Pop History and its Consequences

[@daniellewhite9398]

At 10:55 what is the source for “I die, but the state remains”? Cause it seems important to have a source for that.

[@vladprus4019]

Especially since this line sounds really cool

[@Rosencreutzzz]

The source is a memoir titled "Mémoire sur la mort de Louis XIV" written by Philippe de Courcillon marquis de Dangeau, on page 24 about midway down the page -- His collected diaries are a source for lots of details about Louis' life. This does present the issue that many memoirs do of often being the only source we have for some things-- making it difficult to corroborate. I forgot to put the footnote there, but you're quite right it's important, so I'm pinning this comment (not a pin of shame)

[@snowcat9308]

Based comment, "source 🤓"ing the guy who said "source 🤓" in his video LOL

[@huskadog7748]

​@@RosencreutzzzDamnable law'ya

[@justsomecommentchannel8602]

@@snowcat9308"lmao he wants to verify claims what a nerd"

[@sherlockehekatl467]

I read the thumbnail as "I am die. The state remains."

[@KaiAfterKai]

Okay good it wasn't just me

[@emilymcpherson6564]

i am become die, remainer of state

[@theotful]

Damn so did I

[@playlistsforspecificfeels8377]

I am die Thank you forever Louis suddenly turned into Korone

[@guadalupefreyre5900]

Hey it still make sense because even after the end of the monarch the state is still centralized

[@bootmii98]

"I am die. Thank you forever." -- Louis XIV, probably.

[@fruitshuit]

Have Confidence! -- Louis XIV ...No Confidence! -- Louis XVI

[@fwa8590]

"Finger finger." - Louis XIV, probably

[@WeebishSwed]

My favorite Louis game and MMO

[@daevious_]

"Yubi, Yubi" - Leopold II.

[@fakeplaystore7991]

"I look fabulous, therefore I'm the State!" - Louis XIV

[@classiclife7204]

"He who tells the best stories wins" - Stalin "I am Death, Destroyer of the State" - Louis XIV

[@fakeplaystore7991]

"And who has a better story than Louis XVI the Broken?"

[@Albukhshi]

@@fakeplaystore7991 On the bright side, no king of France has ever had a closer shave...

[@Leo122188]

"It is far better to be feared, that's why I built a giant robot." -Machiavelli

[@pablo_giustiniani]

​@@Leo122188"A weapon to surpass Metal Gear" -Voltaire

[@alanpennie8013]

"Kill a third", Julius Caesar.

[@Johnaii_Steck]

This video has shaped my whole world view since I was 14

[@Emery_Pallas]

Its only been a few hours wow

[@DunYappin]

No. It shaped my world view since I was 14 too.

[@Johnaii_Steck]

​@@Emery_Pallas I matured quickly

[@MisterFoxton]

La vidéo, c'est moi.

[@forgemetal9289]

It’s shaped mine since I was today years old😊

[@EmperorTigerstar]

Of course the real quote is "Le Sénat, cest moi."

[@TacticalAnt420]

Je suis le Sénat! *French monarch jumps on the knights*

[@dftp]

Pas. Encore.

[@TheSpaceCommunist]

Somehow, Napoleon returned.

[@floflo1645]

I prefer "la republique c'est moi !"

[@franzferdinand5810]

so I threw the senate at him, like the whole senate.

[@philiphunt-bull5817]

1. It is known 2. It is known 3. It is known 4. IT CAME TO ME IN A DREAM

[@SteelWalrus]

Water is wet. Fire is hot. Gound is ground-y. The Periodic Table of Elements.

[@ZahrDalsk]

(I will not provide any citation in this article because it is not academic writing. Furthermore, since the topic is immense and has, from many angles, been written about before, any citation will simply open the question why such authors were cited, and not others. Thus it is merely a personal view-and, as we know, individuals do not matter. )

[@manzo931]

@philliblunt Knowing better much?

[@hbrano1]

Funny, this is the first time I've heard of the battle of the Somme called "The great fuckup."

[@Bipolar.Baddie]

It's especially silly when Gallipoli was tactically far more of a fuck-up than the Somme. Far fewer men died, but the amount of resources that were wasted on a campaign that achieved materially *nothing* for the British and massively boosted Ottoman morale.

[@bluerendar2194]

@@Bipolar.Baddie Where the only semblance success that can be attributed is a well-planned and well-executed retreat If only anything else was done to that standard

[@Fezzezal]

I mean, the whole WW1 can be described like this Pyrrhic victory for Britain and France, the only real winner were US

[@IIAOPSW]

Really, the whole war was called "The great fuckup to end all fuckups". Though, they shortened that title for the presses.

[@Jamhael1]

So World War II is "The Big Fucky-Wucky"?

[@chrisbarber2436]

Now wait just a goddamned minute, you mean to tell me Shakespeare didn't actually write "prithee, fetch my catboys"?

[@DrTssha]

My view of the world is shattered forever.

[@ManuelSLaraBisch]

The majority of his plays would clearly have been enriched by the addition of such a phrase. With the possible exception of Coriolanus.

[@tor4472]

That's not a world I choose to live in

[@tumescent]

shakespeare if he knew how to write

[@giuseppeagresta1425]

Nooo uouoooooo 😭😭😭😭😭

[@Queekitch]

To be fair to mr. Wightman, Scottish land law was genuinely messed up in a lot of places for instance: did you know that only lords could own land? And that anyone who owned land was therefore automatically a lord? Fortunately those days are behind us but luckily now you can stil do the same thing with this comment's sponsor: Established Titles. Established Titles is an exciting new service that lets y-

[@Rosencreutzzz]

LOL I was about be like "actually lord and laird are different things and that's part of how shit like Established Titles..." Good one.

[@alanpennie8013]

​@@Rosencreutzzz Ah the great days of ads for Established Titles on KZbin!

[@sophiaoconnell1927]

I like that we are taught from like 3rd grade that people in the past intermixed history and legend and mythology and then we’re like “but not us tho, we’re different!” It’s cool that I made a comment just piggy backing off the idea proven in the video that many people these days allow myths to affect their view of history but several insecure people with no reading comprehension are acting like I said academic historians are making shit up. I never said that, pls go away.

[@wghd6782]

"We aren’t as enlightened as we’d like to think we are" - Adorno, allegedly

[@alanpennie8013]

​@@wghd6782 "Enlightenment is another kind of obscurantism." Adorno (or is it?)

[@loldoctor]

Former academic here… this is like saying that people in the past intermixed magic and medicine therefore modern medicine does the same thing. It depends on how you define medicine and whether you include magnets and crystals or prayers and flagellation. Historians would say that history has standards of rigor, and if we accept those standards as reasonable for knowledge (and we agree that knowledge is justified true belief, or something similar), then there is an objectivity free of legend or popular belief. And they would have been right until 20-ish years ago when things started to change and rigor is dead now. Pop history is probably more consistent in its mythology than academic history in its standards.

[@sophiaoconnell1927]

@@loldoctor ya I mean those practices are part of “modern medicine” because people are doing it. Like ya there’s different levels of rigor, but my point was that we tell ourselves we as a society are dedicated to that rigor when only a select few are. I’m not saying professional historians act like Herodotus, I’m saying the general population likes Herodotus style history.

[@hellajeff5613]

Yes but if this video actually touched upon the mythology that you hold dear to yourself you would respond with anger rather than this smug response of feeling better than other people

[@wrathisme4693]

*"I am die. State you forever."*

[@tor4472]

That's the quote from louie the 14th I'll use

[@uwc.]

He never said this He obviously said it in french

[@evexec07]

​​@@uwc. "Je suis mort. État tu pour tojours."

[@andrewprahst2529]

"Wait WHAT?"

[@GilTheDragon]

If one has sources one will not clearly cite, does one ACTUALLY have those sources? At least "it came to me in a dream" is honest about its place in culture.

[@trioptimum9027]

Cite that dream, brother! No one can stop you! "Robert I of Scotland, personal conversation with author, 2014 dream."

[@fakeplaystore7991]

"My source is that I made it the fuck up!" - Senator Steve Armstrong, PhD in History at University of Colorado.

[@AJX-2]

My source is that I remember it. I was there. Reincarnation.

[@andresmartinezramos7513]

@@trioptimum9027 That would be so fucking based

[@alphamikeomega5728]

citation laundering

[@leesnotbritish5386]

“I die, but the state remains.” That goes so hard, I love it. This is an improvement.

[@colincrew1857]

Metal

[@sephikong8323]

And is a much better explanation of his character than the "I am the State". He isn't as well remembered as he is solely because "he was an absolute king" but because he was legitimately a great Statesman that had a vision and thought that consolidating power into his hands would allow it to happen ..... which it did, because he's the type of person that can actually backup such claims. He did not consolidate power for it's own sake but to improve the country and leave it to his descendants in a better state than it was given to him

[@Edmonton-of2ec]

It was also an apt observation since he was passing “the state” (which you could construe to mean the monarchy as most state power had been monopolized in the crown’s hands) into the hands of his *great-grandson* and France didn’t immediately disintegrate into crisis like so many other countries when did when a child inherited the throne

[@altandemei2644]

@@sephikong8323 That reminds me of this exchange he had with Jean-Baptiste Colbert, arguably his most important minister given the amount of work he was making him do, during one of the revisions of château de Versailles. When Colbert tries to tell Louis XIV that he understands the importance of magnifying his own royal glory Louis XIV corrects him by saying "This building is not for me, it is for France." Overall Louis XIV is lightyears away from the pop history and heavily anglo-saxon influenced depiction of him nowadays as being a snooty, vain, arrogant and self-obsessed narcissist and i cant thank enough the maker of the video and you in the comments for contributing to giving a metaphorical trip to the guillotine to "pop history Louis XIV" (There's so many elements to tackle about it, for exemple the false belief in Louis XIV having himself chose the Sun as his personal emblem when it was the office of royal representations (paintings, statues ect ect) that pushed for him to take it, he was reluctant to choose the Sun because ... he thought it was too pretentious)

[@kategrant2728]

@@sephikong8323 It also does a lot more to explain the phenomenon of absolutism. The tendency for general audiences it to see absolutism as a retrograde phenomenon, a throwback to the middles ages. But the middle age monarch didn't have absolute power because there wasn't any modern state or bureaucracy.

[@akioasakura3624]

“You should always believe everything you see on the internet”-Albert Einstein

[@AskTorin]

He was ahead of his time

[@nobody4248]

Next time you will tell me that chancelor Palpatine didn't say "I am the senate" before becomming emperor.

[@fakeplaystore7991]

"And you can't touch me I am the Senate I hold the power Over the people in it So don't come at me You will regret it I am the Senate"

[@nathancollins1715]

That's blatant Rebel propaganda. Our beloved Emperor holds the brave men and women of the Imperial Senate in high regard and would never devalue them with such slander. You're just a conspiracy theorist. Next you'll tell me the Emperor is planning to dissolve the Senate entirely, or that he's building a """superweapon""" out in space somewhere (also entirely unsubstantiated btw)

[@IsaacMayerCreativeWorks]

he actually said “I die, but the Senate remains.” The movies are Jedi propaganda

[@universal_hyssoap]

that triangle has shaped my whole worldview since i was 14

[@michimatsch5862]

As someone who just listens to these...what triangle?

[@gammonator8913]

@@michimatsch5862fr I’m gonna have to skim through it later

[@neoqwerty]

@@michimatsch5862 With lack of specificity from OP, I'm going to pretend it's the Doritos and OP had a spiritual experience eating their first familial-sized bag of Doritos unsupervised.

[@josegonzales9169]

The one at 4:00 minutes in I suppose

[@alexrexaros9837]

Pirate history is plagued by this problem. Because everyone assume pirates had those pretty clothes from the Errol Flynn movies, or the revolutionary ideas of POTC, and the whole garments given to them by hundreds of years of pop culture. They were violent, motivated by money, outright racist and if not, morally ambiguous. Women were not allowed on ships, they spent all they gained, and they profited a lot from slavery. And their fashion? They were no different from the sailors, they just had their weapons on them at all times. But then again, you can't talk about true pirate history and NOT have someone shouting One Piece references right in your face. This sub-sub-subfield is a lost cause.

[@AchyParts]

B-but Oda would never lie to me 😔 Feel free to disregard the historical opinions of anyone who unironically says something like this.

[@juwebles4352]

An experienced pirate's fashion would have been different from average sailors of the period. Your average sailor had to make do on poor wages often sending a part of his earnings home. Pirates, on the other hand, could plunder nice textiles from merchant ships they captured and were way less incentivized to save their money up. This series of incentives lead more experienced pirates to wear a lot of their wealth on their bodies like rings, sashes of silk, or other gubbins that could be stolen from your average merchant on the spanish main.

[@dionysus913]

@@juwebles4352 Pirate: “Look at this fancy silk shirt I can afford! Boy, I sure hope nothing happens to it.” The uncaring salty depths: The British Navy: Other Pirates:

[@juwebles4352]

@@dionysus913 All of those things could, and likely would, kill a pirate aswell so at that point who cares about your shirt.

[@alexrexaros9837]

@@juwebles4352 They didn't wear those big boots you see in the movies, and definitely not that many clothes because of the, you know, SCORCHING HEAT of the Caribbeans or the Indian Ocean. Plus having hats on a ship is usually not advised.

[@McToaster-o1k]

I never knew that Stalin impregnated Louis XIV

[@CarrotConsumer]

Mainstream history doesn't want you to know.

[@KasumiRINA]

That's actually a myth. In reality, Stalin, Adolf, and the third guy, all lived in Vienna at the same time. So... Joseph, being the bottom, got pregnant (I assume nobody claims literally Hitler used protection okay) and he died in childbirth with VERY long over-carriage. Their child and final legacy of Fuhrer is putin.

[@jensphiliphohmann1876]

😂😂😂😂

[@patchoilyknockers]

there's probably a fanfiction writer taking notes right now

[@scotttaylor7146]

14:00 Love how he put the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire on there separately as if they were two different empires and not the same empire under different management. Also "Greece" as one cohesive idea instead of a mishmash of petty kingdoms Also Romanov Russia, as opposed to the other eras of Russian government that have lasted both far longer and far shorter Also the fall of the Ottoman Empire being 1570. Even under a vague idea of "falls" that's comically early And this is just the empires he mentioned. I'm surprised he didn't include the Qing Dynasty's 276 years in power, but of course that would ignore the fact that Chinese dynasties have lasted anywhere from 14 to 550 years

[@Carl-Gauss]

Also the start date of Romanovs is just factually incorrect: it’s moved more than 50 years into the future. Apparently so he can make his “250 years” point

[@satqur]

The Solomonic Empire alone lasted for 700 years.

[@spawel1]

@@satqur how does ethiopia have so many extremely long lasting empires when it's like the most easily divisable country to exist???

[@will7846]

There was some sense of "Greek-hood" in ancient Greece, though less in a national sense and more in just a cultural sense; a lot of their philosophers thought very highly of the Greeks, shockingly.

[@johnphipps4105]

I think it would be better to say "governments" vs. Empires or nations. If culture is similar to a soul of a people, then different cultures need different governments. Think of a "natural consitution" of a nation similar as saying about a person that an attribute of theirs is part of their "personal constitution". Meanwhile how they choose to govern, i.e. self control their constitution is dependent on themselves and what tools they have avaliable from their self created environment. So looking at it from that perspective "cultures", similar to say a person's outward personality will change overtime usually, last about 200 years, or 2 lifetimes, which is enough time for a particular strong 'air' tied to an era to pass. So most "natural constitions" as the classics would put it, last as long as their respective "cultures", and most outward governments of a nation change with it, sort of like the continants with tectonic plates. The culture is the core, generating everything about a people, the natural constitution is the mantle, and the outward institutions are the crust. Some outward institutions though are more adaptable and may last up to 500 years. I know of only two governments 5 governments in the history of the world lasting longer without going functionally defunct. That being the frankish plactica lasting about 500 to 1050 before being slowly replaced by the french parlement, the 2nd HRE which effectively lasted 962 to 1618, and the first 3 chinese dynasties, xia being 550 years, shang likewise, and then zhou being 1122 bc to 476 bc Take care and God bless, hope you enjoyed the comment, sorry if it is hard to understand, I just don't think the proper words for these concepts have been developed in English yet

[@FrostytheAwesome]

I majored in engineering, but I took an American History class in college and it was one of the most eye-opening and enriching courses I ever took. I had to reexamine a lot of my own bias, and the class taught be how to think like an academic. Thank you for creating these videos so I can continue to be a better thinker and a life-long learner!

[@zhuyu9268]

If you're a lifelong learner you're not thinking like an academic, at least not a modern western one. The typical academic stops developing as an undergrad and spends the rest of their life cherrypicking information to support their establishment leftist worldview.

[@parkerprice6787]

shout out to ted kaczynski for (as far as i can tell) originating a wonderful title format for manifestos and essays of all kinds

[@gregs4748]

Teddy "better known for other work" K.

[@sirllamaiii9708]

Ted kaczynski and his consequences have been a disaster for online discourse

[@picahudsoniaunflocked5426]

@@sirllamaiii9708 This would be a great video essay thesis.

[@Rayitolaser569]

shout out to ted kaczynski for dropping such a bomb of title format!

[@zhuyu9268]

​@@sirllamaiii9708can you elaborate? I'm genuinely curious, I read his piece and agreed with a lot of what he said, but I'm not blindly loyal to things I agree with, so I'm open to your argument.

[@elmo8524]

Posts and memes about how Chinese History is merely a series of rising and falling dynasties (with big catastrophic rebellions and court corruption interspersed throughout) have become ubiquitous on my social media feed. It's really disappointing because although dynastic periodization can be useful (periodization can be useful, but should be well-informed) it's become one of those simple truisms that detracts from our ability to understand change and continuity as it relates to certain periods of Chinese history. I enjoyed this video a lot!

[@genovayork2468]

There was one long state from Wei to Song, 386-1279. Another one Cao Wei - Liang, 220-587.

[@mariecarie1]

Our brains seem to heavily rely on mnemonics and categories to remember a broad swath of information, which lets so many of the important details get lost. It also lets the nuances of change and continuity, like you said, become obliterated and makes it very difficult to see how history is a river, not a series of dams. Breaking history into chunks is both necessary and unfortunate.

[@llq5081]

@@genovayork2468 I believe this 'state' you try to depict may be wrong. If the Five Dynasties could be considered a consecutive state, why not see the Chen dynasty as a continuation of the Southern Liang dynasty? And also, why not see Cao Wei as a continuation of the Eastern Han Dynasty? Indeed, I think it is possible to depict the Northern Wei Dynasty (at least from the Western Wei Dynasty, a successor to the Northern Wei.) to the Tang Dynasty as a single state - we could identify evolutions (not upheavals) of institutions and ruling class through this group

[@knightshade2654]

I cannot stand it when people take the "Chinese guy becomes warlord. Thirty-million die" meme seriously. China has always had a massive population due to how fertile China Proper is, and the (contemporary) centralized state made any revolts deadly.

[@genovayork2468]

@@llq5081 I thought Liang and N. Liang are the same state, not Liang and Chen. The latter may be better. N. Liang is akin to Taiwan, and we view it as the different state, not the PRC. Cao Wei began in 220, Han ended in 224, no? Western Wei doesn't exist. 534 was not a partition, it was E. Wei declaring independence from Wei. Wei remained the same in the west.

[@brewmastersg]

Funnily enough, I can see "I am the state" and "I die but the state remains" coming from the same person pretty easily. Sort of like "Behold this thing, the state, my life's work. I have created it in my image. It is my legacy and though my body dies, through the state I endure."

[@afatcatfromsweden]

Had pretty much the same thought. Put into proper context they wouldn't be mutually exclusive.

[@waterissogood]

yeah, that's what i thought too! the legacy of the ruler persists because it has become synonymous with the state. so the ruler ultimately remains, even if his flesh does not

[@arifal-yousif]

See, I wouldn't say you are "pop history", Rosencreutz, but more "pop historiography", which is much needed! P.S. Nice triangle ;P

[@arifal-yousif]

I hope this comes across in the sincerely positive way/connotations it was meant with (I realised it could be read as snarky or demeaning and wanted to nip that in the bud). Like, often you're examining not just the historical event but the mechanisms at play within how that history of said events/periods are engaged with outside of the academic field of History, or to put another way, you do the historiography of "pop history", which is related but not exactly the same, if you know what I mean

[@sevelofficial2696]

My Roman history professor told us about this issue too and his example was interesting. It was about the so called "salting of Carthage" so nothing would ever grow again, and his own professor wanted to know the origin. So my professor's professor tracked down the original author and asked him what his ancient source was, and the author said "I just made it up, it sounded nice". Which just goes to show what some will do and then the pop history gets stuck with us, and every time I hear someone talking the salting of Carthage I know it's made up.

[@hycrp]

Unironically your videos have made me hyper conscious of sourcing my own claims (even just casual "talking about rhythm game history" stuff with my friends) which has helped me both become better at practicing truth and feel more stable in my own knowledge. It's a habit that'd be so useful in non-academic spaces (especially here on youtube, where it feels like videos are mass made on topics with info only from word of mouth)

[@elpito9326]

Sourcing your claims about rythm game history is crazy but in a very good way tbh. I love this comment as a Humanities graduate and rythm games enthusiast 😭

[@sponge1234ify]

I dunno what I would want to read more (for wildly different reasons); a highly-researched and detailed history of rhythm games", or "GGS of rhythm games and its musics"

[@neoqwerty]

@@elpito9326 The Megaman fandom as a whole started citing sources because we ran into a huge problem of "source some interview I don't recall" and "source dan sidera's fan theories which quote sources but strings them together on a corkboard with color-coded yarn and pins", to the point one of the final bosses got a fan name that made it into the wiki page for the boss SOMEHOW. Now the biggest issue we have is when there's citations of the Kodansha MMX encyclopedia because it only got translated into spanish, so the spanish side of the fandom has to feed the rest of us until we can translate it in english eventually.

[@hedgehog3180]

@@sponge1234ify The former is really fun, obessesively well researched videos on completely unimportant topics are the best because you can just enjoy them with no fuss.

[@AToZed71]

"Did you know the Persians tied cats to their shields and the Egyptians just didn't fight back!!??"

[@picahudsoniaunflocked5426]

Quick, train the AI on this comment!

[@alanpennie8013]

@@AToZed71 Our friendly neighbourhood historian should never be allowed to forget allowing this nonsense to slip past him.

[@mookie2637]

The Great War seems especially prone to this. Britain's great example is Alan Clark's "The Donkeys"; an important book in many ways, but with deeply flawed scholarship, including the Falkenhayn quote on the cover - that the British troops were "lions led by donkeys." Clark later admitted that he made this up. There is zero evidence that Falkenhayn ever said it. And yet that book has gone on to utterly form Britain's view of the First World War - from "O What a Lovely War" to Blackadder. My least favorite thing, across the board, is the unevidenced ascription of intent.

[@joemerino3243]

Made up quote aside, though, isn't Blackadder a much more accurate view of the war than the 'O What a Lovely War' newspaper cutting I think you might be referencing? Certainly the former is an over-the-top comedy and the latter is the lived experience of an actual soldier, but given the collected accounts of many first hand witnesses, it does seem like a horrifically callous and meaningless meatgrinder.

[@mookie2637]

@@joemerino3243Absolutely - in fact I go further than that and think we Brits should on balance not have fought it. But there is more subtlety than that involved (mad officers etc) and I would prefer history to be based on sources rather than assumptions.

[@pablojn4826]

@@joemerino3243 No war is meaningless, a better wording of the sentiment that we share is that it was horrible for the masses of working class people in europe

[@joemerino3243]

@@pablojn4826 Fair enough, that is a better wording.

[@MattNovosad]

@@joemerino3243 He was referencing the stage/film musical of the name "Oh! What a Lovely War", which beyond having some great recordings of period songs, shaped and influenced what people think the First World War "really" was in the "lions led by donkeys" vein. It's a poignant film, but history it is not.

[@SaltyChickenDip]

Often time you see people citing sources but if you actually read the sources it doesnt really back their claims. Happens a lot on Wikipedia.

[@Christopher-gp9iv]

And there’s no easy way to combat that sort of issue on Wikipedia, it takes exactly 0 effort to shove a false reference into an article and as long as it doesn’t get reverted instantly you’re looking at a ridiculously complicated and long process of argumentation that essentially comes down to consensus among a small group of people over whether or not the source *actually* backs up the claim. Anyone who’s spent any amount of time editing/dealing with Wikipedia knows just how awful it actually is for anything besides very basic information.

[@Corvinuswargaming1444]

the same thing happens in peer reviewed journal articles and books

[@darkstarr984]

What’s infuriating is that I’ve seen the same thing happen in academic papers. Or the cited source has a conclusion that is common sense *and wildly opposed to the actual results*

[@OtakuUnitedStudio]

​@@Christopher-gp9iv I know this is kind of petty but it's kind of a good example of the kinds of biases that pop up even within well moderated articles. There was once a rather ridiculous argument on the F-15 about how it being the vehicle mode for several Transformers characters was irrelevant because "it's just a dumb cartoon from the 80's that children watch." But then the same people kept arguing that a video shown only in 1 aircraft museum in Arizona, seen by about 100 people (including this particular mod) was not only worth its own section on the page, but also worthy as a citation source. The ultimate compromise was to mention neither, until the mod quit and someone reinstated the Transformers trivia unopposed.

[@Bojoschannel]

Sometimes the source, when read in its entirety, even refutes their claims

[@jdkessey]

The red flag is if the author presents themselves as being a rebel against the "current orthodoxies" in the history field. You'll get pushback, but that's normal in any historical field, and it's necessary for said field. If you see yourself as rebelling against the field, you'll take on positions simply because they're against the grain no matter how silly or downright vulgar the methods you draw on or the conclusions you reach. Also, the truism I personally wince at is "history is written by the victor." Its a nothing statement to feel more special for having a unique knowledge. History is done by historians, and it's more fruitful to examine that than have a manichean view of the process.

[@hypotheticalaxolotl]

At most you can say "History [writing] is funded by the victor," but that's almost as much of a nothing-burger statement, too.

[@futhington]

I've always preferred (paraphrasing from where I originally heard it) "History is written by people who can write". There's plenty of people who lost or were losing or just not involved who left us histories, and tonnes of victorious illiterates who only left us what other people had to say.

[@nuggs4snuggs516]

History is written by the victor falls apart the moment you enter an American bookstore's Vietnam War section

[@Emery_Pallas]

It gets even worse when this rebel mindset gets used to peddle Crank conspiracy stuff masquerading as a real work to take seriously

[@Hwje1111]

Let’s face it, that quote is most commonly uttered by sore losers who think the world is unfair because it doesnt conform to their standards.

[@MrHyperspaceman]

Dude man, ever since i started academically studying Political Science and IR, I grew to hate going to bookstores. Pop-psychology, pop-history and pop-politics alongside pop-political science with the most wild, unfounded claims are everywhere and academics being academics and rather socially lets say "inept" barely do anything to criticise or raise a voice againts them publicly. Oh in academia we laught and mock these books and then return to our own publishers and literature. Meanwhile these books are read and influence all kind of people even people in power who dont know any better because they are not educated in that. It's like "Clash of Civilizations" fiasco all over again smh...

[@Mr.internet.Lag.]

I hold nothing, but active contempt for the history section at a Barnes and Noble. I'll go back to see it and I don't know if it's getting worse or if I'm just paying more attention to it.

[@binbows2258]

@@Mr.internet.Lag. The only time ill ever trust a history book I find in a library is if its either an easily fact checked encyclopedia or an author/book I already know is trustworthy The idea of going to the store and just buying a big history book with 0 beforehand research is insane to me

[@nelitogorostiza16]

Omfg you made me remember the México part in the "why countries fail" book. Eso no se hace carnal.

[@chillinchum]

​@@binbows2258I think my history textbooks in school had errors in them too if I remember right. As a non-academic who will probably never become one, how could I do proper history research that doesn't take forever to cover one area, or is the whole area just that plagued that it's impossible currently?

[@spawel1]

@@chillinchum read academic papers, recommended books, primary sources etc use libgen, scihub etc (u can find more pretty easily by checking relevent subreddits), never give journals money

[@WillowTitov]

"I am die. The state remains." This is like the 4d varient to "Don't dead. Open inside."

[@failedrevolutionary9497]

When I was a freshman in high school, I took a world history class that was built entirely around Guns, Germs, and Steel, which had, at that point, been debunked for exactly 20 years.

[@neotronextrem]

Whenever I realise that some supposed historic fact I believed to be true to the level of an axiom, and it turns out not to be, I realise that it was something I learned in school. I think teachers know this, but doing differentiated source-based history is too high effort for the rather limited medium of school, so they resign on transmitting a transparent picture, in favour of making the picture larger so it roughly grasps the basics. In the end we all come out of school knowing a lot of information vaguely related to factual sources, but at least we get to pretend our education was complete in its scope. If it weren't complete, we'd have to have a serious argument about our education system, and that's a pit nobody wants to fall into

[@failedrevolutionary9497]

@@neotronextrem In this case my teacher was a self-described libertarian who was pretty transparent about not wanting us to leave the classroom thinking that capitalism and colonialism were at all responsible for the world’s inequalities, and made us write an essay defending either free trade or fair trade after spending the whole semester telling us fair trade was naive.

[@MuddafukhingdisKUST]

@@neotronextrem it's less about how much effort the teachers are going to put in and more about the fact that the teachers job is not to teach the students to prepare the students to pass standardized exams. Therefore, no matter how passionate is to give the student a holistic understanding of the content they are teaching, they are always limited by the fact that if what they're teaching does not help the students past the exams reflects poorly on the teacher

[@CimarronaMotions]

​@@failedrevolutionary9497 good teacher

[@failedrevolutionary9497]

@@MuddafukhingdisKUST Yeah, the modern teacher is in a tricky situation; the American education system is shaped both by the ideas of the liberal arts - that education is inherently valuable and that it is important to have an educated society - and by its own roots as an institution set up by private industry in the early 20th century as a way to train more people to work as accountants. That utilitarian philosophy was retained by the public education system we have now - we still have arguments that academia should become even LESS supportive of classical education goals than it already is. Even a teacher who wants to help their students to learn to think to think about their subject is still beholden to the systems of exams and homework that are designed to reward recitation and repetition, and to systems of grading designed to emulate the supposed merit-based hierarchy of the workforce. This isn’t even getting into the ways that standardization leaves students who think differently or have learning disabilities behind to flounder.

[@hypotheticalaxolotl]

Soooo, when can we expect those dedicated essays about "Guns, Germs, and Steel" and "Sapiens"? ;)

[@Rosencreutzzz]

...I have plans for GGS... and Paradox.

[@lazydroidproductions1087]

@@Rosencreutzzzparadox interactive?

[@asheep8019]

@@RosencreutzzzI wonder what angle you'll take on a video about GGS. When I read it (I have no acedemic credentials) I felt like it made a good case that the shape of human societies is influenced by environmental and geographic factors. Which seems like a truism that is so basic I cannot imagine even understanding history without.

[@guidedexplosiveprojectileg9943]

​@@lazydroidproductions1087Stellaris essay

[@jackgetz6583]

@@asheep8019For reference, pretty much every historian I know absolutely hates GG&S.

[@localhearthian2387]

Senator Armstrong must be the bane of all historians existence. Looking forward to new videos. And the triangle.

[@jdkessey]

Nah, that would be Gibbon

[@PetalsandGems]

Senator Armstrong is actually a fascinating case study for historical linguistics students who minored in polisci. Like how they made us read Kantor's Dilemma in Ethics in Science class.

[@MLGSHINGOJI_3000]

“We’re making the mother of all omelets here jack. Can’t fret over every egg.” t. Senator Armstrong

[@hypotheticalaxolotl]

Regarding when citations are needed - when I do my writing, I tend to frame 'citation needed' less in terms of "How do I prove that I'm not just pullin' this out of my nethers and that there's something actually provable here?" and more in terms of "If someone reading this was interested in learning in-depth about the thing I just said, where could they go to find out more?" Not saying the former isn't important! I just find that it gets (mostly - some things are both rare knowledge that needs backing up, and also kinda boring as heck) subsumed into the latter motivation for citing things, and the latter is a more useful and interesting motivation for writing (and reading) citations when they're formatted and motivated in that way. When I'm in the act of writing citations, it also sidesteps the 'common knowledge' issue. Whether something is common knowledge or not is irrelevant to the question of whether someone may want to learn more about a thing, and irrelevant to where they can find out more about it. It still comes up, but much more rarely, and usually only when I'm doing a second pass on sourcing with the "nether-regions" question in mind to make sure I didn't drop the ball anywhere.

[@defnotthekgb8362]

“Whether something is common knowledge or not is irrelevant” i think is the best possible way to think not only about your own citations, but for evidence as a whole. Just because “everyone knows that!” does not mean that it is true.

[@AnimarchyHistory]

To be honest. The entire discipline of history is a fugaze and I say that while IT'S MY FULL TIME JOB. Beyond the material reality of large generalised statements, such as "Nazi Germany lost WW2" or "Rome Existed". Our entire sphere of academia is based on the fundamental principle that we can believe what we read in documents or hear in interviews. Ignoring the fundamental lesson you learn when you read Herodotus for the first time, that being that EVERY SINGLE PERSON misremembers, lies, has an agenda or wants to push a narrative and or interest. Soviet Archives are a perfect example, you often had three different versions of every document. One for the archive, one for the politburo and one for official publication. Then you cross reference them to documents from another source tracking the same event, the most commonly referenced event being The Eastern Front of WW2, and the Germans have a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT analysis of the same data or even a completely different data set in general which themselves were often doctored for the same reasons the Soviet ones were. So I would actually say, academic or popular, every single historical thesis no matter how "academic" it appears. Is an opinion piece arguing an ideological viewpoint and pushing a narrative regardless if they assert otherwise. And in that attempt to be "objective" which they never are, they generally end up being boring and unuseful beyond providing a source for other historians to use who can actually relate the material properly. "Shattered Sword" by Johnathan Parshall is considered THE book on the Battle of Midway, yet he is not a professional historian. He is an Engineer/IT Magnate. His sources are good, his chornology immaculate and his use of Japanese perspectives provides a far more complete picture of the battle than other previous works in the field. To use one of the "truisms" you referred to at the start "Journalists get the first pass at history". All we are is Journalists that are horrifically late, and like a newspaper, we are products of our biases no matter how cool we try to be. Good video. PS. I recommend Stephen Kotkin's biography of Stalin instead, it comes in several volumes and it does a much better job both A. discussing the mans life and B. proving what a monstrous piece of garbage he was.

[@konkasd2539]

I don't think that neccesarally every piece of written history is made to express a certain viewpoint.I find it more likely that certain biases manifest themselves in the authors work more or less,based on the authors intent and their undestanding of their own biases.But even though i also don't think objectivity is achievable,i would say that based on the research and sourcing of any work there is a spectrum of "more objective" and " less objective" that historical works fall under without a hard cap on either end.

[@TurtleChad1]

"We liberated Europe from fascism, but they will never forgive us for it" - Marshal Zhukov, USSR.

[@AnimarchyHistory]

@@TurtleChad1 ironic considering no one can confirm the veracity of that quote either.

[@sauerkrautlanguage]

You listed two very large scale examples of independent accounts on similar events being thoroughly biased. That is a great observation to be made. This however, does not constitue proof that there's no such thing as an unbiased account. There exists an objective reality from which those different accounts are drawn, and therefore there must exist an account of the events in question that most closely resembles reality as it occured. Whether or not the people creating the accounts actually manage to produce something resembling objectivity (or care to) is an important but ultimately distinct matter. But i think is too far to say "every single historical thesis [...] Is an opinion piece arguing an ideological viewpoint and pushing a narrative", because then there's no fundamental way to compare the veracity of one account with that of another, and there's nothing but a "choose your own reality" postmodern-esque fractal explosion of narratives. Humans ARE capable of producing accurate accounts, otherwise there's no worth to history as a discipline. Humans are ALSO in the perpetual habit of creating inacurrate accounts for a host of reasons, and ironically enough sometimes the best accounts we have for an event might rely on interpretation of clearly biased accounts. The system being studied is also ridiculously complex and at any given time a historian might only have a minute fraction of the evidence on which an account is to be made. So granted there's tons of noise that will seep into any historical model, but incomplete models that at the worst amount to highly educated guesses, are not quite the same as irreconcilable narratives whose truth content is fully irrelevant and only exist in the plane of ideologies supporting political conflict

[@AnimarchyHistory]

@@sauerkrautlanguage I agree with the sentiment of your post to an extent. But ironically I actually kind of prefer horribly biased histories. The courage to own an opinion and argue for it I feel is more useful. Simply because you can usually find a mirror of just about every single argument. “Contrarian History or “Best Seller” history as Rosencreutz called it is way more interesting to read. And the “crucible of debate” where both sides are mocked, argue ferociously and even come to blows on rare occasions. Usually leads to a consensus among the audience after the dust settles. As I said. I think both are vitally important, but the academic historians are better historiographers and chroniclers. They provide the foundation for Popular History, if I was to say my opinion, I want the more adventurous academics to get off the high horse, out of the stuffy conventions of institutional learning. Let’s get them down and dirty, throwing shade like the philosophers of old.

[@QWE2623]

"Nearly all anarchists, regardless of the variety, were either Russian or Italian by birth. Most Communists and Syndicalists were Slavs or from southern Europe." -America In The Twenties A History By Geoffrey Perrett hilarious quote from a book I love that was filled with citations (pls don't break my heart about it)

[@QWE2623]

"The most articulate protest came not from factory workers (it would be surprising if it did), but from writers. Max Eastman on his way to Russia in 1922 lamented, in a letter to Claude McKay, "I feel sometimes as though the whole modern world, capitalism and communism and all, were rushing toward some enormous nervous efficient machine-made doom to the true values of life." The French writer Georges Duhamel, during his visit to the United States, awoke one night sweating heavily, terrified by a nightmare in which American gardeners reduced all the flowers in the world to a single, standardized bloom "that was specially profitable, and that lasted well." (better quote :D)

[@costantinochianale4904]

I genuinely think to some extent this is a consequence of academia's flaws and that it's elitist accessibility issues have left a perfect opening for opportunists in search of, in the best case money, and in the worst case spreading a narrative. As it stands, a historian has two jobs, being a researcher and being a teacher. Academia already does a pretty poor job of forming academics as university-level teachers and that's its own can of worms, but there's a third job missing, communicator. If we don't have people specifically formed to make enticing, easy to read history books, that also adhere to academic scrutiny even if they don't need to adhere to its demands of innovation, then this will just continue happening. Ideally all three areas would be taught to every academic and they'd be able to do a good job of all of them, but seeing the results of that with my own teachers in university I genuinely believe that in research careers such as history or even physics and whatnot, there should be means to specialize in either research, pedagogy or communication.

[@olevam1]

There is a lot to this! I have a PhD in medieval history and I wish there was more (monetary) incentive to going into pure history communication. During my degree I took/participated in many seminars and classes on how to communicate to non-academic audiences, and there are many interesting ways, but it's hard to live off them. I think this is a big part of the problem

[@alecwest5935]

yeah Bret Devereaux (an actual historian) has been hammering on this point for years. Academia isn’t very successful in public communication because it’s often actively bad for one’s career to do it, the incentive structure is broken.

[@blob22201]

Yeah, a lot of academic history is written as if the writer actively hates the reader and doesn't want their work to be read and understood. Why use 10 words when 50 longer words will do.

[@FireCrack]

Honestly, the one big thing I started thinking of during this video, is "Why is academic history uniquely opaque?" -- And by that I mean other academic fields don't seem to have the same degree of issue, sure pop-science books abound but it's relatively easy for a layperson to find an academic paper in those fields and even if the body of the paper is hard to interpret the abstract and conclusions often provide a lot of useful insight. I must have seen hundreds of physics and math papers in my life, and even social science which I don't really care fore has directed me to a good amount of academic publication. But history, I can't really think of one - and I know they exist, but just normal paths of research don't seem to lead to them as readily as they do with other fields, instead you end up at newspaper citations or interviews or all varieties of primary sources (or even more pop history).

[@olevam1]

​@@blob22201I disagree with this to be honest - i have never encountered a paper or book that felt opaquely written on purpose. Sure I have encountered badly written stuff, but also lots of really good stuff -- however for all disciplines academic writing is very specific, which can make it difficult to digest or outright boring

[@SemiIocon]

On the "If books could kill" podcast, they have their "one book theory" based on the observation of what you called Theories of Everything books. They tend to all be structured similarly and lead to similar conclusions.

[@rolandperlitz8508]

“All your memes of production are belong to us” Karl Marx

[@hungryhedgehog4201]

I have my own anecdote about the etymology of the term ¨Molotov Cocktail¨ which keep saying was coined by the Finns as a response to Molotov's bombardment using cluster bombs which were (allegedly) referred to as breadbaskets and they called it a molotov cocktail as a ¨drink to go with the bread¨, wikipedia lists this as the origin for the term, at least english wikipedia, their sources are a british trivia quiz, a website without a source and a search for the term ¨molotov cocktail¨ in SWEDISH newspapers. Neither ever gives a proper source to the breadbasket thing, the russian version apparently claims the term was coined by the russians. And this claim is all over the internet either sourcing wikipedia or nothing at all, itś such a ¨did you know¨ trivia factoid. Now I don´t speak Finnish, this might actually be true but maybe if you don´t have a proper source for it don´t make an entire wikipedia article chapter dedicated to this, expecially when the talk page even says that this is a disputed claim.

[@404_nowheresnotfound3]

So did you find any actual sourced etymology of it?

[@felonyx5123]

Swedish newspapers from Sweden or Swedish-language newspapers in Finland? It's a common enough language there (and even more common back then) that the latter would be a reasonable source.

[@hungryhedgehog4201]

@@404_nowheresnotfound3 no

[@hungryhedgehog4201]

I managed to stumble into a similar rabbit hole yesterday but luckily I got a historian friend with access to archives who could actually find a source for it.

[@Kalakakku_]

In Finnish the ¨Molotov Cocktail¨ is actually called polttopullo (burn bottle). Its called polttopullo in the original Finnish instructions and that's what many veterans call it. Ive always had the theory that the term "Molotov Cocktail" was coined by some foreign newspaper or if it was coined by Finnish troops it was not a wide spread nickname. The word cocktail is also quite awkward to say in Finnish and it would be spelt koktaili

[@dralnah]

I love watching your videos, because you ask genuine questions about the work you're writing and make a real attempt to answer them, both to forward the piece and to legitimize your point in a format and media sphere where having a genuine debate about a point you want to make is so rare. People very often either take things at face value and agree or disagree vehemently, neither with any substantiating claims or research. You make a real effort in your videos to add nuance and discuss it the best you can under a limited time frame. The fact you're actually putting in the work to make these things rather than waffling for an hour about how "pop culture bad" and including some supporting references is refreshing. That being said, it's also incredibly funny if you look at these videos as someone just arguing with themselves over questions they are also asking. Real "debating the man in the walls" sort of vibe.

[@kevinalmgren8332]

An interesting thing from WWI- there are, as far as I can tell, no documented instances of a “trench shotgun” in use by American forces in WWI. Supposedly, the Signal Corps tightly controlled pictures that came from the war and were published, so anything with one of the infamous American pump action shotguns was never published. I did once find a political cartoon mocking the German protests of American shotgun use in combat, but that’s it. Why is this important? Shotguns were not a critical war winning weapon, as small arms rarely are. The myth of American doughboys using shotguns in the trenches is part of a narrative about the new Americanized ways of war, and the idea that Americans could enter the European theater of war and strike so much fear into the German generals that they filed a formal protest about the use of this quintessentially American weapon. It’s a myth, real or imagined, about American exceptionalism in warfare and American moral superiority, since how could the Germans protest the use of pump action shotguns as they exploded chemical weapons over the heads of our boys? (The political cartoon from above references exactly this- it points out a supposed German hypocrisy).

[@ADADEL1]

I've noticed that when the average person talks about war or the military in general they normally focus on infantry and anything more complicated (artillery, tanks, navies, logistics, air superiority, etc) generally isn't even though of. No idea why 'guy with gun' is the baseline so often.

[@kevinalmgren8332]

@@ADADEL1 systems are much harder to understand, and popular sources are hilariously wrong about everything relating to military hardware. Look at the discourse surrounding the F35 as some disaster and the bad reporting around what the money for F-35 has actually been spent on. Regardless, the human story is much easier to sell people on, for whatever your purpose is and whatever your relation to the war in question is. “Germany is protesting our use of shotguns in war” is an interesting phrase and myth for a few macro level reasons. I’ll list a deconstruction: 1) our basic technology is so effective, our enemies are terrified to the point that they have no will to fight. 2) our will to fight is greater 3) they have done things much worse than this but are now protest, so we are morally superior 4) they have used gas, machine guns, and high explosive on our boys, isn’t that horrible? There’s a lot of meaning packed into a propagandistic phrase like that, all around a weapon that may or may not have even existed in the theater of war.

[@kevinalmgren8332]

@@ADADEL1 also, I think on a large scale, for the US military specifically, the Global War on Terror represented a a shift from the large and technical systems of the Cold War era to a more infantry centric model- you can’t occupy a nation with air strikes. Some of the horrific US casualties early in the counter-insurgency wars came from the military trying to fight guerrillas with a military that was designed to fight Soviets. The military had to quickly change its focus from “better tanks, better planes, better carriers” to “body armor and better infantry systems.” Just seemingly basic things like casualty care completely changed from 2001 to now, or the fact that almost every infantry rifle has an optical sight of some sort now. These things changed massively, and the focus really went from systems to individual soldiers- because soldiers themselves are a system, and there’s more of a focus on that, now. There’s also a popular narrative surrounding the mythology of special forces, which has really been growing in the public mind since Vietnam and the British Princess Gate hostage crisis.

[@user-bn5df6hl1d]

today i learned we probably didnt use shotguns in ww1 edit: whats annoying is trying to find proof we didnt use it, you get alot of articles and videos about how we did, and no real source on how many were used Edit 2: found one, did basically say "may have been issued but the effect was incredibly minor" hence why no one else seemed to use them beyond drilling shotguns- this makes more sense then germans just ..refusing to use something that effective if it was? cause they used gas and machine guns and tanks so i cant imagine theyd decide to just lose the war more by avoiding some new tech that was crazy good

[@404_nowheresnotfound3]

@@user-bn5df6hl1dking of editing.

[@stilltoomanyhats]

"I am die, but the Berliner remains" - JFK

[@MrOpellulo]

Glubb: imagine being so scared by "The Beatles" that you invent a whole imperialist theory to warn that women showing their sexual desires in public means the end of times.

[@johnmiller-purrenhage3790]

"I'm not telling you this so you can be a contrarian or an annoyance at parties-- if you're watching this video you probably don't need help with that." Man just destroyed my entire way of life.

[@gudea5207]

I believe the “Not only to inform but also persuade” is an odd way to distinguish the academic from the non academic. Now in the context of political sophistry, it’s understandable but much of academic writing is designed to persuade. He wears his motivation to persuade on his sleeve but history and related discipline are rife with academics seeking to that in far more subtle ways whilst adhering to the methodology that pop history writers do not.

[@defnotthekgb8362]

I would argue proper academic work strives not to persuade for the sake of spreading an idea, it seeks to persuade the reader that the data/findings are true. Personally I think “persuasion” does not quite capture the intent of academic works, they arent made with the point of changing peoples minds, but changing the information that people draw conclusions from.

[@luckyblockyoshi]

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@defnotthekgb8362 Many academic works definitely are written to persuade about conclusions… Seeking to “persuade the reader that the data/findings are true” is changing minds in the first place (and there are also works that seek to persuade that particular findings are false) but many works also seek to persuade about new conclusions and arguments that are made using those new data and findings (whether original by the author or research by others that is cited). To me it seems obvious if you just look at well known academic debates, like “What caused the Bronze Age Collapse” or “What was the Proto-Indo-European homeland” which are debates about what conclusions should be drawn from findings.

[@MrKoalaburger]

What's inferred is that OP is concerned with an author trying to persuade the reader into a particular worldview, social or political alignment, or other mental ascent outside the framework of the subject itself. We could of course split hairs here and say "studying the American revolution IS political", but I'm hoping you'll operate in good faith and understand the point being made and avoiding reducing terms and ideas into a null meaning.

[@czujnyhugo]

I loved when he said: "Its STATE time!" and started stating all over the place.

[@generalissima_4279]

I like that Glubb not adding any Chinese dynasties there is ignoring something that makes his silly argument seem so much more believable to a lay reader! Tang: 628 (End of Sui-Tang transition) - (Huang Chao Rebellion) - 246 years Song: 979 (Rough unification of southern China) - 1235 (Beginning of Mongol conquest) - 256 years Ming: 1368 (founding) - 1618 (Beginning of Manchu conquest) 250 years exactly! Qing: 1666 (conquest of the southern ming) - 1912 (xinhai revolution) 246 years (of course, this doesn't work for the Han or Yuan lmao)

[@vladprus4019]

And than there is Qin that did not survive 20 years as the empire, despite being extremly influential

[@itsyaboiipotatus9532]

Shang, Zhou, Qin, Han, Jin, all dynasties of the Northern and Southern dynasties era, Sui: **B R U H**

[@genovayork2468]

All your date intervals are wrong lmao. Ming 1368-1644, Jin/Qing 1616-1912, Tang 618-690, 705-907, Song 960-1279. Tang and Song are dynasties of the same country, Wei-Song, 386-1279.

[@luckyblockyoshi]

@@genovayork2468Reread the post… the significance of the dates are provided. He is not using the years of the dynasties’ entire existence just as Glubb didn’t either in his book.

[@genovayork2468]

@@luckyblockyoshi Yes. Arbitrary.

[@lordofthepies]

A salient point. I notice that this is also prevalent in other pop-edutaiment circles of youtube as well. One only has to look at all the weird and wacky stuff that comes out of economics youtube that isn't even in the sphere of discussion in actual academia. The clashing of wanting to learn and inform compared to the time required to genuinely do so creates much dissonance

[@vladprus4019]

"Did you know that Taiping rebellion was caused by a single clearly crazy guy thay one day had decided that hes brother of Jesus and thats why whole reason for that war? Isnt that wacky?"

[@neighborhoodmusicsnob5517]

Jack Rackham is so fucking obnoxious. And his research is generally quite shit. His Stalin video is a particularly egregious example.

[@hedgehog3180]

I feel like it's slowly starting to get under control when it comes to pop science like pop physics but now the pop science misunderstanding has just become straight up pseudoscientific conspiracy theories.

[@Tristior]

Lol at you coming for my former employer in your "Great Fuck Up" portion. This is the kind of sloppy academia that happens when you stop employing me

[@Rosencreutzzz]

The website itself or the university?

[@Tristior]

The Hundred Stories project before it moved to ANU. I have a copy of the book on the shelf next to me.

[@shaneokeigan6150]

12:18 “I am not telling you this to turn you into a contrarian at house parties. If you’re watching this video… you may not need my help with that.” Absolutely broke me

[@dylancampbell3356]

I love the presentation style! It's so refreshing to have a video that isn't constantly interspersing quick little meme video quotes. And the focus on accuracy and explaining nuance is extremely nice. I'd love hear an overview of some of the problems in pop history books. I used to read these but there's only so many times you hear a really interesting tidbit to only find out later it's wrong before you just stop enjoying hearing them.

[@Gnomebitten]

nice triangle

[@PedanticGaming]

Ok this has sent me into paranoid mode because I'm currently reading Stephen Kotkin's biography of Stalin and on page 155 of 'Paradoxes of Power' he also repeats the information about Lidia Pereprygina without a source. Now I don't think it can be argued that the Kotkin work isn't academia, it certainly has a thorough list of footnotes, but this glaring omission being pointed out makes me wonder what else I missed. Oh look Montefiore is in the bibliography.

[@alanpennie8013]

Well that's depressing to read. I thought he had a justly low opinion of Montefiore's pot boilers. Goes to show that even good historians slip up.

[@marxussy]

you should make more triangles, that one was amazing

[@Skyehoppers]

Very glad I got around to this video, if a bit late! This is the kind of video that simply makes me better as a writer. I also want to make heavily-researched, well-sourced videos but am scared I'm going to "do it all wrong" because that's not what my background actually is in. So I think internalizing the points here is an important part of my own growth, to speak self-centeredly. Which is to say thank you for making this! I think it's an important asset for the "field" of KZbin video essays, if that is a field to speak of.

[@matthewcline3088]

i just adore your channel. i’m not into strategy games, but even those vids manage to align with my general interests. i really admire your work!

[@RRRR-jr1gp]

Kraut is an excellent example of what you say in the beginning about narrativization - Fredda has gone like super in depth about how his sourcing sucks, but *god damn* are his videos (esp the china one) well written

[@Sophie_Hime]

the correct way to learn history is through otome games with totally accurate representations of japanese historical men.

[@tlhm7102]

rosencreutz and its consequences to my way of thinking

[@santoast24]

I think Sean Connery once said it in Celebrity Jeopardy "Les Tits Now Si'll vous plaiz" Its a French xpression

[@gunpowderaficionado9318]

Your voice is so pleasant and soothing I can listen to it all day even on topics I am very well informed about.

[@0larue0]

Love your videos man. Keep it up. You're the pop historian we need but don't deserve

[@TheRealBFKelleher]

The dialogue segments in the Stalin books remind me of the dialogue in Fire & Blood from the A Song of Ice and Fire series, a supposedly scholarly treatise written by the scholars of the fictional world that is FILLED with dialogue scenes and some action scenes.

[@ilianceroni]

43:05 when there are 5 sources but 4 of them came from the same text/author… yeah, really substantiated😂

[@WingsofMelody]

45:57 This really made me think. I'm in my final year of my undergraduate history degree, hoping to go into academia as a social historian of the United States. As a trained historian, it's so easy to be a snob about pop history and its cousins. Like you, I stew over the narrative framework and lack of citations that characterize pop history. Much of my research is for the express purpose of correcting warped understandings of history that have formed over decades or even centuries. (No wonder my favorite podcast is You're Wrong About). However, a historian doesn't have to have a tenured position at an ivy to perpetuate the notion that the study of history should remain within the ivory towers and among learned students. Everyone deserves to have access to nuanced understandings of history.

[@WingsofMelody]

Also, after a few years of studying history, you develop a sixth sense for historical bullshit. More often than not, it dings whenever someone shares a tiktokified historical 'not-so-fun-fact' that appeals to fascinations with the morbid or outlandish. I think what many don't understand is that people from 100, 200, 1000 years ago are pretty similar to us. They loved, ate, and took care of pets just like we do. Any attempt to convey that people were somehow fundamentally different from us in history usually leads to some wacky ahistorical claim.

[@juststatedtheobvious9633]

I learned my own idiot bias existed when I claimed, for still no reason I can find, that profanity used to be less common in American life. Was my source television? My own childhood? It physically hurt to be corrected in public, even as I accepted my fault. Why? Since then, it's a constant struggle to juggle what is true, what might be true, what lies must be watched, what can't be known... And all the while to see so many exciting life stories around me, that will be forgotten, because they didn't serve the needs of those better qualified to preserve an objective truth for the generations beyond us. Or better financed to find acceptable replacement. Thank you for raising these issues. I hope they aren't too soon laid to rest.

[@BS-jw7nf]

Yeah i’ve also found it very hard to trust anything I say or believe because as you do any academic work, you realise how often you are wrong, misguided or just ignorant of the subject you’ve now spend months on. It makes you realise that all of the knowledge of the world sits on thinner ice than we’d like to believe and also that that is a perfectly fine thing.

[@juststatedtheobvious9633]

@@BS-jw7nf I wish I had your peace of mind. I've spent decades studying videogame history and design (for fun) just to get to the point where I'm horrified by how objectively wrong nearly everyone is, almost all the time. And this is an art form better preserved, measured, and analyzed than almost anything humanity has ever done. We can approach it with an actual layer of objectivity, at a low price of entry, and a public that is both skeptical and passionate... And it doesn't change very much. All the patterns repeat, except that there's an easy pipeline designed to help you make the most of your interest and abilities. Or help someone else exploit them. Is this the most we can hope for, when studying the past? Will we always self segregate?

[@guidedexplosiveprojectileg9943]

​@@juststatedtheobvious9633Are you a pro gamer?

[@juststatedtheobvious9633]

@@guidedexplosiveprojectileg9943 No, lost the timing and reflexes needed for frame perfect inputs after a hospital screw-up. But creating a game within the strict limitations of old hardware? Any artist can still appreciate that.

[@guidedexplosiveprojectileg9943]

@@juststatedtheobvious9633 Deus Ex best game of all time?

[@Aloha_XERO]

The level of articulation used in this script, absolutely and I am surprised and not surprised to see the number of news and subscribers this channel has accumulated, to sum it up in other words TikTok and Idiocracy

[@zarajday]

I feel like this applies to any "pop" subject. Pop psychology is the bane of my existence because a lot of it is misreadings of outdated studies or drive-by retellings of headlines. Hint, if the person whose work is widely cited for a given psychology "fact" died before the 1990s, they are, at best, out of date or, worse, just made it up (especially if they are classified as Freudian).

[@HenryLeslieGraham]

when you go down the citation tree and find that its all BS at the bottom/root, is more disappointing than not having a citation in the first place

[@redleaderantilles1263]

I get why it needed to be cut, but god I want those 10 cut paragraphs about Scottish identity and national myths. Also my guess for why people like Service let such inadequacies slide is simple, they agree with the point and so if a "non-historian" can more effectively get across their broad beliefs without the need for rigor it is no skin off their backs. It stacks the decks further for them in a context that already lets whatever nonsense claim about the USSR go uncriticized and unexamined

[@henryfleischer404]

My dad has a copy of Sapiens, right next to Jack Kirby's 4th world omnibus.

[@MathMasterism]

This video brings up a lot of valid instances of pop history pushing readers to believe specific inaccuracies or unsubstantiated rumors because they support the structure of their rhetorical argument. However, condemning all pop-history works as useless or even counter-productive is, in a sense, gatekeeping history from the general public. Not saying Rosencreutz believes this, but that this is the implication being created by only talking about pop history in a negative context without any qualifying statements on the topic. However unintentional, the subtext of this video is that watching a youtube documentary about that time the [interest empire here] tried to do something and failed spectacularly is intaking history the *wrong* way, and you instead need to dust off the dryest and most serious text you can find to properly learn about a history topic. It's good to critique others' works and want them to do better in the future, but gatekeeping, no matter the field, should be avoided wherever possible.

[@lepercolony8214]

"Gatekeeping" is a very broad term, and we shouldn't confuse the "gatekeeping" of _expecting someone to know something about a topic before talking about it_ for the "gatekeeping" of _dismissing marginal voices._

[@MathMasterism]

​@@lepercolony8214 When an error is major and obvious, or something was omitted that undermines the entire thesis of a work of pop history, then I think it's fair to demand the author reevaluate and rework their research practices. However, all too often I've seen pretty aggressive criticisms levied at pop history works (mostly youtube videos) where the mistake boils down to a relatively minor detail or the omission of a period of history that (while interesting) didn't have any long term effects on the trajectory or a nation/region. Some people (and by that I mean those who frequent r/askhistorians) seem to take any error no matter how minor as grounds to accuse an author of not putting in the proper work. The problem is, history is a complicated topic that is filled with creditable sources that nonetheless contradict each other when it comes to the fine details. And unless you're already deep down the rabbit hole of a given topic, you're not going to know which sources are considered more credible than others, which is inevitably going to lead to minor mistakes or pushing misconceptions. Most pop historians love history and want to get the minor details right, so if someone calmly explained where they goofed up, how they goofed up, and why this other source is less of a goof, I have no doubt they would be happy to make a correction annotation or even reupload the video if the error was severe enough. However, people are way less likely to listen when people act like smug assholes, belittle your work, and hold your 20 min. youtube video to graduate essay levels of scrutiny.

[@bleysmcnutt5500]

@@MathMasterism When I was a teenager, I started reading history via pop-history books, and they instilled a love of the subject that made me consume actual academic histories. I can't stand pop histories now, unless I'm in the mood for something simple to just play in the background (I mainly listen to my books), but I can say for a fact that without Alex Kershaw, I would have never gained a love for history that now has me attempting a career in it. I'm sure there are a million stories like mine, and it proves that however inaccurate or citation-free, pop histories have a valuable place adjacent to academia.

[@tomgymer7719]

There's an interesting kind of sensational revisionism which is just "Historians circles have known this for decades, but the classic version has been so entrenched no one cares and you can keep publishing pop history versions of "upending" the status quo". This kind is usually fine history but very annoying to read the discussions around it if you know the academia.

[@bomberharris1943]

Q: "How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, old man?" A: "As long as it takes to hammer into the general public's attention the fact that the Kaiser's Germany did indeed start the war for its own motives, supported and praised its Turkish and Austrian allies' genocides in occupied territories, planned to deport millions of people from Poland and Lithuania to create lebensraum for German settlers _to start with,_ and then sloppily covered up those plans once Versailles rolled around."

[@joaquinrodriguez227]

Like the spanish black legend

[@curlyfordoge4366]

@@bomberharris1943 Ah, but have you considered that the HOI4 community has assured me that the Kaiser was Based™, Blessed™, and Actually Would've Been Very Cool And Good If He Won The War™ (because Hitler was spawned into existence ex nihlo the moment French troops stepped into Alsace-Lorraine)?

[@mrpopeshistoryclass7285]

Good Pop history happens when the author does the same amount of research as an academic but just has a better style of writing.

[@phanto9159]

I was really skeptical about this at first, but when I saw your nice triangle at 3:54 I was sold. This video has single-handedly reshaped the way I view the world into triangles and not triangles.

[@weebamcentire28]

You just know the book you're reading is credible when the author whips out the ableist slurs and uncited claims of pedophilia to introduce a historical figure.

[@harveytomos4959]

As a student currently studying history for my bachelors this is an incredible video. Incredibly accessible and understandable as well as making some very important points about the study of history. Some I am guilty of and some I have qualms with myself. Great video.

[@mythomaniac-gremlin]

Fantastic video, it feels tight and concise but still wanders all the places I wanted to go when thinking about the problems with this sort of historical media. A friend recommended you so I think I'm gonna go watch your ck3 video next, I've been interested in a discussion on the lenses that games like paradox productions take and it sounds really neat.

[@1ab23c4d5e6f]

Your comment about how entertainment and authenticity do not need to be in conflict reminds me of my favorite author. Roger Crowley is an actual full on historian who makes devastatingly readable and entertaining works without having to actually inaccuracies the truth, simply by being upfront with the inaccuracies or potential biases of some of the sources statements, but including them anyway. Some of my favorites are from City of Fortune, which is a book about Venice and their dominance over the Mediterranean, and two stories stand out. A ship was on the run from another, and went up a particularly deep river, scuttled itself, waited for the pursuing ship to pass, and then resurfaced the ship to leave. That's hype. Another is about the siege of Constantinople, where he claims how there were byzantine reports of an attacker who, after breaking through the wall, survived attacks that should have killed them but kept fighting on. Regardless of if such an event happened, the fact that there is a source from the defenders only a short time after the event occurred really helps paint a picture of what it felt like to be in that siege more than any "The knight snarled" ever could.

[@Quintaspoon]

excited to see this triangle

[@justsomeone6985]

hey dawg, just wanna say, you be rocking with those triangles; the way the straight lines lead to the straight vertices and really shines onto the silhouette shape you wish to achieve, really fits onto the didactics you wish to present your whole presentation is rocking, dont feel ashamed of it king🔥

[@zapdog_]

bro cooked with that thumbnail

[@UndeadGirlCyber]

As a dork, thank you for making this video - I enjoyed it very much :)

[@MLaserHistory]

Interesting video. I do kind of miss the mention of Public History and its historiography and methodology. Showing how the academically born but inconsistently defined concept of Public History is part of this greater 'pop history' ecosystem, sometime willingly and sometimes not, but I like the video.

[@Amantducafe]

Instant subscribe. This is the type of content i enjoy searching, watching and dissecting. A professional review of history, in detail and without trying to appeal to the public but present the findings despite how disappointing they might be. If anything a sign of a good historian and youtuber when it comes to history it is: -They use quotations -THey will refer to both primary and secondary sources -They will recognize that it is not the absolute truth -They will be methodical and boring. The last one is important because what most pop history KZbinrs want are clicks and revenue, and telling a boring historical event that ends with "We will never know the truth because of the nature of our sources" will not win them a following.

[@bleysmcnutt5500]

You should read _Richard III: The Self-Made King_ by Michael Hicks, it does all of those things.

[@jerrybankerman]

For the Malcolm Combe paywalled review just on the off chance it isn't known in the field, sci-hub's paper yoinking did manage to catch even that.

[@Sinestia.]

An incredibly niche suggestion: that background image could use dithering/noise to reduce the color banding and make it more "smooth."

[@paaailla9472]

As a history major, I struggle a lot with my feelings towards pop history. It is beneficial and even fun to scrutinize these works in classes but at the same time, it feels like we're showing faux concern towards the public perception of history. For example, why would someone write a book review on "The Poor Had No Lawyers" and question the audacity of writing it or state 'why, pray tell, should anyone take the time to read it?' in the abstract only to put it behind a paywall? The majority of people who would actually pay to read this review are those who have enough knowledge on the historical method to question the validity of the book in the first place. If so, is the review trying to validate academia's attitude towards pop history? Or, if the actual review is more tempered than the abstract as you've said, isn't the author of the review committing the same kind of dramatization/exaggeration they look down upon in pop history? In a way, one of the reasons for pop history being so prevalent is the elitism in academia. I'm not writing any of this to downplay pop history's faults, this video manages to bridge some of the gaps between authenticity and availability but I'm mostly frustrated that a lot of historians view these types of easily accesible reviews as being beneath them. When these works actually influence the public consciousness, politics and even the education system (that they'd then have to struggle to dismantle) it feels like it should be taken more seriously. I feel partially responsible/guilty for being in an environment like this ☹

[@thomaswalsh4552]

The ease with which you can tear apart Malcolm Gladwell’s “history” books legitimately saved my master’s degree. His books are so easily dismantled it would have been hard to NOT get an A for the assignment.

[@felman87]

You mention how some publications charged for research papers. I've heard that sometimes you can reach out to the authors and they'll gladly give you a copy. You can try that or maybe an internet archive has a screenshot of the work saved.

[@vlc-cosplayer]

There's also websites that sail the high seas and host copies of research papers. You could try Anna's Archive.

[@hedgehog3180]

@@vlc-cosplayer I think the problem is that you can't really use that in a youtube video, not exactly a great idea to video document comitting a crime.

[@Anthsytar]

I don't know if you can qualify it as "pop history" since it is written like an Academic book and used extensively in Academic settings, but the famous Richard Evans trilogy on the Third Reich is an example of popular narrative history as its best. It's extremely well-sourced, covers every major topic with a unifying theme, regularly sums itself with concluding paragraphs hammering home the subject. I really like how often it uses diaries, letters, SPD agents reports, to give a feel on how the people felt like. On the other hand, each of those books took 4 years to write, so...

[@schiefer1103]

Great Triangle.

[@lordshaxx4693]

I call it "Kaiser Mad" history. The kind of things you go "Did you know" at dinner parties, like "Did you know America uses shotguns in WWI and it made the kaiser mad"

[@Michelle_Wellbeck]

Maybe we should call this kind of rhetoric "Grand Narrative" works. There is an epiphenomenon of the masses popular inderstanding of history (as well as the individual influential historical figure's ubderstanding of history) coming thereby to influence the course of history itself. In that sense, popular romantic claims of history have historical force unrelated to their actual veracity. Like we all know that Putin has his own personal "Grand Narrative" on the conflict, is trying to academically rebut all of Putin's false historical claims actually going to counter such an understanding, or must a counter "Grand Narrative" be deployed to challenge it in the mind of the masses. That Timothy guy who lectures on Ukraine thinks so.

[@jdkessey]

Karl Popper called it Historicism

[@sauerkrautlanguage]

Well the thing is that narratives can be wielded for different purposes. The academic discipline of history wields narratives to essentially maximize the veracity of any account of events, it's basically data recollection on the observable phenomenom that is the development of human societies through time, which is a rather dispassionate endeavor. In other realms of human activity narratives are wielded for different reasons, to create a participatory social project in which people can feel themselves to form part of a greater whole and to act towards a purpose. Think of christianity providing a grand metaphysical narrative of salvation and a participatory community based on shared beliefs and rites. Christanit as a sociological phenomenom was clearly never meant to give materially accurate historical accounts. However this process can be coopted by structures of power in order to convince the masses to buy into political projects that go against their own interests. As such for example, the fact that the US triumphed in WW2 gets turned into a jingoistic myth of American military exceptionalism which no doubt informed many an American to go die in Vietnam or Afghanistan "for their country". And similarly, the common cultural and political origins of the current Ukranian and Russian and their peoples and their cultural different with western Europe gets coopted into a narrative of a struggle towards consummation of a unified national spirit struggling against western imperiaism. In this case the coopting is not necessarily cynical or purposeful, the elites may very well be drinking their own kool aid, it does seem that Putin unironically believes the crap he says he believes. This doesn't mean that this second "method" of doing narrative necessarily has to make nothing but objectively wrong claims or serve the powers that be, for instance the self narrative of an oppressed people rising up against their oppressors might have a lot of mythologized and innacurate elements but ultimately the material conditions of the oppressed are a reality that forms the basis of that narrative. Ideally it would be great to participate in narratives that are actually intended to be factually correct first and meant to mobilize people towards something second, because this ensures that the mobilization is actually concordant with reality and thus effective in achieving its goals, but the mismatch happens becase you don't need the former to achieve the latter.

[@NorthSon]

Thank you for touching on Scotland, I was watching the start of the video and thinking so much of it is applicable to the lens Scotlands history is viewed today. Lo and behold you had a whole section on it. As you said so much of it is viewed through the Highlands, when the reality is much deeper and more complex. I personally think due to underlying political biases many people find it inconvenient to touch on Lowland history or Lowland involvement within Empire.

[@notcraig255]

I do feel like a lot of your problem lies not with "pop history" but just the misrepresentation of history. Pop history can be the most blatant example of it, but what its saying could be entirely true yet simplified.