YouTube Historians/HistoryTube/PopHistory

[Sooty Soot]

Not exactly a history tuber, but still covering a historical topic. This video series by Inspiring Philosophy makes a rather compelling argument for the Biblical Exodus through archaeology, dating it around the 13th century BC during the reign of Rameses II.

Playlist

 

[Breadbassket]

 

[Computer God Autism]

He was a very capable commander and arguably a visionary, yet to claim he never lost a single battle is a dubious claim.

Sure, blindly accepting primary sources (or nearest primary, seeing as how most of the contemporaneous documentation of Alexander was lost) is one of the most basic fallacies one can make.

But I think the opposite is also true. Blindly assuming that primary sources are unreliable or should be discounted by virtue that they might be biased or propaganda is also dubious. What is the reason the claims they make are unreliable beyond that they may paint a flattering picture? Alexander never losing a single battle is a dubious claim? You got a source to demonstrate that's dubious, or is that just cynicism? If there was credible evidence Alexander was not, in fact, undefeated, wouldn't later authors have made allusions to it? It's not as if the people writing three hundred years after Alexander were writing without referencing prior documentation themselves.

I think trying to examine historical sources through that lens is incredibly myopic and more conducive to Heribert Illig-style schizophrenia than anything else.

 

[LordOfZhbagva]

What is the reason the claims they make are unreliable beyond that they may paint a flattering picture?

Also, it's not merely self flattery, Alexander made a very strong attempt to create a divine picture of himself.

You got a source to demonstrate that's dubious, or is that just cynicism? If there was credible evidence Alexander was not, in fact, undefeated, wouldn't later authors have made allusions to it?

At Granicus he lost 115 men, in the siege of Helicarnassus, 16, in Issus, 150, in a 6 month long siege of Tyre, 400, in Jaxartes, 160, in Sogdia 30 (I'm calling bullshit on all of these). In total, that's 871 man lost. In Hydaspes, the battle against Porus, Alexander loses 700 infantry and 280 cavalry, before leaving India across the Gedrosian desert where he loses even more men (I'm aware of "he was punishing them for their revolt", but that seems even less likely to me - your men are disobeying you and you're ordering them to march across a desert - you're literally begging to be shanked by a rebellious man dying of thirst).

 

[Slap47]

He was a very capable commander and arguably a visionary, yet to claim he never lost a single battle is a dubious claim.

Its also possible.

We're not talking about a supernatural claim that demands an extra level of evidence or a sensational claim like a million men being at Thermopylae. His recorded victories show him as a capable and inspiring commander.
The Persians were not really fans of writing epic narrative histories like the Greeks and later successors to Alexander wanted to paint him positively to legitimize their own claims so that obviously skews our view of it all. However, Alex was undeniably really good at killing Persians and him being the best at it isn't that much further of a stretch.
A professional army lead by a charismatic lunatic against levy armies and mercenaries often lead by pencil pushing administrators? Its not really crazy to see Alex winning against overwhelming numbers with his reckless and crazy strategies.

 

[Computer God Autism]

Also, it's not merely self flattery, Alexander made a very strong attempt to create a divine picture of himself.

Sure, but again, that's not evidence that he was defeated.

At Granicus he lost 115 men, in the siege of Helicarnassus, 16, in Issus, 150, in a 6 month long siege of Tyre, 400, in Jaxartes, 160, in Sogdia 30 (I'm calling bullshit on all of these).

Perfectly fair, but so do modern historians without saying there's some hidden defeat in Alexander's career.

 

[who dare wins?]

What are your guy's thoughts on Alexander the Ok? I understand he is more so of a youtuber who discusses Engineering/specific systems throughout history but he often touches on the development of whatever he's covering + the greater political and historical context of such. My opinion is he is nice to listen to in the background but is clearly a huge bleeding heart libtard.

 

[LordOfZhbagva]

The Persians were not really fans of writing epic narrative histories like the Greeks

They were tho, we simply have a lack of domestic surviving records that we know of due time, a language shift in the ruling class of the Persian society, meaning a lot of the material stopped being copied, the purposeful destruction of them by later governments in the region and the fact that the western historiography only really started looking at Persian history through a non-Greek viewpoint in the last few decades and as such, it has yet to filter down into popular conception.

and later successors to Alexander wanted to paint him positively to legitimize their own claims so that obviously skews our view of it all.

To such an extent that he entered the Persian mythology as a lost heir to the Persian empire in the later Shahnameh. It's very obvious that there was a very strong propaganda campaign about him at and after his time.

A professional army lead by a charismatic lunatic against levy armies and mercenaries often lead by pencil pushing administrators? Its not really crazy to see Alex winning against overwhelming numbers with his reckless and crazy strategies.

Don't diss on the mercenaries, they were some of the most experienced and well drilled professional troops.
And while I agree that a large professional army does pose a significant advantage, you do see how a figure who obviously had a goal in presenting himself as supernatural, prestigious and legitimate, followed by his goons, who had the goal in doing the same aggrandizement of him would probably sweep up a defeat if it happened? I'm not saying he lost a battle, I'm just saying that it's probable he did and it was covered up afterwards.
It also wouldn't be the first time such a thing happened in Persian history, as there are very valid arguments of the lost army of Cambyses II being actually the lost army of Darius the Great, who simply shifted the blame to his predecessor.

Perfectly fair, but so do modern historians without saying there's some hidden defeat in Alexander's career.

Yeah, but for some reason, after those hard fought battles, he "wins" one in which he takes more casualties than in all of them combined, then "punishes" his "rebellious" army by marching them through a desert.

 

[Slap47]

They were tho, we simply have a lack of domestic surviving records that we know of due time

No. Like, they actually were just averse to writing stuff down. The holy text of Zoroastrianism was not written down until the 6th Century AD. I personally think this is why Islam took hold so quickly in Iran - kill the priest and the faiths stories die with him. Same thing repeats itself in the new world with many indigenous religions.

Don't diss on the mercenaries, they were some of the most experienced and well drilled professional troops.

They fought to the death at the Granicus and performed well. The Persians had a small professional army to put out fires, but otherwise its levys who run away and inspire other people to run away. You can kinda see history repeat itself here with the Islamic invasion of Byzantium. Heraclius pushed the bankrupt empire to form a massive levy army to stop Islam and they just ran away. The numbers are exaggerated, but a small professional army lead by a fanatic defeating a massive force is not unusual.

 

[LordOfZhbagva]

No. Like, they actually were just averse to writing stuff down.

They had a domestic script from the time of Darius I, in addition to having a very broad base of subject peoples who wrote stuff down. We have numerous royal inscriptions, some obviously aimed at Persians themselves, and references to the Persian record-keeping in the Bible when the Jews ask for the records to be checked in order to have an older decree by the Persian emperor confirmed. And we also have proof of Papyrus becoming a dominant writing medium.
And then we also have a series of anti-Zoroastrian Islamic governments which were very eager to stamp out any non-Abrahamic religions who ended up ruling Persia basically uninterrupted since their conquest of Iran.

The holy text of Zoroastrianism was not written down until the 6th Century AD. I personally think this is why Islam took hold so quickly in Iran - kill the priest and the faiths stories die with him. Same thing repeats itself in the new world with many indigenous religions.

I can't comment beyond the typical comment that the extent of the spread of Zoroastrianism isn't well known and there are theories it was a faith of the elites rather than for the entirety of the Iranian society. However, my knowledge of Iran following the spread of Islam is lacking, and I intend to read up on it at some later point.

They fought to the death at the Granicus and performed well. The Persians had a small professional army to put out fires, but otherwise its levys who run away and inspire other people to run away.

That's not how that worked.
The Persians had a massive, well organized and regimented standing army of Persians and Medes (the most famous of these being 10,000 Immortals - they alone an army the size of which few realms would be able to match, not to mention the rest of the professional force) supplemented by, when needed, locally raised troops, who weren't any worse than most of the foes they faced. The famous Greek hoplites were levies and we have no real reason to suspect they were significantly better (no, Heroditus doesn't count) than their Persian counterparts (who were themselves, very probably in large part Greeks levied to fight for the empire, as they were the nearest available locals). In fact, we have strong reason to suspect that Alexander, following his return from India, in his preparation for the invasion of Arabia, massively reformed his Phalanx to be more in line with the more traditional Persian formations.

You can kinda see history repeat itself here with the Islamic invasion of Byzantium. Heraclius pushed the bankrupt empire to form a massive levy army to stop Islam and they just ran away.

I haven't read enough about either the Arabs or the Eastern Romans to have a formed opinion, but afaik, the Islamic invasion came after a massive and draining war between Rome and the Sassanids, which drained both states, letting the experienced Arabs sweep in on local unrest, dissatisfaction, uprisings and civil wars.

The numbers are exaggerated, but a small professional army lead by a fanatic defeating a massive force is not unusual.

Except thats not exactly how it was. Alexanders army had numerous non professional contingents - various Balkan skirmishers, Cretan archers, (maybe) Thessalian cavalry, while the Persians obviously had a massive core of professionals.
I'm not saying he suffered a defeat, I'm just saying it's very possible he did, when facing Porus.

 

[JJLiautaud]

At Granicus he lost 115 men, in the siege of Helicarnassus, 16, in Issus, 150, in a 6 month long siege of Tyre, 400, in Jaxartes, 160, in Sogdia 30 (I'm calling bullshit on all of these). In total, that's 871 man lost.

Why though? the most reliable account we have of a Greco Persian Battle the Battle of Cunaxa according to an eye witness only a single greek was wounded, so it certainly seems plausible that Alexander would win utterly smashing victories.

In other news all 5 hours of Old Britannia's conclusion (sike theres a part 3) to his ww1 series is here:

 

[LordOfZhbagva]

Why though?

Again, written centuries later where a very clear motive existed to self aggrandize and to denigrate the opponents (the Macedonians were famously hostile to the Persian troops that were hired to supplement their numbers after the success of the campaign), with no sources from the opposing side. It's quite literally as if our only source on WW2 was Manstein.

 

[Slap47]

https://x.com/Cynical_History/status/2028627667826663589

Edutube is doing fine actually.... plenty of views to go around and if anything the standards are going up.

It's quite literally as if our only source on WW2 was Manstein.

Adolf Hitler was a homosexual. Nazis denied this because they thought Hitler was a hero and wanted him presented in a good light. Liberal historians denied this because they did not want to harm the reputation of homosexuality. Soviet historians wanted to present themselves as defenders of homosexuality and bringing this up would have harmed propaganda effort.

We have no evidence of this, but many of his top men like Ernst Rohm were homosexuals and according to Soviet sources the man who burned down the Reichstag was a homosexual. There is no evidence that Hitler was not homosexual as we have no evidence his relationship with Eva Braun was sexual.

.... You can make any spurious claim if you're willing to think like that.

 

[Shell Shocked Zoomer]

In other news all 5 hours of Old Britannia's coclusion to his ww1 series is here:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=PMSmez9US8E

Currently watching it now and Old Britannia dropped the most based joke/observation he has ever made so far, giving me a good laugh.

Spoiler: A Real Old Britannia Quote

In October 1909, Nicholas II traveled to meet the king of Italy, Victor Emanuel, taking a long detour so as to avoid having to cross Habsburg territory. The lengths some people will go to avoid ethnically diverse areas really is incredible.

 

[JJLiautaud]

Currently watching it now and Old Britannia dropped the most based joke/observation he has ever made so far, giving me a good laugh.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=PMSmez9US8E:1641

Spoiler: A Real Old Britannia Quote

In October 1909, Nicholas II traveled to meet the king of Italy, Victor Emanuel, taking a long detour so as to avoid having to cross Habsburg territory. The lengths some people will go to avoid ethnically diverse areas really is incredible.

His bit on the british war planning his funny.

 

[Professor Donger]

Edutube is doing fine actually.... plenty of views to go around and if anything the standards are going up.

It's almost as if People don't like Cynical Historians shitty style of video as well as his shitty voice.

Oh and the massive TDS he's injected into all of his videos

 

[Kyria the Great]

https://x.com/Cynical_History/status/2029956425355530299

View attachment 8662476

Its honestly kinda sad that people don't look more deeply into the rise of fascism. Its a rightwing ideology because its literally a "revolution against the revolution", but the whole point of it is that has broad appeal.

View attachment 8662481

It appealed to liberals, socialist workers, and shopkeeps all the same. The whole "scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds" type thinking just doesn't pan out. Hell, you look into the history of business and the rise of Hitler, and their support was also very mixed. Hitler lost nearly all of his support from big business during the Papen govt when Hitler was condemning the govt for doing crazy stuff like abolishing welfare. There was even a mass exodus of communists from the KPD paramilitaries into the Brownshirts.

Its also just the case that alot "reactionary" liberal and even monarchist types in Germany became the nucleus for the anti-Nazi resistance.

Honestly Fascism is a centrist ideology with a rightward bent. Sure it might have arranged governance in a right wing manner, but it's economics were much more left wing in general. It is an ideology who ultimately finds that the state is a body and all should work towards the glory of the state. Fascism will wear the trappings of tradition but commonly will crush local and regional traditions that don't fit it's aims of "the people". I'm rather pissed that History types routinely fail to recognize that or try to understand the thoughts of Fascist leaders of the time.

 

[Zyklon C]

Currently watching it now and Old Britannia dropped the most based joke/observation he has ever made so far, giving me a good laugh.

I'm going to be the asshole, but the snarky jokes are kind of distracting.

In October 1909, Nicholas II traveled to meet the king of Italy, Victor Emanuel, taking a long detour so as to avoid having to cross Habsburg territory. The lengths some people will go to avoid ethnically diverse areas really is incredible.

That joke would work if Russia at the time wasn't equally as ethnically diverse than the Habsburg lands.

That said, on the whole I'm enjoying it.

 

[JJLiautaud]

I'm going to be the asshole, but the snarky jokes are kind of distracting.

He really slags off the liberal party and almost but not quite puts the war blame entirely on them

 

[LovisXVI]

Honestly Fascism is a centrist ideology with a rightward bent. Sure it might have arranged governance in a right wing manner, but it's economics were much more left wing in general. It is an ideology who ultimately finds that the state is a body and all should work towards the glory of the state. Fascism will wear the trappings of tradition but commonly will crush local and regional traditions that don't fit it's aims of "the people". I'm rather pissed that History types routinely fail to recognize that or try to understand the thoughts of Fascist leaders of the time.

Reminds me of the one I posted about a year back, all of this is easily sourced from accounts of their policies and various manifestos. Though I define left-right as wrt one's views of inequality being a product of society or inherent qualities like culture, races, or genes.

Also reminds of how absolutely shit most definitions of fascism really are. If your definition of fascist doesn't include: revolutionary, republican, right-wing, anti-communist, authoritarian, nationalist, meritocratic and progressive, then it is invariably inaccurate.