more charts please

Yes please cover timelines! Funny I just bought the Adams timeline😒

I think that episode on creation dates in different religions could be interesting. Perhaps just Christianity + Judaism could be a whole episode because as far I have checked it varies between 5592 BC and 3761 BC. It would be interesting to know why such big differences in calculations occurs (BTW I believe that Universe was created 13.787±0.020 billion years ago, so I am not a Young Earth Creationism, but I just wonder why those disparities in calculations occurred).

@@Hadar1991 Part of it is how you read the Tanakh/Bible. Bishop Ussher read it as a western style chronology with no symbolism, nothing left out. He got about 4000 BC. Similarly the some Jewish Scholars used similar methods to get 3761 BC as thr Official Jewish beginning of calendar, when world was created. But others read the same matter trying to read the way the authors intended it be written according to the style of writings of the day, and get longer timelines. For example Genesis Creation has 2 accounts which is written in the way old egyptian writings, each account stressing different themes. Others hit the high points of families, leaving out the dull in between generations.

I assume MyHeritage is only for European's descents... I doubt they can retrace the genealogy of an young african women like me...

I wouldn't want to live in a world where that's NOT the case

Totally happens.

*cartoon zoom and spin effect

Heheheee 😂😂

Nice to see AncientAmericas out here. Love your channel also.

Same

Yes Please!

yes, please!

No Please Don't Cover more Vintage Timelines. I love Vintage Timelines, and all you have to Say about them is Bad. You might say: "You don't Have to watch!" But I say: By doing so, you are still feeding the rest of the People False Information and I don't Like That. Please, Any other video but that.

He didn't even do a video on THIS chart... he just ranted for 20 minutes about the chart not being historically accurate... something basically obvious. It was a striking looking chart, it would have been nice to know more about the actual chart... to know more about what it IS, instead of what it ISN'T.

The Egyptian pharoahs are horribly placed lol, not mentioned in the video but you can see Ozymandias as the 3rd ever Egyptian pharaoh, not long after the Tower of Babel. Ozymandias is just the Greek name for Ramesses II, the New Kingdom pharaoh who was already wrongly placed as mentioned in the video.

I don't think most people realize how much historical knowledge has advanced since the time this chart was produced

i asssume because when this map was made (which was in 1827) greece was still part of the otoman empire and therefore had to color it as "half-civilized ". if it was made 4 years later *maybe* they would color it as " "civilized" ". and i'm double quoting it because i don't trust enough 19th century englishmen on writing that greece was "civilized"

Not only that, but the Russian Empire is mostly "Barbarian" and "Savage": which, I assume, would not have pleased Catherine the Great.

@@henrygaida7048that’s because the Indigenous Russian populations weren’t seen as the same way White European Russians were.

Greece lost their civilised title when the Turks invaded and occupied it

@@Markusctfldl i think by "indigenous" , which is the most corporately politically correct word you can use, means the non Russian populations in Siberia

Thanks. I think's it's partly due to the fact that I used to teach ESL.

Hey Yucca, where are you from?

I find your voice and cadence so soothing. Please consider just reading history books for people fall asleep to. 😄

@@helenat2446I am not a history guy really but I always find myself listening to this guy late at night when I’m about to sleep

..... okay this is gold

Wait…where’s my father Lamech. (Mesopotamian Trial) Judge: For killing a young man I sentence you to life in prison Lamech: I’m sorry but you got the wrong person

Unicorns are just single horned rhinos

@@scripturequest no they are not, they are horses with built-in knives

@@NAATHAAN Unicorns are of course horses with one-point headed antlers.

Except that it assumes the "New" overwrites the "Old" - And that's generally NOT what happens. Just as an example, the many branches of Alexander's Greek Empire being subsumed into the Roman Empire - except that wasn't what happened - Greek became the lingua franca of the (Eastern) Roman Empire; Greek Gods (albeit with Latin names) became Roman Gods; and wealthy Romans deliberately employed (or enslaved!) Greek tutors to turn their children (sons) into little Greeks - and all this while a unified Empire was ruled from Rome - later on, the successor Empire went full Greek. So should it not be Rome being subsumed by Greece??? Or another example - the Norman French invaded and conquered Anglo Saxon England, yet within a couple of centuries, the descendants of the Conquerors were describing themselves as Anglo Saxons and speaking (ye olde) English...

@@michaelodonnell824 i like how it looks visually. I didn’t mean the contents of the chart were historically accurate, I meant the concept of history as rivers seems more true to reality than simple lines.

@@thescoobymike I think I understand what you are saying but, from what I understand about Ancient History, what we have traditionally seen as the replacement theory of Empires (wiping out the old and replacing it with the new), is today better understood as a possible new ruling caste, possibly influencing the culture, but the vast majority of the people being and remaining what they were for Centuries beforehand. Moreover, what historians understood as a "pure", "new" culture was often a syncretism of many different (both older and newer) cultures...

@@michaelodonnell824 no one is denying that

​@@michaelodonnell824I actually see it as doing the opposite; when rivers merge, one doesn't replace the other. This shows the continuity of civilizations far better than terminating lines.

Most usefull chart ehm comment!

It isn't put so late because of Herodotus, but rather because of Ussher himself (not that I agree with him). Ussher claims that the pyramids were built during a 15-year dodecarchy, based on a misinterpreted passage in Diodorus. What Diodorus was ACTUALLY Talking about was the fact that Esarheddon, king of Assyria, invaded Egypt, drove Taharka south, and set up a government of 12 petty kings in Egypt. This happened in 671 BC, and after 15 years, Psamtik I reconquered it all. But there is absolutely no evidence that the Pyramids were built during this time period. Actually, there is evidence to the contrary.

Yup.

@@UsefulCharts thank you for such an excellent channel! I recommend it to my friends who love history.

This Timeline is Not out of Date. There is No Such Thing as "Out-Of-Date" History.

@@user-yy2mu9qm7g history is constantly being reassessed and looked at differently.

@@Wkumar07 You Realize the OLDER Sources are More Reliable... Right? Because Last time I Checked, The People who lived Closer to the Event know MORE about the Event Than WE EVER will! It's Like This: A Person Will Know their own Parents MORE than their Great-Grandchildren EVER will! You Would THINK that The People Knew what Happened as a Certain event is Going on. That said, People Are UTTERLY BRAINWASHED Into THINKING, into FEELING, that Archaeology is How we can Know History, When we can KNOW what Happened by Looking at Eye-Witness Accounts!

Yeah it looks like a mess and a over complicated one at that

AMONG US

So future pupils will survive on a teaching diet of history frozen in the 1870s with Biblical antediluvian history make it out for human pre-history, 90% Eurocentric and outright racist approach to human biology?

Of course! Historiography is something that people should study and appreciate, but it's important to divorce that from our understanding of History.

I actually went back and pulled out the one I grew up with (called The Wall Chart of World History) and it has edited versions of a lot of the ancient history bits that Matt points out as way out of date like some of the earliest rulers of Egypt. There’s still a lot that is still out of date in my version but perhaps not quite as out of date as the 19th century version. But it is still largely based on the Edward Hull revision and is still a Victorian European biased view of history.

No it's not, that chart is it's own history lmao

​@@gusto8069I don't understand what you're trying to say.

That pattern would look like a chart that portrays sects splitting off from mainline Protestantism, i. e. very chaotic I imagine.

Someone's already done that, it's called "Rock Family Trees" if I remember correctly, and is fascinating.

I agree! And the fact that he's normally so inclusive and diplomatic makes it all the more poignant when he does!

Whether or not realizing, Matt did refute the claims of only 6,000 years for earth to exist in this video. And well, it is true that the begats don't mean what many Christians say they mean, that is, they don't mean immediate offspring, but are showing how long a generation was before our days were reduced to 120 and averaging about 70. A generation before the flood... well, it was hundreds of years, and includes offspring not even mentioned between the begats; now it's only dozens of years.

Yeeeaaahhh.... I can see that!

Ah! There he is! Good catch.

Yes. Thank you for saying so. I find it infantile and condescending to slap the term "racist" on period pieces.

@@odonnelldenise don't get me wrong, the understanding of the world that many people had in the past absolutely was racist, no ifs or buts about it. But studying and accurately depicting past worldviews, even with the unfortunate racist sides, is important to understanding the state of the world and education at the time. It doesn't excuse the wrongs of the past, just puts them into context

and since the Ancient Greeks time has been a river too.

Epimetheus did an Armenia video awhile back.

It truly would be helpful especially to those not well versed in history they could look at it and discover important events that they had no clue of

yup

I've seen some websites that attempted to do universal timelines like that. The problem is mostly that there's _so much stuff_ that you pretty much have to either pick and choose what to include, or have your timeline so bloated that it would be absolutely useless (and then, in the later parts, still pick and choose, if you want it legible at all). What counts as an important enough historical event to be included in the history? Would it depend on how much records we have from the area at all? If so, how? There'd be tons of complicated rules about it and it would probably end up with a huge slant anyway. (In addition, the "vetted citations" bit might be tricky; AFAIK, a lot of what's thought to be well-established history actually goes back to very obscure and/or very cursory research, and most sources just quote from each other. Unless they did the entire reasoning basically from scratch, your vetted citation might well itself depend on a source that quoted something that shouldn't have been trusted.) For a lower threshold of "vetted citations", I suppose the year/decade/century pages at Wikipedia are trying to do something similar to this...

​@@january1mayThe problem is that now you have to please everybody rather than just white people.

You first!

@@yrobtsvt : )

Make a crowd sourced tool and you got it in a week.

Nooooooooooooo :)

I actually looked it up because of this chart and learned that the Greek name Ozymandias derives from Ramses II throne name, User-Maat-Ra Setep-en-Ra. Even bad charts can lead to real curiosity. The real tragedy is when people just accept the silly assertions of religious leaders.

Nothing beside remains

I LOVE Clarence Larkin! I don't agree with him but I LOVE his chart style!