Join us, and be a BRO! If you love history and support what we do, whether you are male, female, or whatever you identify as, YOU ARE OUR BRO. We don’t discriminate because we are cool!

Sima Qian was describing more than just people in his book. There were 8 monographs covering geography, economics, ritual practices, astronomy, waterworks etc. Some of the biographies also have histories about foreign countries, like the Xiongnu empire, early Korean kingdoms, Afghanistan, India, Pakisan, Kazakhstan, Persia etc whatever countries that have emissary to the Han empire. It is a very encyclopedia-like piece of work. Actually, Zuoqiu Ming was more a contemporary of Herodotus. His Zuo Explaination of the Spring & Autumn Annals (左传）focuses more on wars and the game changers/players. There were also a lot of myths in it as well.

I think it's fascinating to imagine how the context of their lives could have played into how they told history. The way I see it, Herodotus lived in time with lots of different exotic peoples and places that, from their perspective, developed mostly independent of each other. Even the Greek city states didn't think of themselves as a singular Panhellenic people. They lived in separate worlds as it were. For him there was more reason to describe foreign customs and geography collectively, so the Greek reader can be informed of those beyond their known world. Sima Qian lived during the Han Dynasty, when a vast empire was increasingly unified in a single cultural identity. Events of his writings took place within it. Regional differences were therefore not as important, since those of all these provinces could be considered a collective people. They were part of the same world as the Chinese reader. How individuals within that world shaped it therefore became more the focus.

It is amazing no matter how objective the historians are, their truth is still far from the truth.

Awesome episode here! I always love these "big picture" comparisons, and this was a pretty good analysis overall. Well done guys.

I read both authors. Herodotus is a KZfaqr. Sima Qian is into warfare and political science

It's a bit weird that one would make this distinction particularly, considering that at least in the western tradition both those perspectives (more agency or more deterministic) are usually seen as being in competition throughout history (for an agent-based view we could go back to Epicurus, for example), with some authors settling for a view that is somewhat "in between" like (and I do realise this is two thousand years later but it's just an example) Machiavelli .

Wow! What an amazing video. I've never heard of Sima Qian before, but your introduction is both informative and inspiring. Definitely makes me want to do more research into Asian historical literature.

Great video as always!

Very interesting and insightful video! I've been reading Grand Historian for several years now and your video just explained the key difference between Eastern & Western view of history. well-done!

To be fair, I'd say that Thukydides should be considered as the actual father of western history, as his accounts of the Peloponnese war had way fewer myths and he used certain retellings of events to further emphasize the picture he was trying to hand down.

The Shiji was a marvel, thank the heavens Qian was able to do his work... and not have politics terminally catch up to him like Cicero. That snip though, yeah he fared little better in person.

4:18 I cannot image it but why sausage ROTFL

Well, that certainly explains why Eastern history is so thorough in covering each notable figure.

Well done, sir! Thank you!

Thats an interesting perspective because I always think of western history as being greatly individualistic but that might just be a product of great man of history theory which in all fairness is a 19th century concept.

- "He inherited his position... and his homeworks!" - Great stuff!

Yo Really into Chinese history & Roman history so you channel really relates to me Awesome Video's & animation Keep up the good work Amigo

Fun video! Love your history stuff and how you manage to make it fun, do you think you'll continue your han dynasty videos soon?

Would be great if there was an follow-up comparing these two to Ibn Khaldun!

Love your channel! Can you make a video about how the Han dynasty temporarily became the Xin dynasty?

Sima Qian is what helps the Turkish people find their history . About the Xiongnu and who the tiele people are. And gokturks. China did a good job for them. Shame you don't mention the turks and xiongnu

Sima Qian also inspired Vietnams first historical book 大越史記全書

Maybe you could do a video on Heshen?

Ironic that those individualistic Greek terms to write about the whole community, but the community based east Asia, they wrote about the individuals...

I would argue that its kind of a chicken and the egg tale where circumstances drive individuals to change the circumstances, but that can't happen without the individuals drive. As movements to this day tend to be driven by specific individuals bolstered by a political climate that incites a need for a change. They almost become mascots to their movements.

Dear Sir: I've read all of Herodotus and excerpts from Ssu Ma Ch'ien. Ssu Ma Ch'ien is closer to Thucydides, I would say, than he is to Herodotus and Thucydides post dated Herodotus by only a number of decades. I've been DYING to find a complete version of "The Records of the Grand Historian" in translation since forever. Do you know of one? I want to read ALL of it, including his astronomical/astrological treatises

Waiting for a Cao Cao Episode

It's not correct to say 'in the west they look at cultural/macro causes of history since Herodotus'. For centuries the 'Big Man' theory of history was the most prominent and it wasn't until the 19th century that people started putting more focus on social/historical factors (Marx being one example). It's still an on-going debate to what extent individuals shape history and to what extent environment does. I don't know how it is now in China but I can't imagine that Marx doessn't have any influence in Communist China. These kinds of oversimplifications are very unhelpful for understanding the human race, or indeed history itself.

People are the products of the society they are in, either through following it or opposing it. Therefore, I would say both of these men were right. The societies shape the people who then shape the history. Herodotus seems to have far more interested in the details of numbers and types of regiments, as well as the minutiae of how armies were equipped, than with the people themselves. Perhaps that says something about his own personality. By the way, I've always been intrigued by the "flying snakes" as he claimed to have seen the skeletons himself in dried river beds. I've assumed it was some kind of fish he was unfamiliar with. Though by far my favourite strange tale of his was the giant ants creating gold dust in India.

Of course, both circumstances and the will of the people drove history

Bro!

Ancient greeks tried to build simplified models of reality, see Plato's ideal objects, Democrit atom, considering tht men are ruled by circumstances, Herodotus does the same thing. He builds a simplified model of history based on geography and culture

I Read Osprey war history book, and a history of Japan, ahh, my head.

Sad that you didn't mention Vietnam's 大越史記 and 大越史記全書

👍

❤️❤️❤️❤️

Even when the lions have a written history, it is termed as a "myth" by the gun holding barbarians.

Herodotus may be considered the father of history but western historiography owes more to Thucydides (who is in many ways is similar to Sima Qian) than Herodotus given that subsequent greek and Roman Historians adopted Thucydides framing of politics and people as the driver of history rather than the anthropological approach of Herodotus. Herodotus has only been popular recently with the post 19th century interest in anthropology and lay cultures.

1:18 Australia is gone

East history, best history

Ah you 🤔raised a good point, is Asian as collective as it seems? Those individuals who shaped Chinese histories are clearly individuals who go against the current of their time..

The word History comes from Herodotus' book, 'History' in ancient Greek meant Inquiry or Research. So his book is called Inquiries (into the Greco-Persian War). So History is named after his book, not the other way around.

Both were good but not great historians because although they had more rigor than others, archeology was non-existent, and first-person and extant narratives were only partially questioned. The fantastical or information not supported by physical evidence (other than written or oral traditions) were not as rigorously questioned as they are today. Also, rulers of all kinds liked to rewrite history. It seems every new emperor be it Chinese or Roman or many others wanted to destroy all records and have another history re-written.

Interesting. But some scholars believe that Herodotus remained at home and collected sailors ’stories because there is no archaeological evidence of Herodotus’ alleged voyages and some Herodotus' descriptions are very inaccurate, vague, and mythological.

I think you interpret the individual vs collective thing wrongly. The west is focussed on the individual, and everything in society in the west is done by "great individuals" who in stories are basically godmen who all did it on their own, and the ideal is for people to try and become that god man. Collectivists focus on the collective, where all things are the result of collective effort, and as such not the result of the will of a god man, but of the collective effort of everyone. In that sense, its not "the individual" in collectivist storytelling that did something, but the individuals described are just examples, random people chosen from the collective to tell a story about. The focus on god men can be seen in individualist and egoist philosophies such as Ayn Rand, and in the west there is always a strong tension between on one hand individuals who are responsible for their own success and on the other hand a strong defence of hierarchy and stratification, even reinforcing or attacking individuals who break the hierarchy.

The importance of the individual became a great value due to the Enlightenment as well as the rise of capitalist economy. West was forged and reshaped by the American Revolution, Haitian Revolution and most important The French Revolution. I don't know much about Far East, but I have feeling that for a large chunk of it's history it was China and confucianism. Than everything changed when the fire nation... I mean Imperial Japan attacked

Uhuk, history, is history, uhuk, Jim Rohn said that book that you dont read cant help you. Well, i read regurally osprey, a history of japan, ect, and in ways i cant understand, spare my family from bad scheme from unhonest family, oh oh, i had Lao Tzu, and Zhuang Zi, book too. One echo from USA, that erie me in my city, in Indonesia, that i see all people walk of life did, included me in my youngger, less experienced naive young man, i think Edmund Burke said it best about History in General, either Sima Yi, or Herodotus, Burke said, Those WHO, dont now HISTORY, are DOOM to REPEAT, . My coment, including, GLORY, and, BLOOD VEGENCE FEUD. UHUK, bye.

I think I'll take Sima Qian over the "Father of Lies" anyday. The real Western historian was Thucydides IMO.

Mistake, you used Italian in translation, not Roman language Also in 5:21 you put picture of Roman person?

2:41 LMAO They came outta NOWHERE hahaha

5 02 6 34

I think one simple explanation for a contrast of this nature would be that Herodotos was writing from a far more multicultural and multi-polar perspective. Greece was never unified and Greeks fought each other more than they fought "barbarians"; Persia was obviously the greatest empire around; and the Greeks were acutely aware of Egypt as a culture far more ancient than their own. Even in the epics of the Trojan War the Trojans are depicted as essentially on a culturally equivalent level to the Achaeans. So any history written from that perspective would have to account for a multitude of different powers, peoples, lands and their interactions. It would be very different to write from a far more mono-polar Chinese perspective, where there were no outside cultures that could challenge it in terms of antiquity or permanence. If your history describes mostly action happening within a single cultural unity (or at least what is perceived as such) you would have to atomise within that unity to find your parts of analysis. So you have to write more about individuals because your history is largely taking place within a single cultural context, while Herodotos had many countries outside of Greece to write about with as much history of their own as Greece.

One is built on a core value of racial superiority. The answers obvious which one it is. I respect western culture, but no denying its legacy of ruin and bitterness