according the completely made up argument you made.

All Catholics hate the Roman Empire so it's not surprising that Tolkien hated the Roman Empire The Roman Empire used to persecute Catholics (= Christians) and throw them in arenas with wild animals

He was a Catholic and all Catholics of all times were and always will be against the polytheist Roman empire

nope minas thirid is not based on Konstantinopel, but more likely Adrianopel, while Osgiliath is often compared with Konstantinopel in the narrative, that wants to make the evil races and orcs to Muslims. This is bullshit. It is more about northern western european society, explicit the UK. Numenor didnt slowly widdled and died out, it sink into the ocean, like atlantis. It is more an analogy about good vs bad colonialism and ergo the british empire. Anarion and Isildur were not brothers, at best you could compare arnor and gondor to the western and eastern roman empire. the civilwar didnt happend over the minority of the king, but by the pro-elven or pro-men views in numenor with the faithfull being surrounded by a princess, while the true king tried to attack the land to the west and failed. It is more an analogy to the fight in Islam after the death of Mohamed between Abū Bakr and Fātima, the later mother of Ali. the dunedain are racial superiour to their colonial subjects, because of their age (200-600) to men (60), but this blood is slowly lost in gondor by the gondorians, who are by "good" colonialisation cultural adapted to numenorian culture without being numenorian, because they die to early to record the knowledge of the numenorians. This desiree and the thinning of the numenorian blood over time is one of the main reasons of the slow downfall of gondor, even portrayed in the movies. Haradrim using elephants is not an analogy to carthago..... It is more probably about india than carthago and maybe they are even about sometime else, like british people handling the mystical elephants from stories only known even for the rohirim on the battlefield. the battle on the hornburg is not a fancy comparison to a fight by some Horatius, who defended Rome from the etruscians, ffs. Tolkien didnt compared the HORN-BURG with the latin genus horatius, who broke down a BRIDGE to defend early rome. It is mor elikely, that Tolkien hated Rome, because they invaded britannia and made it to a colony and brought a believe into britannia with a sole power, that corrupted everyone, who touched it and twisted his natural british views to a practical, exploiting and hateful view to every naturalistic god, called christianity....

nope let me ass pull while giving no sources. heeeee hawwww appolo homosexual. @@apollomars1678

It's a perennial problem that all alpha males are required to at least think about the Roman Empire at least once every 160 hours. Ideally you are looking for numbers like 12-24 hours but Tolkien is forgiven for he is an aged G who left a good chunk of his testosterone simply surviving outrageous WW1 battles.

What if you think about it 24/24, 7/7???@@attemptedunkindness3632

if it's not every day, how would you face your ancestors ?

@@maximusd26with the right (dexter) side of my visage. They’d expect nothing less.

@@attemptedunkindness3632 Question, does one think about the entire history of the Romans from 753BC - 480 AD (1453 AD if you count the Eastern Roman/Byzantine empire) or the Empire part specifically?

Exactly. Middle-Earth is in many parts united, but not homogenized. The Roman Empire on the other hand, while adopting some Greek customs earlier in its republic, mostly sought to destroy anything that was different and foreign and establish Roman superiority. Examples include the absolute annihilation of Carthage and anything related to their culture (afaik we don't know of a single Carthaginian book or author) and the assimilation of Celts into "civilized" people. Ironically though, Tolkien seems to have been unaware or ignored the fact that early Christians did the same thing, often times even worse in that they tolerated no other religion while Romans did accept foreign worship as long as you accepted the emperor as your half-deity. Given his devout catholic belief, it might be that it just never occured to him that the spread of Christianity had such a sharp cultural impact. Afair it was the Christians who basically hunted down Celtic and Nordic druids that transferred oral stories of their gods, not the Romans who relied heavily on Celtic auxilia and Gaul as a buffer province and had no problem with polytheism as long as they were included.

@@couchpotatoe91 werent Carthagenians just barbarians, how could they have authors or books?

Sooo... Do you think he would be on team Galadriel rebooted ? 😅😅

@@petrospetromixos6962 Carthaginians were seafarers and traders that explored along the West African coast long before Romans did (look up the explorer Hanno from the 5th century BC). Romans actually seized a stranded Punic vessel in the 1st Punic War in the 3rd century BC and replicated it because it was just a superior ship design to theirs. Carthaginians were originally a trading colony from Phoenicia which is in nowaday Israel, but Phoenicia got eventually conquered by the Persians leaving the colony of Carthage an independent new nation. They were by no means "barbarians", the city of Carthage at one point in history was one of if not the biggest city in the mediterranean. The Phoenicians also perfected the art of translucent glass blowing. They were one of the biggest players in the Mediterranean before the Roman rise alongside the Greeks. But they were traders and no conquerors, so while they controlled land that was profitable, they didn't have a concept of Imperialism as the Romans did. They also had an oligarchy and a senate much like Romans did btw, but without dictators (ancient term) in times of crisis.

@@goofygrandlouis6296 Tolkien likely already would've problems with the action and war focus of the LotR films. I know his son Christopher did. If he wasn't already dead, I'm sure he'd wish to be after seeing the Rings of Power.

Yes, absolutely, there are some fascinating parallels to be made between Tolkien & Chesterton. Well, I don't know if you've heard of him, good sir, but if you feel particularly close to Tolkien's & Chesterton's worldview, you can always check out the works of Georges Bernanos, some of which have been translated by Cluny Media. In my humble opinion: the greatest French Catholic writer of the 20th century, and one of the greatest French writers, period. A superb novelist & a magnificent polemicist & essayist. A staunch Royalist & Anarchist -- a "White Anarchist", you could say. Royalism à la française, with a special Latin zeal. A bit different from the Anglo-American conservative tradition. But, with Charles Péguy, he is to France what Tolkien & Chesterton are to England: some of the most orthodox & distinguished defenders of their nation's unique vocation before God. Cheers & greetings from France,

Petty nationalism is cringy and unrealistic. The only nationalism that will save the Western world is racial (as in White). Anglophiles are some of the slowest to accept this due to the emotional attachment they have for their lionized role in the absurd WWII narrative. Imagine thinking that Churchill - who ordered the carpet bombing of 160+ German villages, towns, and cities - was a hero _"fighting tyranny"._

Amen ♥♥♥

@@derfelcadarn8230 Man, you look like a very cool person, judging by these authors you are suggesting, cheers!

If only he meant it.

Faramir and Frodo were both (sort of) self inserts. Faramir for being based on himself in general, and Frodo for his experiences in WW1, as an officer and Sam standing in for the common soldier he was expected to lead.

Thats Beren.

Considering that Beren is even mentioned on his gravestone, definitely.

The best words I've heard so far!

@@edgargross2789 Beren was the self insert, but Faramir and Frodo were both more directly inspired by his own personality.

So, Justinian then? But then, Justinian was certainly not Roman (Numenorean) by birth, although he apparently grew up speaking Latin (Westron).

@@Phavahg It's not that he's supposed to be Justinian or any actual historical figure. Rather it's a somewhat analogous situation. It's an example of history rhyming, but not directly repeating (although this is fake history). Tolkien didn't use symbolism or allegory (which he hated), but he did take inspiration from real history, and of course IRL history does rhyme and to some extent repeat. There is no cryptic hidden meaning behind any of the characters. In one of his letters he mentioned how Gondor was similar to the Byzantine Empire, and that the unified kingdom was similar to the Roman empire reuniting. In another letter he said the Numenorians would have resembled Egyptians, although this had more to do with their architecture and burial customs than their physical appearance. The Middle Earth is supposed to be an ancient mythological age, like the Greek heroic period which all their epics are set in. The Romans, Celts, etc., are all successor populations that come after or during the 4th age. It also fits somewhat with existing systems of mythology like Germanic, Greek, and Celtic. A lot was borrowed from Celtic, in fact.

​@Phavahg you need to be careful how you phrase certain things. Justinian, despite being born illyrian or thracian, would have considered himself just as roman as any itallic at the time

@@callnight1441 I was about to comment this, I can't recall Justinian not being considered Roman, by himself or another.

Justinian was roman and spoke latin.He was just not from Italy. And neither were Constantine,Septimus Severus,Philp the Arab,Heliogabalus ,Caracalla and Diocletian.

It took me a solid 10 minutes to decide if I wanted to say that as well while reading it hahaha

Damn thats cringe

it's adorable tbh :)

virgin: Damn thats cringe chad: it's adorable tbh :)

​@grandmasteryoda6717 acting like virginity is shameful is cringe.

I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your comment, but I am intrigued by one phrase: "An aristocratic social order with a secretly democratic mentality;" What precisely do you mean by this? I wouldn't think you meant democratic in the same way we mean it today, that being the power is directed by the people, as it is in modern democracies. Do you mean the spirit and will of the people being taken into consideration by government?

@@Digganob590 I think the idea is that the nobility are "chosen" by and serve as the "representatives" of the common people. They hold unquestionable authority, but it is a righteous authority that the people "agreed" to let them have. Essentially, the noble dynasties themselves were "chosen" by the people to lead them.

@@binbows2258 Hey now, let's let the OP speak for himself. By the way, fun fact, every political system is a democracy once you piss the people off enough.

he wasn't a fan of the nahsis he was not a fan of fascists. In some ways Rome was a very fascist society. That's why Skyrim gives you a mission to join the Empire or the Stormcloacks in Tolkien fashion. Would Tolkien have sided with Empire?

barons and magna carta@@Digganob590

Yes, he would have.

And Trump

​@@WartozTrump is the opposite to globalism and Tolkien would see through CNN propaganda,

​@@WartozTrump is the opposite to globalism and Tolkien would see through CNN propaganda,

@@Wartoz Why? Trump is a nationalist just like Tolkien.

Hope you're not American, the irony would be too great for you to bear

​@@thadtuiol1717what's the irony

Nah empires are great without empires we would still be living in the Stone Age

​@@RussianOccupier190 isn't true, since the first states could barely be called empires. Indus valley civilization and sumers were independent city-states.

@@danzoom an empire is a nation that seeks to expand its territory mostly through violent means empire does not necessarily mean a huge landmass since empires can come in all sorts of sizes throughout history there have been very small empires like the Egyptian or the Hittite which are very small in comparison to other bigger better known empires like the Roman,Mongol, and British empires.

If he wrote that , it is very telling as to why he hated the Roman empire. The Romans , Like the Greeks before them viewed a Political career and service to the state as the highest good an individual could achieve.

@@dirtbird7415 Hoes mad

This fits with the general idea of the ring of power as well I think.

@@dirtbird7415 The Romans wanted to get closer to the gods. And in their eyes, the gods where both terrifyingly wrathful and beautifully strong. We know about the pain of chasing power. But as our once great civilization collapse into nihilism, we also now know the pain of weakness.

Government is the product of the evolutionary process of war, it isn't a nicety.

Yes but that does not invite many viewers as much as the title that was used in this video

He definitely would not be a fan of modernity! He would be aghast at everything. Imperialism continues today in various forms more so than at any point on history. Mainly due to shared economic systems heavily interconnected but with master and servant countries, related media systems, related legal systems, related norms to do with religion.

​@@Parasmunthe hated atheism too

He hates imperialism in general, but we very specifically have him talking about he hates Rome. So the title makes perfect sense for the content.

And for that reason I say people suck@@haroldcruz8550

Indeed. He hates the idea of empires imposing their culture and language upon other civilizations and thus trying to eradicate the previous peoples customs. He preferes diversity and richness of culture and languages as opposed to one universalized and centrified culture.

TL,DR; He favors chaos, anarchy, and destructive conflict.@@sindrimyr5351

@@sindrimyr5351it’s not just that, he doesn’t like massive overbearing states, preferring local people to guide their own destiny

@@Hlord-be4xx same thing basically. although cooperation between those culturally diverse people is something he does value. I mean I'd say isolationism is something he warns about in his books.

​@@Hlord-be4xxI don't think so. A massive confederation or other grouping of semi-independent states that have their own culture would probably be something he'd be down with. Like an idealized Russia, or if the EU was a state and also a utopia

The way the Beorians and Turin along with Androg’s men lived as “ethical outlaws” also harkens back to Romulus and Remus, their grandfather the Outlawed-King Numitor, and the king’s band of loyal retainers turned bandits.

ink and history lied for views why are you acting like this is a mystery.

Ahh yes I'm sure no one revered Horatius cocles the second the government changed

yea he was just a hero of rome for 6 centuries. youre a clown go read a history book.@@juwebles4352

Republic is objectively inferior to Empire/Monarchy in every single way. This is true in the modern day as well. Democracy always fails, by default. Monarchy needs a comeback

Sounds about right.

Known today as Istanbul. Although I always think of this city still as Constantinople, as a historian

@@tj-co9go No, it's Byzantium!

No, it's Miklagard! ​@@ArawnOfAnnwn

@@tj-co9go Why'd they change it?

Exactly!

@JuliaHalecky Yeah the hierarchy of the church was already formed (more or less) before the Empire even legalised christianity under Constantin the Great.

"Class contradictions", not to rain on your parade, but that's a load of bollocks

When a nation becomes trapped by one class of people it dies. The leaders of a nation turns its attention to helping and protecting that class of people. It cant respond correctly to threats as that would damage the ruling class interests. For Rome it was the land owners , India the priests, japan the warriors , china the bureaucrats and currentley for the USA its big company's and wall street @@briishperson4555

@@briishperson4555 Happens more times than you think. Either be taken by the rot without or the rot within, or even both. That is always the fate of all empires.

@@briishperson4555 Oh sorry, silly me: I forgot poor people and slaves just merrily worked and whistled and sang like Keebler Elves and were not at all angry about being poor or slaves. Yup, everyone just got along just fine. Poor people never got angry the rich in their political system usually bought it and rigged the rules against them while using endless wars to distract them. That's why there was never any slave rebellions or worker uprisings. The Romans and the French just are the two biggest examples of people who just loved their monarchs and never went through any civil wars because they all just loved each other so much. Silly me, I must've read the depressing history books instead of the happy ones!

@@62cky4powerthirst I don't dispute that revolts and rebellions by the working masses happened, i just don't think that they were a main cause in the collapse of the roman empire (or most empires for that matter, sans russia and france), but rather infighting amongst the ruling elite

Absolutely... Rome definitely did a lot of good; it also did a lot of evil, absolutely evil stuff, even. Well, I don't know where you stand politically, good stranger, but from a right-wing perspective (mine), it boggles the mind that so many people on the Right these days so readily worship the Roman Empire... At the peak of its power & influence, Rome was nothing more than a plutocracy which spent its time destroying indigenous European cultures & persecuting Christian souls... Such a great example for the political & spiritual regeneration of the decadent West...

"U.S.A. makes a desert, and calls it peace"

ROMA CRIOU UMA CIVILIZAÇÃO!

@@fabrizio.guidi64 The Eagle still flys over Parthia, it has yet to be brought to heel.

Japan, Germany and South Korea didn’t become deserts

That is one of the themes yes but not the central one

that's what happens when you follow a religion invented by the tunnelers to destroy us. you go against your own.

The Romans were so cool and the legacy so great that every european power had tried to mimic or play as the new Rome. Napoleon, the Germans, the Brits, the Americans, Russians, Turks.

The British "hated" the Roman Empire because a) the French were quicker to claim it, I mean Napoleon literally handed out Aquilas and crowned himself Caesar b) Britain was essentially a backwater far from civilisations bright light and yet the British took the better part of two millenia to reach the level of sophistication again that was Roman Britain and c) even at the height of it's power _the Empire_ was a sorry network of trade posts and forts compared to the cultural, social and economic hegemony that was the Roman Empire.

@@mnk9073 I dont agree, the Brits were quite progressive, and were the heart of the industrial revolution. Moreover they were quite versatile during the middle ages despite being a nation with a small population.

​​@@mnk9073sounds like you either a) hate the British or b) dont know much about the British Empire.

@@georgebethanis3188Nobody is saying they were not industrious or inventive but they always lacked the cultural splendour and the sophistication. Victorian London is described even by patriotic Brits as a sprawling soot covered Moloch, a destitute modern Babylon, utter Bedlam far from the beauty of Rome. Hell, Tolkien himself saw it as that and agreed with Blake on the "dark satanic mills". During the middle ages England played an important role in it's sphere, Scotland, Ireland and France but most of Europe was, in contrast to the geopolitical giants like France, Spain and the HRE, largely indifferent to and unbothered by it.

i hope you're not blaming that current state on the immutable traits of certain groups.

@@wojtek_32 I am.

@@wojtek_32 That your name is Polish makes this even better (Poles are way more right-wing on average than westerners afaik), so good one. Truly defying the stereotype.

@@kaiserquasar3178 i am not polish and i have no clue what you are on about

@@splatterkat3838 don't forget that tolkien had a "burning private grudge" against your leader

The culture of views, my friend.

The state were the people that watched the video mostly wanted to actually know more about Tolkien, instead of the five second answer you seem to be looking for

@@leonake4194 That was a 5-second answer strung out into nearly 10 minutes. If you didn't realize that listening to it, then that's what I'm talking about.

@@leonake4194 No, I'm saying that the video itself was a very small amount of content bloviated out in a nearly 10 minutes. I'm saying that the actual content of the video was maybe I don't know 5 to 30 seconds worth of actual content and then just waffling around on expansions and illustrations of the same idea.

​@riverrun7061 The expansions were useful and interesting to me though 🌲 Hum, why be so hasty. Some things are only worth talking about if they take a long time to say, afterall. 😉

But argueably Rome was an already a multicultural empire which practiced syncretism and that itself created new cultures in each province. The Romans were not a rigid uniform culture. Sure they had structures but usually according to their basic laws but Egypt for instance had a beautiful greco-roman-egyptian culture, temples for Epona in Gaul had a Greco-Roman personality to it, new gods and goddesses were adopted, fashion changed according to the mixture of roman culture and their locals. So I partially disagree for I do believe post Roman cultures were very beautiful as well.

@@Diogolindir "tempes for Epona in Gaul had a Greco-Roman personality to it" How... diverse.

@@GAMER123GAMING I fail to see your point.

As beautifull as sanguine roses blooming on blood soaked earth.

I think it would be better to explain it as “The fall of the western empire is why Europe is the current kaleidoscope of different peoples and cultures. Romans did not simply move into areas and replace the people who were there(though they obviously did that also). They ruled a very very very cosmopolitan empire with many different people and cultures. It just explains how it became this certain kaleidoscope, but it was going to be a thing no matter what

Interesting. That is iffy. The approach to foreign countries can be boiled down into opposing ideas of nationalism and globalism. The video depicts Tolkien as a moderate nationalist. He has a deep love for his nation of England. However he opposes England building a big British Empire. He also showed appreciation for other European nations such as Rome and Finland. An extreme nationalist would be all into the glory of the home nation and building an empire. The main example of extreme nationalism is Fascism. The biggest example of fascism in turn is the Nazis. Tolkien would definitely not approve of what the Nazis were doing. Maybe Tolkien would have mixed feelings about globalism. He would hate for national cultures to get diluted and lost. That is a risk of cultures interacting. Yet maybe Tolkien would like globalism because it keeps national empire building at bay. I actually have the same mixed view for my country, the United States as Tolkien does for his. I am definitely on the globalist side. I like the use of diplomacy and even global government, like the UN. That is a way for countries to resolve conflict without going into war. World peace is definitely a good goal to aim for. I am also fascinated by foreign cultures.

Who knows, Tolkien on the very description are most likely not fan of Soros esque globalization He most likely would be right wing like Boris Johnson and has monarchist boomer mentality

@@c.d.dailey8013 Local man has no idea what he is talking about and thinks being ruled by globalist elites = peace.

​@@c.d.dailey8013National Socialism and Fascism are two different ideologies. Sources: Aly, G. “Hitler’s Beneficiaries: How the Nazis Bought the German People.” Verso, 2016. (Original German 2005) Barkai, A. “Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy.” Yale University Press, 1990. Bel, G. "Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany." Universitat de Barcelona, PDF. Berkoff, K. "Harvest of Despair: Life and Death in Ukraine under Nazi Rule." Harvard University Press, 2004. Birchall, I. “The Spectre of Babeuf.” Haymarket Books, 2016. Bormann, M. “Hitler’s Table Talk.” Ostara Publications, 2016. Bosworth, R. “Mussolini’s Italy: Life under the Dictatorship 1915-1945.” Penguin Books, Kindle 2006. Brown, A. "How 'socialist' was National Socialism?" Kindle, 2015. Colingham, L. "The Taste of War: World War Two and the Battle for Food." Penguin UK, 2011. Dilorenzo, T. “The Problem with Socialism.” Regnery Publishing, Kindle 2016. Engels, F “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.” Written, 1880. Progress Publishers, 1970. Engelstein, L. "Russia in Flames: War, Revolution, Civil War, 1914-1921." Oxford University Press, Kindle 2018. Evans, R. “The Coming of the Third Reich.” Penguin Books, Kindle 2004. Farrell, N. "Mussolini: A New Life." Endeavour Press Ltd, Kinde 2015. Feder, G. "The Programme of the NSDAP: The National Socialist German Worker's Party and its General Conceptions." RJG Enterprises Inc, 2003. Feder, G. "The German State on a National and Socialist Foundation." Black House Publishing LTD, 2015. Friedman, M. “Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition.” university of Chicago, Kindle 2002. (originally published in 1962) Fustel de Coulanges, “The Ancient City: A Study of the Religion, Laws, and Institutions of Greece and Rome.” Pantianos Classics, Kindle 2017, first published in 1877.

Define globalism

Same

Same

Same

Tolkien is a Dacian supremacist.

Same

He was more brilliant than most know

You are a medieval catholic who believes some people have special blood, making them deserving of absolute power over others?

yay

​@@Besthinktwice If his views about good government are based on the medieval model, than it certainly did work in real life. For many hundreds of years. I'm not sure I'd like to go back to something like that, but our current system sure is facing challenges right now. I believe we have a lot to humbly learn and incorporate from the past systems

don't worry we are well on our way to cyberfeudalism. @@Besthinktwice

@@Besthinktwice I don't you understand anything about life in the medieval era, if your immediate response is > muh chivalric romances

Ggrandma was fucking based

She's right look what happened in recent years

​@@pattonramming1988"Imperialism" is what brought the things youre talking about

@@Yahya-sb1yo imperialism brought the weakness of Britain?

@@pattonramming1988 Directly or indirectly, yes

It ends with the nation - the ways and traditions of a people. It is what Western nations are willfully doing to themselves under the name of progress.

Maybe he only hated the fast process of globalization but liked the things he simply grew up with

Uhmmmm... somehow I don't think Theoden, Denethor and Galadriel were elected in fair, democratic elections (or that the Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that they were righful rulers...)

​@isidroramos1073 You might be surprised to learn government had far less say in your life under a Medieval king than it does now in even the most progressive western nation. No, really. It's not even close by a mile.

@@LB-py9ig That's a bit of a twist of logic. Government (if we're just counting developed democratic republics) these days is definitely far more present in our lives due to how interconnected society has become but arguing that it has more say than kings leaves out a LOT of context. Sure there's more rules and such we have to deal with in our daily lives but we also have more protections and conveniences as well. Go back to feudal times and while you could certainly live out your entire life never even noticing that you had a king, your local feudal lord could still ABSOLUTELY make their influence known. Not to mention if your king just happened to be making the rounds in your village and took interest in you for whatever reason you had far less ability to contest than you would in modern times.

@@LB-py9ig Maybe they didn't have the means to do it?

​@@LB-py9igThat's why Tolkien described his political beliefs as "anarcho-monarchy"

imagine simping for an empire

lol the very same celts who started living like Romans and began fighting for them? You can't identify to a celt unless you go out of the street naked swinging your "sword"

What the fuck do you mean you "somewhat identify" with the *Ancient Celts?*

@@birgbirg111 Imagine simping for long lost tribe.

fire is not something you want to touch because it is harmful, yet the sun created cold fountains and blazing infernos alike.

By his old age he only liked the saxons, he loved king Arthur as a kid and i cant help but see the similarities in his books, but by his old age he felt that king Arthur was too british and not anglo saxon enough

I don't think that the Saxons or the Angles or not even the Vikings could be called imperialistic because there was no empire structure behind it. An empire covers multiple countries, cultures and languages and dictates it's own structure, culture and language on them. So intense that the older traditions are in danger of vanishing, especially if the main religion of the empire is forced upon them. This did not happen when Angles, Saxons and Vikings conquered the main British island.

Calling the Norman/Danish/Saxon invasions/migrations to England "Imperialistic" is deeply ahistorical. None of those events imperialistic nations behind them.

This sounds like... Cherishing the slayer of your sister because your inheritance and family duties increased.

The Haradrim and Easterlings.

there is nowhere safe from the dark lord. He lies in wait.

​@@trollking99Haradr had noble qualities at least.

It's you. :O

Hey I've watched some of your stuff before, thank you for watching and for commenting!!!!

@@InkandFantasy Thank you for the video! I learned alot.

If there is one father but many mothers then it will end in a blood bath like the harem of the sultan.

The roman empire *in particular* was quite evil. Although indeed not all are.

Not truly in our name, that's just what our government tells us. It's in reality for corporations and NGOs.

@@thepatriarchy8443 I agree completely, except I said in our name in the sense that they go out into the world and commit evil under the pretense that WE are doing it. They are the OFFICIAL face of Americans. Oh, and one other caveat: They aren't doing it in the name of those corporations, they OWN those corporations. The political class created corporate law specifically so they could monopolize capital and legally plunder society.

His haplogroup (it's documented, you can look it up) indicates that his ancestors may have survived the sinking of Doggerland, which may have been the location of Atlantis. Perhaps the dreams of drowning are genetic memories.

You guys dont know the story is based on the Bible? Not on any roman empire. This video author is completely clueless.

Love from a german internationalist!

Make Albion Great Again!

@@ChatGPT_ChatbotTest😂😂😂

@@ChatGPT_ChatbotTest These bots are going full nazi. So it begins...

Of course! These are almost all the classical paintings. I’m a little under the weather but I’ll try adding the rest at some point. Thanks for watching!! 0:35 The Death of Caesar by Jean-Léon Gérôme 1:02 The Romans in their Decadence by Thomas Couture 1:22 Aeneas fleeing from Troy by Pompeo Batoni 1:55 The Sack of Rome by the Barbarians by Joseph-Noël Sylvestre 2:25 The Consummation of Empire by Thomas Cole 2:34 Destruction by Thomas Cole 2:43 The Death of Julius Caesar by Vincenzo Camuccini 3:38 A Roman Emperor: 41 AD by Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema 3:45 Ave Caesar Morituri te Salutant by Jean-Léon Gérôme 3:56 Vercingetorix throws down his arms at the feet of Julius Caesar by Lionel-Noël Royer 5:07 A Roman Triumph by Peter Paul Rubens 5:18 The wind from Hastings by Luis Royo 6:36 God speed by Edmund Blair Leighton

@@InkandFantasy Do you know the one at 5:18?

I added it to the original reply I made. Thank you for watching!! @@nulltheworm

Thank you so much!!

It was mentioned because the Empire and the Church have a very intertwined history with the Pope crowing an Emperor of the Romans and claiming jurisdiction over the west through the “edict” of Constantine. It was not mentioned as a serious consideration but rather as something people may connect because of the aforementioned reasons.

The medieval era was not much better in that regard. In fact, i'd image it was worse.

Roman Empire was actually very well rounded socially compared to the middle ages.

@@Brunel1859 The local conquered populations were often better off under Roman rule so its more just customs and traditions

That was everywhere, though. The life of a Gaulish peasant was not appreciably different under Roman rule. In fact, being conquered by Rome almost certainly improved the quality of life of the average Briton. If anything, Roman rule was more egalitarian than the feudal monarchies that followed. Many men of modest birth managed to rise through the Roman military to positions of power, with some like Justinian even becoming emperor. The Roman Empire wasn't all butterflies and rainbows, but demonizing it while idealizing medieval Europe like Tolkien did makes no sense at all.

and migration is something that existed as Free Right of Movement since biblical times... so we could also say that migration is Traditional... and therefore this modern abomination of "mommy's inherited apartment conservatives" to be against migration, so much contradiction

air conditioning conservatives 🤣🤣🤣what a fucking waste... both sides are rotten

​@@FeelingShredNo.

@@FeelingShredone thing is migration, other mass migration

native religions are much better, tired of semitic religious dominance

​@@birgbirg111 Native religions are retarded which is why they lost. The one pagan religion that was close to making sense was neoplatonism but even this is enhanced by Christianity which tempers out the disgusting gnostic tendency inherent to it. Pre-talmudic Jewish values are good, the stoics and platonists were good, Aristotle was onto something, monotheism is correct. The teachings of Christ are all good. That is Christianity.

Are you a Jew? Why do you talk so jewishly?

More like liked Germany before the Prussian Empire.

And I just wish to get a glimpse of that world

@@birgbirg111 well, I hope it will be better that ours, but it's quite naive

About that last part, you're spot on with that. Eventually everything must come to an end, or an end to how it is/was currently known/shown.

So why can every country have a right to exist but people say Israel can't?

no one has a has right to self determination, Self determination must be earned with blood and sacrifice not handed over on a silver plate.

I think Tokien's dispositions on the matter comes more from the 19th centrury, romantic views of the Middle Age than actual medieval writers. In fact, the more the germanic kingdoms progressed, the more they embraced southern concepts, like roman law, architecture and theology. It was the romanticism in the 19th century that enabled the people of Europe to reject the infatuation with latin culture and go back to their ''roots'', which in some ways developed greatly the ideas of nationalism.

@@hebanker3372 True, but the romanticism that you are talking about is just a more extreme example of what I am trying to describe as a "greater influence." I agree with what you are saying, Tolkien and other writers of the day were romanticizing the medieval world, but this was just more writers from primarily northern Europe trying to promote the 'grandness' of something that was shaped primarily by northern European cultures. This romanticism wasn't something created in the 19th century, but just a continuation of a literary culture that began as early as the 11th century and I like to debate is continuing today.

@@unarealtaragionevole If by northern writers you mean the writers and compilers of epics, then you are missing half the picture. Most of these writers wrote to propagandize on behalf of their patrons. The Nibelungenlied was an epic fabrication to promote the ''locality'' of the Burgundian nobles, particularily the dukes. The song of Roland was meant to encourage warriors to fight the Musims in Spain. The Life of king Louis was written to promote the pious dynasty of the Capetians and strengthen the relationship with the pope. Even the sagas of the Northmen had political motivations. My point is that the romantics of the 19th century tried to view those works of literature, which served their own agendas, as genuine works of art, bereft of ulterior motives.

@@hebanker3372 By northern writers I mean the literary cultures that developed from predominately northern European regions and peoples from about the year 1000 and later, who actively chose to abandon classical (predominantly Roman and Greek) themes, archetypes, and retellings and instead chose to start writing about themselves instead. Regardless their reasons, from about 1000 and later we start to see the bulk of the literary culture for western Europe begin to centralize on medieval themes, events, peoples.....which tended to focus not on classical themes of the south, but of the northern regions in control of the day. By doing this, a literary bias began to form that bled through the centuries and led to the type of propaganda style writings(at least in the more extreme cases) you were talking about. This bias, was still present even in the 1800 and1900s when Tolkien was forming his opinions about things. So him saying something like I don't like Rome, or if his writing is focusing on medieval themes instead, then he is subject to question if he was not being influenced by these biases that started long before him and he didn't even know it.

It means a lot, thank you! And thanks for watching!!

So did AH

@@JohnDoe-sl6diare you ok?😂😂😂😂😂

Yeah, it was a pretty unusual position for him to have taken at the time and if he hadn't possessed such a formidable intellect capable of arguing his position successfully, he probably would have suffered consequences for it.

Thank you so much for the kind words!!