

>having to point this out


7884f0 No.31771

>>31757

It's not bait, its humorous sarcasm


33a4d4 No.31903

>>31762

>I've read theories that another cause was a disaffected knightly/warrior class in Europe who had nothing to do

To expand: The knightly class of Europe was established during the Dark Age when barbarian hordes were spreading across Europe in all directions, causing tons of upheaval and creating a state of constant chaos, then entrenched during the viking era when coastal raiders were a constant threat for centuries, and much of Europe was balkanized into tiny states in a perpetual state of war with one another. By the 11th century, the viking threat had waned and many of the European powers had coalesced into kingdoms that should have been large enough to be stable, but the hyper-militarization and high degree of independence granted to local governors, both results of the centuries of warfare that had shaken Europe, led to a warrior class armed to the teeth, backed by traditions born from an era of never-ending war, but without any particularly valid casus belli except for a continuous aristocratic soap opera where even trivial property or marital disputes were frequently resolved by open warfare.

Hence, Pope Urban II felt he had a moral imperative to try and put an end to the constant and mostly pointless Christian-on-Christian violence, which put him in a very receptive mood when Alexius showed up and offered him a non-Christian common enemy like the vikings had been. Although this certainly does not mean that the pragmatic, self-serving motivations outlined by >>31763 should be ignored.


c6065e No.31994

>>31749

The Great War is pretty good, but their scope is rather limited, as the name would imply.


19da36 No.32050

File: 1446610032109.jpg (445.04 KB, 1200x900, 4:3, 1445566571848.jpg)

i like it its comfy and easy to understand


373b7d No.32274

File: 1447054032101.webm (6.99 MB, 640x360, 16:9, extra credits on gendered….webm)

>>31565

> I've never seen any of their video. Please give some examples.

if /v/ wasnt utter shit, id reccommend you got to a /v/ rage or cringe thread sometime, as webms of dumb shit they say is posted there often. i happen to have two examples though. heres the first one


373b7d No.32275

File: 1447054693398.webm (7.64 MB, 640x480, 4:3, Extra Credits_ Spectrum C….webm)

>>31565

the second one

>>31555

yep. webm related

>>31561

> i read a 1,000 page book on patton in my middlimg teen years and i have no interest in being a history major, what does that make me?

>>31589

the western tradition is pretty objective. its not a book though.


622ab5 No.32295

>>32275

>search for "the western tradition"

k ill get back on you


b94015 No.32299

>>32274

oh fuck, this hurt me


b94015 No.32300

>>32275

the fuck


a60012 No.32307

They can talk about the Sengoku Jidai and Admiral Yi all they want because I don't really know anything about them and I personally am not interested in those periods of history. Yet.

But their Punic Wars series, their Crusades series and their WWI prelude series suffer from skipping over important issues and not being thorough.

>Gavrilo Princip was Serbian

Their biggest crime though, is a video about Palmyra during the 3rd Century Crisis that's EIGHT FUCKING MINUTES long.

That shit is unacceptable.


622ab5 No.32325

>>32307

>Gavrilo Princip was a serb

wasnt he though


9af3aa No.32341

>>32307

>Their biggest crime though, is a video about Palmyra during the 3rd Century Crisis that's EIGHT FUCKING MINUTES long.

>That shit is unacceptable.

Is it too long or too short?


000000 No.34692

>>31760

>Out of curiosity I have to ask, what was the deal with the first crusade if not an "evil [race] kill innocent [race] because religious differences"?

There was more than one "deal".

One of them is that there was need to rid of excess barons. Which kinda backfired, as those who returned were veteran knights.


fdf920 No.34791

I haven't watched any of their videos, but I'm generally wary of any channel that focuses on history that isn't documentaries.

Especially if it's edutainment.


7f7686 No.34818

I'd just rather read fucking books.


fdf920 No.34820

>>34818

Also this.

Get them primary source documents, lads.


b94015 No.34821

>>34820

Out of curiosity, are there online databases of primary documents or do I have to actually search for specific primary sources?

If this is a stupid question then which ones would you recommend?


fdf920 No.34823

>>34821

Depends on what kind of primary documents you're looking for.

One of the stickies has plenty of resources to sift through.

Project Gutenberg should have most of the important history texts available for reading.

>a stupid question

Remember, anon, there are no stupid questions.

There are ignorant questions.


21de14 No.34834

>>34821

yeah heres a bunch http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/index-Antoninus.html

its got homer, herodutus, xenophon, and thucidides, but no pliny




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]