ET TU, BRUTE?! Why have you cucked to the Dark Side, my lord? Is there no one else who'll pay you as much as they will?

Gotta get your coin, I get it bro

wtf, I have never seen such an awsome game!!! RADICAL

No.

I don't feel like Raid Shadow Legends really works as an ad to this channel. I would expect this from a gaming channel or some other channel that appeals to little kids.

I think they'll be capable of figuring out an ad.

And they will assume that all males _shaved their balls._

@@jarjab2games >He doesn't realize that Greek temple services were ancient rock and roll shows with pyrotechnics, machines, and live performers

@@jarjab2games There’ll be more of them by then

No, seriously. Who the hell plays Raid: Shadow Legends? If they can afford this much advertisement someone probably plays it.

From the fall of the Western Roman Empire to fall of the Eastern Roman Empire...

@@Easy-Eight too the fall of the holy roman empire

@@lincolnharris187 the Holy Roman Empire fell in 1806. So yes the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire aka Byzantium Empire.

The meme is not wrong... And that truly galls me to admit.

@@jdbb3gotskills Arguably the dismantling of the HRE was the beginning of the Modern Era.

Lmao im playing stellaris rn

@@daltonportwood2087 Fanatic Xenophile or Criminal Heritage my dude

With authoritarian, militaristic and xenophobe ethics

@@danielpirela1225 I would have said fanatic xenophile but smashing the enslaved female xeno pops in the most PG way possible doesnt count does it so

@@thedoruk6324 there are mods for that on steam

This. I can imagine during the Sea People's wars the peasant class getting together and pillaging what was left and arming themselves. This explains why they couldn't work stone but could smelt.

Comments like these make reading the comments worthwhile, have a lovely Christmas ☃️

@Noah Pritchett lol

@Noah Pritchett Its not good to label good faith theories as a part of some political agenda, it ruins historiography. Non-Marxists can certainly understand that poor people can revolt against their masters, especially in the climate of the bronze age, with the characterisically oppressive aristocracies.

@Noah Pritchett the other problem with your argument is that all examples of lower class revolutions become Marxist in nature and therefore discounted. Even if you find Marxist arguments ridiculous, and I'm not arguing with you (that's a separate discussion), there will always be some examples of successful lower class uprisings, even if they are not Marxist in nature.

I would love to hear more, Antonio.

Do they like shrek in South America?

I lived in Colombia for 23 years and have been in north America for 3 years. Americans are ultra individualistic. Latín América is built around the families or clans. That is, in America you are expected to leave home at 18, young adults don't take care of their fathers, grandparents don't take care of their grandchildren. In LATAM, the families are very strong and united. A bad side of this is that if you are not born in a 'good family' it is pretty hard to move up socially. In LATAM There are alliances between the powerful families or clans and they run the country, in America the corporations run the country.

The fact that American is so focused on the individual means that you don't have the chains of not belonging to certain clan but you are more isolated. Another huge difference is the ruthless capitalism, everything even health care is for sale. In LATAM (depending on the party in charge) the try to run the countries more like a social democracy. I have many more differences, in case you are interested i can go on

@@sobreinquisidor It's very interesting. I want to hear more.

I think greek and indian similarities come from the greek conquests otherwise I don't really think they have any similarities

Rise of the West by McNeil and the Eye of Shiva by Amaury de Riencourt

@@somyachauhan7665 but Indra and Varuna and other such god's are basically different versions of Greek gods like zeus etc or vice versa. Prithvi and Gaia are two analogous goddesses too. Both are derived from the proto info European religion and in both cases they were eventually eclipsed by Christianity in Greece and the trinity of Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu in india. Plato's formulation that the physical world was imperfect and the Indian belief that the physical world is an illusion can also be seem as analogous

My Dad was inspired by this book: EAST-WEST PASSAGE: TRAVEL OF IDEAS, ARTS, AND INVENTIONS By Michael Edwardes

@@WhatifAltHist Video Idea: What If The Rwandan Genocide Never Happened

Just because they didnt follow the trend of the indoeuropean religion wouldnt make them less indoeuropeans, you just point out the religion divergence, not hard to believe they adopt neareastern customs due to trade and proximity.

So we are left with a population does not have an Indo-European religion, or language or ancestry. I do not see how we can say they were Indo-European. The Myceneans were somewhere between 10%-20% Indo-European in ancestry and spoke an Indo-European language and had an Indo-European religion so they can count as Indo-European even though they are genetically closer to the Minoans that the Indo-Europeans of the Steppe.

Ah so maybe a seafaring Semitic peoples similar to the Phoenicians?

@@lewhitey2544 indo europeans arent the only whites genius

Given that Christianity isn’t an indo-european religion that’s not definitive.

Well, Jupiter doesn't come from Zeus Pater but both Jupiter and Zeus Pater come from the same Indo-European root. You also find Dyaus Pitr in Vedic Sanskrit.

I think you’ll find that basically all gods even down to South America are interchangeable. It’s because these gods were based upon subtle natures of the universe that the priests and mystics were more aware of. For certain jews they established the same thing but instead of separate gods, these subtle forces are instead identified with body parts of god. Not all aspects of gods are interchangeable due to myths being created by regular folk, as well some societies devoted more attention on specific aspects more so a minor god in one society becomes a major god in another. Many societies will make note that these gods are not multiple gods but they are manifestation of different forms of god. Hindus, mesoamericans and different gnostic groups throughout time.

True greek and romans gods are very much connected but not the case with others coz like commenter above said gods were basically physical manifestation of forces of nature for ancient people so u can see many such gods with similar roles throughout world and many cultural exchanges made it possible

Sometimes, when the similarity was so apparent, like in the name "Apollo", this was definitely the case, but usually, linguistic roots had nothing to do with the assimilation. The words 'demon' and 'demonstrator' have common linguistic roots too, but I wouldn't consider the terms to be interchangeable. In Hinduism and Zoroastrianism, the words "diva" and "deva" respectively have common roots, but they also have totally opposite meanings in their respective religions. In fact, the word 'diva' could be related distantly to the English word, 'devil.'

Indo-Europeans are freaky. They were called Indo-Aryans in school when we went over Indian history, possibly to avoid having to bring up why Europe didn't turn out too similar.

Is it because their independence was backed by Anglo liberals?

@@dejankojic4293 Based Serbia

I think it's big problem is it can't evolve sepretly BECAUSE it's culturaly close to the west and has treiad copying it's sucsses by become western and falling cause it isn't welling to completey become western but wants effectively what it has and doesn't try its own thing

Ok second edit which is just a reply, maybe the sheer barbarity at which the Spanish conquered the Americas set Latin America up for a longer future in comparison to the West

They are many resemblance in both civilizations, even some Colombian historic event mirror episodes of the fall of the Roman republic (scales apart).

Though it's quite different considering the considerable demographic and political transformation caused by the Spanish, perhaps Mesoamerican civilization was the "Golden Era" like antiquity was for Europe and now Latin America is stuck in the dark ages for several centuries including today.

Worth noting that Adam Smith's "wealth of nations"(1776) which is sort of the Ur-text for capitalism, is largely built around trying to explain why North America is rich while South America is poor despite South America as many obvious advantages over North America. So this problem was noted a very long time ago, no his conclusions might possibly be specious

completely agree

Which would Indonesia fit in?

@@pizzaman231It’s own part, which I’ll call Nusantaran civilisation

The Islamic World and Latin America aren't acknowledge enough when it comes to videos like this

Hahaha lmao. Yeah people think Iranians are Arabs lol. Even amongst “Arabs” there is some contempt against some of the rich Gulf sheikhs who got lucky through oil and importing third world labour to do their dirty work while they lord over poorer Arab countries because of their wealth.

@Hernando Malinche like everything it fluctuated, it sounds like Whatifalthist is saying that the Peloponnesian war set Greece on the course to becoming decadent but they were not, at that point, decadent.

I think your summary sounds like a massive assumption, just as people are today, there are many and varied opinions, and who knows the course of the future in regards to empire building ? I think you are projecting your opinion here, based on retrospect

@@oftin_wong Well that sucks i guess I’ll just go return my degree and ask for a refund because maybe one single random Roman farmer actually thought the Greeks were pretty cool and wasn’t disappointed that despite their advanced civilization they failed to create even 1 empire natively and had to be carried kicking and screaming by their northern barbarian cousins. Its a shame this hypothetical farmer didn’t write anything down because all of the contemporary sources we do have fails to mention him and his opinions on the Greeks and instead just trash talks the decadent and idle Greeks and laughs at them for being conquered so easily. Even a contemporary Greek historian living in Roman Italy lambasts the Greeks for being unable to even slow down the Roman conquest of Greece let alone stop it outright. But then again, what are educated, knowledge statesmen and contemporary historians when compared to modern fictional hypotheticals? You speak of varied opinions and many people yet you clearly know none of them because if you did you’d understand that if there are any assumptions it is the assumptions of the ancients which only furthers my point. A point that is in no way controversial among historians and is instead how the history of the ancient Roman conquest of Greece is taught at a collegiate level. At some point you have to accept that yes, a single individual may be an exception but in the name of actually getting anything done we must work with averages.

@@Mankorra_Gomorrah yes averages sure, but also, conquerers always demonise those they conquer And a nation seldom records their defeats a classic example is ancient Egypt, you will only find records of their defeats in the writings of other nations. Sure you are falling back on roman perspectives ..herein lies the problem

@@oftin_wong You are using a lot of words to say nothing, I’ve never claimed, and never will claim, that all of humanity felt that Ancient Greece was full of decadent sloven fools who couldn’t do anything. I never claimed that they objectively were decadent sloven fools, i claimed that the ancient romans viewed the Greeks as decadent girly pushovers because of how little fight they put up when the romans invaded. Which is true, the romans did feel that way as evidenced from their sources. Maybe the Martians felt the Greeks were really hard workers, or the Japanese really supported Ancient Greece for some reason but that’s irrelevant. If you read literally the first sentence of my post you’d notice this. You’d also notice that i said “at the time of their conquest of Greece” because as time went on the Romans really began to idolize the Greeks which is how Greek not only survives as language but becomes the main language of the Roman upper class. Again, contemporary Greek historians also dunk on the Greeks for being pushovers and some even come to the conclusion that the Greeks deserve to have their civilization essentially ended because they clearly don’t have what it takes to stand on the world stage anymore. The Greeks were more than willing to discuss their own failures, and so were the Romans for that matter, as they both had enough internal political divisions that a Spartan military defeat or a Popularist political blunder would still benefit someone. Dynastic Egypt, a nation of literal god kings, was much more driven by the ruler with the interests of the ruler being the interests of the state, even if they shouldn’t be. If you read even a little bit further i mentioned that the Romans often hired Greeks to tutor their children which would hardly be evidence of “demonizing their victims” or whatever nonsense you’re trying to throw into this. Being educated by a Greek was the ancient equivalent of going to Harvard or Oxford and many Greeks made stupid amounts of money and political influence by just talking about philosophy from generations ago to Roman kids. And funnily enough, literally none of this is relevant which is why i left it out of my original post. I commented because WhatifAlthist mentions Greece becoming decadent and being overcome by decadence and surpassed by the Romans and i was adding two points that he either missed or, more likely, cut for time. The fact that contemporary sources, again both Greek and Roman, support his claims and the an additional point that Roman conquers Greece and isn’t decadent yet as they integrate more and more of Greek culture, evidenced by hiring them to teach the next generation of Romans, they become more and more decadent.

Well the reason for that is that the Great Powers have just not been fighting so that form of warfare has been unnecessary even though it in real terms is an extension of that form of warfare.

This video is certainly is something that can cause that, yeah. Though I've over the years developed a bit of a habit to at times look for potential weaknesses or opposing data points. Experienced a few to many times where one can end up if one doesn't look for weaknesses. In this video as well, one can kind of notice things that don't seem like they line up properly. For instance did Christianity really work out that well? It's easy to breeze over it and say so based on ultimate results far further in the future, but if it were really true, then why did things turn for even worse for several centuries? Sure the West Romans collapsed due to various reasons, but the East Romans didn't and they declined for quite a bit there as well. Or like being non-religious being no good? But what about the entire Enlightenment and following era? I mean yeah the extremist French Revolution had issues, but it doesn't seem like it came to the same results anywhere else, with many scientists driving progress forward being the less or non-religious. These anomalies make one wonder about the entire structures solidity. I do think that them thinking in systems is a good idea which can learn us a lot. But I suspect that in finding occasional patterns they thought they'd found out right rules all systems must run by, even when they don't. That perhaps they should have looked a bit more for if there are cases that break the seeming rule and what that might mean.

@@Quickshot0 talking in wide abstracts for a period of time of centuries will cause this feeling....Tbh I cannot find anything wrong in the arguments of the video,although the abstracts oversimplify many trends....As for the''too much Apolonianism argument'' about atheism harming in the long run,it does have some basis...When we think that the educated ancient greek tend to argue that ''the measurement for all things is man''(the Sophists actually did it in the Classical era and many others believed the same thing without actually claim it) many people would have found a reason to act immorally in shacky times....Of course not having a dogmatic religion (which is not the same as being irreligious as the video seems to suggest) helped in the emergence of philosophy and science BUT it had side effects that were evidently harmful.A Christian would have to find at least a moral reason to exterminate a whole city of enemies that had the same religion as he,and most of the times outright extermination would lead to condemnation by the clergy,BUT the overrational Atheneans just had to found a Cynic argument for destroying Melos and so did the much more conservative Spartans for exterminating the people of Plataea.Religions can create stronger moral compasses than rational thinking most of the time,

@@pn8937 I'm kind of dubious of that argument, while at surface level it does feel like it might be the case, deeper diving makes one wonder. For instance Europe is one of the most secular places on the planet right now, but it's also the place that keeps to human rights and maintaining nature the most. Of course if one goes to North Korea we'd find the opposite, and one can find a lot of variation in religious countries as well. But that then just brings up the question, is it atheism of something else? If you ask me a more logical conclusion is that it might depend far more on the cultural and societal structures a civilization built itself up on. A place can declare for instance human rights to be extremely important and stick to them, basically having thus declared it their moral compass in a sense. One could argue if that is a faith or not as well I suppose. Though it is worth noting that most arguments for things like genocide are extremely superficial and don't tend to match up with later scientific work in the field. Thus also bringing up the question, is is logic? Or is finding excuses for ones bad behavior? Thus, atheists have committed mass murder, indeed, based on arguments at times as you highlighted. But then again, the religious did the same as well, declared a group heathens for instance and then took everything from them, or decided a branch of their faith was now heretic and to be purged, and of course the wealth to end up with them. As such in the end I can't help but wonder if in reality it's more how your society is structured, what it will accept, and how good it can resist those who wish to abuse society for their own aims. As such, I'm kind of dubious many of these things hold together as well as the video says. I suspect that a lot of this is actually coincidental correlations that might not hold up well to more intense scrutiny, like this point didn't.

@@Quickshot0 I mean WhatifAlthist himself is guilty for being biased on the whole religion vs. atheism argument when talking about societies and civilizations in general, he tends to put things on a one to one basis which isn't the case especially with something so complex as the makeup of a civilization along with its society.

@@l-b01josefandres44 That could be the case, yeah.

Is revisionist history just lying?

Is there actual proof that Latium was founded by Trojans or people from Asia Minor? The Aeneid always just seemed like a story Virgil made up because the founders of Rome suckling and being raised by a she-wolf is dumb even for an ancient myth.

The common people may have been native to the area but do we have genetics from the Etruscan elite or kings?

Interesting but I find it hard to believe that we would be able to get such concrete genetic information from that point in history. What is the study called?

@@Vmac1394 There is no concrete evidence, no. There has been no genetic study done (which I find strange - maybe it isn’t possible) but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence to at least suggest that Rome was either founded by outsiders or inhabited by many of them shortly after its foundation. This circumstantial evidence is that many of tribes in the surrounding area believed Romans descended from non-Italic peoples. In fact the belief the Romans were descended specifically from Aeneas of Troy was originally Greek (Hellanicus of Lesbos mentions it circa 440 BCE) and was pushed by Pyrrhus in 280 BCE before his war with Rome. Pyrrhus claimed descent from Achilles and wanted to win another Trojan War. Until this time, the Romans had always said they were descended from Romulus, who was 100% Latin/Italic, and nobody else. But now, with Greek culture gaining a foothold in Rome, and it now being the dominant culture around the Med (replacing Phoenician culture), the idea they were ancestors of a great hero who was also part-god took hold, giving them greater prestige with trading partners. The issue they had was how to reconcile this tale with their own founding myth of Romulus, and the fact Aeneas fled Troy 400 years before Rome. Thus, they had Romulus become a descendant of Aeneas and inserted a long line of Kings of Alba Longa between them. This was all tied together in Virgil’s Aeneid, used as an official founding myth to coincide with the founding of the Principate, tying all stories together and to justify the rule of Augustus as truly a son of the divine. Virgil parallels the actions of Aeneas, son of Aphrodite, with Julius Caesar, descendent of Venus and Anchises, a prince of Troy and father to Aeneas, and Romulus, son of Mars and founder of Rome, with Augustus, son of Caesar and founder of a new Rome. Other circumstantial evidence is that given Rome’s location and purpose - that of a town for traders and merchants from abroad - there was likely foreigners arriving and staying.

@@cmcg3738 There is very surviving Etruscan DNA because they primarily used cremation, so the sample size is not going to be significant.

What about the difference between cultural expressions and true religious belief? Imagine in 1000 years time a historian try to argue that 2020's Europe was religious because everyone celebrates Christmas. Wouldn't make much sense. Besides he kinda made a distinction there by saying that the lower classes slipped into oriental-inspired cults, the ones you mentioned, but to slip to these one must be at least unsatisfied with the old beliefs. A Christian is kinda of an "atheist" towards Zeus.

@@Joleyn-Joy nah as an Orthodox Christian, I do believe in Zeus (though maybe not as you expect). St Paul tells us that the gods of the nations are demons

Maybe. But as far I know there is no evidence of widespread atheism/agnosticism in the ancient world, atleast not in the modern sense. Some philosophers might have held those views but that's hardly representative of the common people. The one difference the Greeks and Romans had apart from other civilizations is the lack of a powerful priestly class. The Roman election of pontiffs would be outrageous in Bramanic India or Confucian China.

Guiding principles of the powerless are almost completely irrelevant. Those of the influential aren't.

His later comment of how the lower classes remained religious and moved to mystery cults and his earlier video on the quecha culture that emphacizes that there is still a quecha people but being entirely under a Latin upper class he considers them part of Latin civilization. I would say thus then, he is more saying the elites that defined the civilization were agnostic.

What is his take?

@@GorgutsFan1998 watch his video to figure out

@@Etaoinshrdlu69 not from what I've seen or heard but anything can happen nowadays

@@greekswaglord-dathistoryla201 Fair response.

@@Etaoinshrdlu69 what kinda question is that?

Most propaganda is built on at least a bit of truth. His point would still stand even if several of those points were refuted or proved to be exaggerated imo. But yeah, you're absolutely right

Caligula was the trump of Rome. He was rich guy, who seemed kinda crazy and boldly stood against the elites so his image was smeared afterwards.

Same shit with Nero too, a lot of what we know were propagandistic hit pieces.

@@osmanbey8796 More like pretended to stand against the elites. We have to remember both were very rich.

Praise the sun

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!! I WOULD LOVE THAT TOO!! I'm a celt so I'd love to see that

Having a religious structure for people doesn't make a society religious. For example American is not a religious society however religion, primarily Christianity, are dominant and guide peoples lives.

I laughed pretty hard at Imperial Japan, inventor of fanatical religious suicide bombers, being listed as an atheist/agnostic society. Germany too for that matter: while many in the NSDAP moved away from Christianity, they weren't atheists - rather, they were moving towards revival of German folk religion; and in any case the number of Christian churches in Germany grew significantly while the NSDAP is in power. The notion that the Third German Realm was an atheistic society is something that's bandied around a lot by borderline brain dead yankee-doodle conservatives today, so it's weird to see that completely baseless myth repeated in a channel focused on history.

Ancient Roswell?

@@buddermonger2000 I mean... kinda. The Spartan economy had been on a decline for generations and getting conquered by Rome didn't help matters. A large portion of the states income came from Roman Laconophiles showing up and spending a lot of money.

Indo-Iranians were present in Europe, specifically nomads( Scythians, Cymmerians) in todays Ukraine and Russia. Also haplogroup of Indo-Iranians is R1a1, same haplogroup have Slavs and Balts, there is even huge comparison in terms of launguage influences, especially for Balto-Slavic people( just compare any Balto-Slavic name of numbers 1-10 with Indo-Iranians) :)

@@kosa9662 Well yeah kind of in europe but whatifalthist keeps using the term instead of indo-european for some reason. Like when he said Greeks were indo-aryan

@@orangesilver8 Ah that true majority of Indo-Iranians go to Asia, also its is true that ' Indo-Iranians are Yamnaya people, but not every Yamnaya descedants is Indo-Iranian'

Yeah I think he means Indo-Europeans. Indo-Aryans refers to Indo-European peoples in India.

Aryan is a sanskrit word

it better be the most international dish, ananas-pizza.

Which is weird because Britain and other Celts had chariots and those type of societies were aristocratic. Reminder that Gaul, Germania and beyond was poorly understood by classical writers and that those people didn't have an intensive writing culture. Pretty much what we know about them comes from biased and exaggerated sources. (Like the Greek accounts about the Persians and Scythians) Pretty much anything substantive that was written about those cultures have to be taken with a grain of salt.

@@Andreas-ww5eg A society having an aristocracy doesn't make it repellant to having individualism, individualism doesn't necessarily mean equality or equity after all. It just means that the members of a group aren't going to be treated as one homogenous entity.

@@Andreas-ww5eg You are indeed correct. I hate to generalize, as Celts are the most generalized people of ancient Europe.

Well unless we change something, the next civilisation will be the woke civilisation.

A good place to look will be the insides of Elon Musks head

@@ThatIcelandicDude Nah, the woke is the decadence of this one, they care nothing for building anything, only destroying and subverting what exists. There is no future in that, just look at the birthrates of those who cling to such ideas, pretty dismal performance

@@AmariFukui The birthrates of a political group? LoL who is measuring that?

The fact that people are "anti-woke" is, itself, marks the end of western civ. I do think that western civ. will continue but wite ppl will eventually mixed out of existence in the west. wite ppl will still exist but the wite race, as a concept, will die.

Yes please! Or at least please share your sources here! Been getting into Peter Kingsley and Danielou but am hungry for more on this important (and relevant given our psychedelic renaissance) subject!

I can't know for sure but this guy seems to refer to civilizations as basically a common geographically coherent operating system inwhich Argiculture, Writing, Specialisation, cities, states, culture, religion and whatever else can exist within, I think he is being intentionally vague as to not pidgeon hole himself, so its kinda like saying you know your looking at a computer if it has access to the internet, a browser, apps, a home screen etc, but does it run on Windows, IOS or Linux etc. I suppose in this analogy the geography a civ lives in could be its hardware

All of which existed in those areas already (the Celts had a literate group who _chose_ to not write stuff down). The only was not was largescale federations or centralized power, and possibly cities.

To be fair, the use of Italy, Libya, Ukraine etc is also anachronistic. I don't think anyone is under the illusion that the Turks were there at the time.

Eh don't worry about it too much. Every word we use for every region on earth is a corruption from the local languages. We are also using a language that didn't exist in the ancient era and the surviving civilizations from then have change to an incredible amount aswell. They wouldn't have even called Anatolia Anatolia, they would have called it Asia.

@@rorychivers8769 I mostly agree with you, but the term "Italia" to refer to the region and peninsular landmass actually predates even the rise of Rome

@@game_boyd1644 I didn't actually know that, looks like it came from the ancient Greeks, I suppose that makes it analogous to "Albion"

@@RememberTheElephant Oldest name is Asia minor and most of the names we use aren't actually corruptions of local names as those names would often come from within the language roots which described something specific. Just harder to see with English since it has so much Greek and Latin influence from medieval France.

not living well as opposed to what? the united states? i'm not convinced they're worse in this regard

A better example would have been the British at the height of their empire, your average British person lived a rather awful life bit not quiet as awful as those lesser nations of the empire.

@@green2498 honestly being at the poverty line in the US or Canada places you in the upper middle class in China or Russia. It’s not that they don’t live well. They just don’t by our standards. They live in what could be called “Economies in the Process of Industrialization”. Which is a pretty key distinction considering that would roughly mean the average person lives about as well as the average person in the late 19th century in Britain or the early 1920s in the US. Not bad in the cities typically just lots of poor farmers that can’t afford even just rice and a massive lower class that doesn’t have welfare supports even close to what the US or Canada offers

@@lord6411 but of course you're reducing quality of life to ability to consume

@@lord6411 also those poor farmers in china are arguably better off than the average city dweller because again, ability to consume is far from everything, there was a study that showed that rural chinese farmers reported higher well being than urban dwellers (with rural to urban migrants being lower than both)

Socrates would beg to differ.

@@stefanodadamo6809 Yes but Socrates and his students were able to operate in Athens for years and years before the execution. His execution happened at a relatively tense time in Athenian history. Not to justify it but in many other civilizations, Socrates wouldn't have even had the chance to spread his ideas without being killed or exiled.

@@stefanodadamo6809 Socrates deserved it. You cant just speak against Athens and praise Sparta, while Sparta is invading Athens and appointing your students as local supporters.

And then it was sponsored by Raid Shadow Legends.

@Huwhite Death I don't know, that's why I'm asking

It means when a society or civilization is in decline, largely as an abstract but specifically with a decline in standards, morals, dignity, honor, discipline and skill at governance and administration. Essentially when the virtues that made that civilization admirable or successful have decayed.

@Huwhite Death answer the question pussy

Here's my definition. Decadent: seeking short-term pleasure over sustainably providing for future generations.

Same it's like making a correlation without causation. It almost implies religios people are less violent which I don't think it's true.

Sorry I posted this 2 times

Well Shinto is barely a religion, its more of a collection of folk tales than anything, & while nominally the Japanese believed their emperor is a god (like they still do today), in practice they know damn well the monarch is a regular person. Also I agree that his take on atheistic states is just plain wrong, as if the Soviet Union was a benevolent great power that definitely didn’t expand during its history. He also puts Japan as an atheistic state yet they were extremely imperialistic so idk how he got to that conclusion.

He wrote moderm japan. I think he ment post ww2 japan.

@@balintkiraly6187 He put both of them, imperial Japan under "Totalitarian" and modern Japan under "Decadent".

@@balintkiraly6187 Imperial Japan and modern Japan don’t differ in religiosity like at all tho

@@shiny_teddiursa I am certain even in the past they knew he was human. It's not any more different when the king was believe to be divine right because of God in Europe.

I would also like to see him dive into orthodox civilization

What would u disagree with (not saying he's totally correct I disagree with certain aspects as well, but just to have another perspective)

Just made one

Our wish was granted

@@nayelhuda6945 nah he presents many theories as facts without saying it is just a theory and thowing the other ones.for Exemplare the dorian invasion or that the Etruskans originated from anatolia.as far as i know this theory is even seen as completely false

The Roman Kings were around before the Axial Age, from 750 to 500 BC. For a frame of reference, the Athenian Republic was established one year after the Roman Republic.

He has said he thinks Saudi Arabia will collapse in his 5 nations thst will collapse video

Mythology philosophy are very mixed in indiam civilization for a reason. Puranas are a metaphor to explain the philosophical questions. Use of gods, their stories are a philosophical quest. Being an Indian you should have known it

Indians developed a theology because they had a scripture (Vedas). Just like Abrahamic religions have scripture/Revealed Books

Yes you can Understand Indean (Hindu) Course of time change kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hc9gnNp8ztfcmHk.html 👈👈👈

You can see Chronological history of Indian kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r8mddpygz56xYo0.html 👈👈👈👈🤔

You can find out how were R1b gene 🧬 Peoplekzfaq.info/get/bejne/h516q8WQzs62qHk.html 👈👈

Iran indeed had some of the first known complex civilizations. And much is still to be unearthed.

When did he say that persia did not created anything.

@@samueltv9428 He said that despite the Selucid empire existing for about 150 years it was not enough time for the people in persia to become civilized

Well than why did greek culture dominate for 100 years.

@@samueltv9428 Dominate where? In Persia? It didnt, they adopted the persian administrative system since it was more efficent at tax collection. Satraps are were what governors are today. Also famously Alexander hosted mass weddings between his troops and persians because he wanted to integrate the greeks into persian culture not the other way around. You can google that if you want

He did mention Persia, many times. But he also said he'd explore the Classical World mostly by focusing on the Classical Greeks and Romans.

Persia was the first mediaeval state.

I mean nominally they don’t, but the military-industrial complex is extremely influential in american politics and it’s definitely indirect political power.

@Syed Mohiuddin You've got to be trolling lol.

@Syed Mohiuddin You obviously didn't listen to his other videos. He already praised the achemenid empire, as well as many other non-european nations or cultures. I just expected more of that here.

he's referring more to something larger than that, like how today we say 'Western civilization'. I would define it as a very broad society consisting of several countries over a long time period. The map at 2:27 is his interpretation of what all the modern-day civilizations are, for example.

Is it like the distintion between climate and weather?

Probably close to Samuel Huntington’s definition, which is the largest group identifier of a people before all of humanity itself (often identified by religious practice).

@@ShivJ16 so using that definition, can some irrelevant tribe in say East Africa claim to have civilization when they don’t even have basic literacy?

Source?

@@tompeled6193 Note that very few historical sources really survive from back then, so we can only make inferences based on the few bits of data we have.

Stop watching fate

@@tompeled6193 "It was foretold to me in a dream"

@@jacobusmarch9524 lol

From what I have read, the Greeks were very pious. They literally would not go to war at certain times of the year because of religious festivals and had a lot of taboos relating to sacred places, religious purity and commandmants. Sacrifices were done constantly and sneezes were believed to be direct interventions by the gods. That they were agnostic is a nonsense statement derived from the handful of philosophers who entertained ideas of the divine that were outside Greek norms.

@@iggyzeta9755 That's true, AFAICT. Now, there was a period around 100 BC where the Greeks were far more cosmopolitan, and were actively interacting with the much wider world beyond their home shores, at which point their religion became more an act of civic duty than actual piety. This is around the same time "Alien" religions started to appear (Including Judaism in its brief evangelical phase), but I think this video places their cosmopolitan period too early. By comparison, the Romans were more superstitious, and had a taboo against desecrating the temples of *any* foreign gods, the penalty for which was death. Or so I have read.

@@mahatmarandy5977 I think that's because they interpreted foreign gods as essentially their own gods worshipped under different names and customs. Note that they were not reluctant about sacking Jewish temples, because the Jewish god could not be seen as one of their own in any light. I don't know much about Greek society after their conquest by Rome, but at least in the Classical Age they were extremely pious, though the Peloponessian Wars resulted in so many atrocities and broken taboos that they stopped being such a solid thing. When the Persian ambassadors were thrown down the well the Greek world was shocked by such an offence to the gods and the Spartans ended up really regretting it.

Iggy Zeta well there was only one Jewish temple, and when Titus burned it that was actually a pretty huge scandal. Some people theorize that Josephus wrote the Jewish war in large part to spin doctor that incident so that Titus did not appear to be at fault, which he clearly was. And the Greeks were perfectly cool with desecrating temples of other gods, but the Romans were sort of worried that there were other gods that they hadn't heard of, or, as you pointed out, might be their own gods under different names, so he didn't wanna take that chance for the bulk of their history.

​@@iggyzeta9755 Isn't it possible that he meant that classical religions were based more off of rationality and logic, as opposed to the Christian religion, which, as he said, is more spiritual and emotional? Like the people carrying out a religious sacrifice in Greece would be stoic or more matter-of-fact, as if we were to cook something in the microwave. While a service in a Christian church might have people shedding tears or showing emotion, like when people watch an emotional movie. Although I do agree that agnostic/atheist is the wrong term to describe that since agnostic/atheist means a complete lack of religion.

Slavery in antiquity was much tamer than Atlantic slave trade. Go read about how sugar was made. It was brutal plus you were a slave for life and your descendants. Roman slavery was less restrictive and you could become free.