"Ah! The generals! They are numerous but not good for much!" -Aristophanes

TBF, WW1 was left to generals and what a fucking disaster that was

It's actually good that it doesn't, with grater size and more monny involved the interests of creators often shifts.

@@domino2560 Wise words, I am worried about the same, with the number of audiences growing, he might try to dumb down the details to make it more "friendly" for the masses, which is severely gonna destroy one of the main things I like about this channel, I hope you agree

I feel that the proper niche for this channel is in fact the depth of detail, since that's what differentiates me from the majority of Historical KZfaq. There's no way I, as a 1-man PowerPoint operation, can compete with others on graphics or volume of content. So I'm quite happy to continue down this level of detail. I will admit to simplifying away proper nouns and some historical nuance, but only so that viewers can focus on the key strategic/historical relationships.

@@StrategyStuff You could do a summary at the end of the series that could bring in some more viewers. Keep up the great work regardless. You and Historia Civilis are my two favourite history channels!

Too militaristic and not enough cute cats by expectations of algorithm which requires as bland and controversy free video as possible (but possibly a bit "woke") to be advertisers friendly. Add to it that minor creators, not being an approved celebrity, are already undesirable enough.

Speaking in terms of National Character is often frowned upon in modern academia. It's too close to racialism for a lot of people.

Precisely, I was wondering the same thing😅

I agree, but I wanted to go beyond the issue of helots (already discussed in short in Video 3 anyway) and talk about the other internal dynamics of Spartan society/politics. In all honesty, Sparta probably shouldn't have feared helot rebellion so much - the Athenians + Messenian exiles at Pylos did far less damage than was feared, and the ex-helots sent to the NE and to Syracuse seemed happy to be under Spartan command. The Kinadon Conspiracy of 399 seemed mainly to involve ex-Spartan citizens (hypermeiones), rather than helots or non-Spartans.

No sources for that, unfortunately. Deep analysis such as this was possible only because we have access to books of Thucydides. Smb extremely knowledgeable of the topic, who understood the political and military context and who was gifted writer and honest historian at the same time. For more than 1000 years we don't have a history book of this quality. And we certainly don't have good sources of 1st punic war.

Undergraduate level in politics so nothing special.

Thucydides says so on the Sicilian Expedition: "...the idea of the common people and the soldiery was to earn wages at the moment, and make conquests that would supply a never-ending fund of pay for the future."

We are talking about a time when the poor's choice of work was mostly agriculture or war. Also free trade wasn't a thing yet so if you want some more trade, you want the war as well.

@@StrategyStuff Thanks for your reply. However, while your answer (and video) do shed light on that sentence, there are still some issues that may require your insights: Would war also be disruptive for the poor daily life? I mean, they could be killed, their field could be burned every year, and they would have to spend long periods of time away from their normal job (many late-Republic Roman farmers, for example, couldn't take care of their farm due to the constant warfare and thus become urban poor while the rich quickly gobbled up these fallow lands and became richer). War could also raise the price of food and other necessities (and also the taxes), which should affect the poor much more severely. That's what happened in many countries in history, so the "War may be profitable for the poor" feel a bit strange to me.. Is that because of the difference in these nation's demography? or because one is a commerce-based, while other is agriculture-based?

Right. So I think there are 2 aspects to this question: 1) Cost of War; 2) Benefit of War. First, we should note that when we talk about 'The Poor' in Athens, we probably mean the URBAN poor, b/c a poor farmhand isn't going to have the money or time to vote, even if paid. So we're talking about poor people closely connected with the overseas economy - trades/journeymen, dockworkers, the sort. Rural poor likely suffered definitely - the situation you described in the Late Roman Republic was also the case in Sparta, and is a major reason why Spartan citizens fell off so drastically during/after the PW. Anyway... 1)-wise, the Urban Poor would have been shielded from much of the costs. They don't own farms that Sparta can burn; and one supposes pro-poor politicians such as Pericles/Cleon would subsidize them re: food (perhaps a reason why Athens' war expense was so high). Combat for them meant rowing in the Navy, and because Athens preferred freedmen rather than galley-slaves, the wages were not terrible. Risk of death was low due to Athenian naval superiority. 2) The Urban Poor stood to gain from the War. Short-term, there were the low-risk wages, and the potential to be state-sponsored colonists (or mercenaries I suppose). Long-term, because the Delian League was a semi-captive market for Athens, any strategic gain from the War would expand the potential customers for the city's trades. The majority of the rich of Athens, unlike Sparta, did not seem to profit from the war through accumulating estates, because of the Athenian practice of 'liturgy', where the state essentially forced the rich to pay for public services (plays, infrastructure etc). During the PW, in particular, the rich were to be 'trierarchs' and had to build and fund 1 trireme each at their own expense. This burden apparently destroyed many a rich Athenian, because later on in the PW the regulations were loosened so that 2 rich people could share the burden of funding a trireme. imho, "War MIGHT (I should stress "might") be Profitable for the [Athenian] Poor" is NOT a function of demography or commerce/rural economies, but instead Athens' politico-economic circumstances which arguably mirrors that of a colonial power. In a similar way you might say that a poor 18thC Londoner might have benefited from the UK taking over much of Europe's colonial trade.

You mean after Portugal?

@@cariri12 You mean after Spain?

Is it the first though? It seems that Portugal was a nation state before France.

@@diegonatan6301 Fair enough. I was thinking more about Central Europe and ,,kinda forgot" about Spain and Portugal.

I'll be honest: I'd love to, but I'm prioritizing backlog from previous requests and also to make content that is a bit more "diverse" and not just about Europe all the time. Basically my video schedule (assuming I can follow it) will cycle around various topics (Theory, China, USA, rest-Asia, Modern Europe, Old Europe etc etc) and I'll make a video series on something within that topic. In the slot of "Modern Europe" I've tentatively put something Napoleon-related cause a bunch of people asked for that previously. The next video series will be on "The Strategy of Revolutions and Protests", and the first video will cover how activists brought about the Glorious, American and French Revolutions. So there's some aspects of nation-statism in there...

Powerpoint 2016 for the graphics, Audacity for recording, WavePad/VideoPad for editing.

Strategy Stuff elegance in simplicity. Never over complicate things eh :p Stay safe what with the coronavirus, we should love masks like Greeks love geopolitics

The "Strategy of Protest", starting with the early modern revolutions (Glorious, American, French).

But then you just build a dictatorship of the "poor", not a democracy

@@attilakatona-bugner1140 - Are you suggesting the poor are not "demos", i.e. not people? You, sir, are a classist and you do not believe in democracy, i.e. power of the people.

Since you are dehumanizing everybody who aren t poor, i am not sure i would be the classist

@@attilakatona-bugner1140 - No! I'm not dehumanizing anyone, I'm just equalizing everyone as simple humans without any "right" to property or exploitation of others (undue privilege). Poor or rich is not a biological category (all are humans) but a socio-economic one. And the poor are always the vast majority. You are claiming that a minority privileged class has more rights than the vast majority of the population and that is not democracy, that is outright fascism.

@@LuisAldamiz Actually, democracy Is the rule of the people as a whole, not the rule of the majority.