History Buffs: Agora 

I know this movie and review is laughable.. there were no pasty ppl running around in Egypt Hypatia was a black woman, & a jealous mob (angry she was a woman & wealthy), pulled her down from her carriage and attempted to skin her alive w/ jagged shells, they finished her off w/ stones. Her political & religious leanings had nothing to do w/ it, this chit was personal.

@@thegrandcanyonisegypt2489 Uh what?

@@thegrandcanyonisegypt2489 She was of Greek origin

@@crassus300 We wuz Keengz 'n' sheez

@@thegrandcanyonisegypt2489 She was Greek. Did you not listen to the review? Plus Alexandria was not just Egyptians (something you would have also picked up from the review)

Dallas Barr fact

@@charleBerglund Yes, bankrupting business after business. And doing the 'impossible'. Bankrupting a casino...

Well said.

The film contains numerous historical inaccuracies:[10][254][256] It inflates Hypatia's achievements[149][256] and incorrectly portrays her as having discovered proof to support Aristarchus of Samos's heliocentric model of the universe, which there is no evidence that Hypatia ever even studied.[149] It also contains a scene based on the final episode from Carl Sagan's Cosmos in which a mob of Christians raid the Serapeum and burn all of the scrolls in it, but leave the building itself largely intact, aside from knocking over a few statues. In historical reality, the Serapeum probably did not have any scrolls in it at the time of its destruction[c] and the Christians completely demolished the building to the ground.[10] The film also strongly implies that Hypatia is an atheist, a notion directly contradictory to the surviving sources, which all portray her as a devoted follower of the teachings of Plotinus, who taught that the goal of philosophy was "a mystical union with the divine."[

what's worse, the fundamentalist rarely even read that one book. Instead, they've picked a few phrases that they already agreed with and therefore the rest of the book must be true and thusly all its claims.

When I saw this movie I got really upset, and cried a little I won't deny it

+ANGRYmuffin9000 no shame no shame

+ANGRYmuffin9000 Same thing happened when I heard that ISIS destroyed Palmyra. Such a damn shame. /:

When I see the video of the Buddhas being destroyed in Afghanistan I lose faith in humanity

You and me both...

So many could scenes in this film: Hypatia’s linking of Euclid’s First Common Notion to human equality (there’s a similar scene in Spielberg’s “Lincoln”) Orestes’ defending the Christians during the siege, for Hypatia’s sake The story of Aristarchus inspiring Hypatia to study the heliocentric model

Well this montage is already implied during the movie, the suggestion of that is a different feeling then just hit over head like a caveman i.e. hence why the destruction of the library was in slow mo, the loss of potential for humanity with losing the antiquity philosophers/scientists. Even moreso of that idea, is the fact that they had hypatia working on the heliocentric model (she was more mathematician than astronomer), and she just discovered the answer literal moments before her death with being unable to speak of the discovery by being mercy choked (an answer that was discovered a millenium later with renaissance scientists).

FEGELEIN!

Breaking roman cable news, gaius on the scene, roman soldiers bring back home syphillis from the americas, but these sweetus potatus are too damn good, so it's an even day. This is gaius, I'll be seeing YOU, at the bath house. Back to you, karenius.

@@jacobashurov3476 Funny, but realistically the names of places, deceases and food would be different.

that'd be a wild alternate history story

I like how out of all the possible nations that formed throughout the centuries, you still chose Japan as the one being at the receiving end of a nuke.

wtf you using that quote

Pretty sure it was George Lucas. Wait! Why do I feel like I've made this joke before....?

And of course he's old and dead so therefore everything he says is true.

Are you screaming colonial oppression or some shit?

it's hilarious how offended the snowflakes are by this.

It always is

dont say "isis", they are called Daesh.

+opsimathics ISIS is used more.

Parts of the library were destroyed during the destruction of the Temple there but the rest was burned during the Muslim conquest of Egypt.

ignorance it always start with dictators, ignorant follower is the perfect follower you need.

yes your right but still theres facts of christians destroying knowlage which they thought was heretic

Perhaps as a myth then, it helps us address these demons we are currently facing? On the face of that alone, I can forgive the errors here. Especially as a member of a minority religion who has been threatened with physical violence before.

@@NorthForkFisherman I will always be reluctant with a piece of media or art that alters history in a significant way (I don't have a problem if there's no exact recreation of Napoleon's battle tactics to be honest) to serve a certain worldview, even if I'm partial to it, as I am here. Because if a movie can say early Christians were knowledge-destroying fanatics to parallel with modern Islamists and condemn obscurantism (which I agree with), then what's to stop religious cineasts from making a movie about how the French Revolution's leaders ALL were bloodthirsty atheists who wanted to erase religion from existence and killed hundreds of thousands of priests? See, again, exaggerating and altering historical fact to serve a political agenda.

​@@samrevlej9331 But the acts of vandalism in this move did actually happen, did they not? You seem well educated on this subject and I believe what you said, but even though many elites may have sought to preserve Greco-Roman knowledge, is it not true that among the uneducated masses, the Christians of the time were far more hostile to the existence or tolerance of other religions and any ideas associated with them than were the Pagans? After all the Roman pagans lived in peace with a variety of peoples worshipping multiple different pantheons for centuries.

It's probably found now.

Christianity, Islam and all fundamentalism in the world set the science light years back.

@@trueromancat7978 Clearly you are too much of an idiot to see that Islam actually pushed science and knowledge, have you heard of the golden age of Islam? Have you read the scientific and medical advances made during that time? Do you not know that Damascus was the center of science in that time? I don't know what part of dumb hillbilly Alabama you come from but keep your dumb and unfactual opinions to your self.

To some degree it was probably rediscovered. Maybe not everything historical, but I’m decently certain all scientific research and knowledge was at least rediscovered to some degree later on.

Yeah, like the universe is composed of four basic elements; Fire, Water, Earth and Air. Pity that pearl of wisdom didn't survive. Why do we think "lost" wisdom was great if it's lost and cannot be known? Maybe a lot of it was gibberish and superstition that we're better off without. Just sayin'...

Not necessarily relevent.

@@jacobstaten2366 : "Relevant."

@@raydavison4288 "spell check" fucks up. You fat finger a word one time and it wants to use that spelling.

@@jacobstaten2366 : My apologies, Jason. Your mistake was a minor one & I shouldn't be such a prick.

@@jacobstaten2366 Maybe its cause he didn't really learn under him?

That's John Toland's "Hypatia" (one of the four parts of his "Tetradymus" written in 1725). He hated all things Christian with all his heart. But his account, used heavily in this movie, is not confirmed by early sources. The library was rebuilt after the fire and replenished. It's true end was the Arab conquest..

It is fair to say the history behind this movie is highly debatable, which History Buffs accurately states, but he then goes on to lay the blame of the dark ages solely at Christian feet, which I feel is a position he would not defend if pressed on it. In fact his representation of the library of Alexandria was misleading, the majority of the books in the great library had already been moved to other libraries at the time it was burned. The fall of the Roman Empire created the Dark Ages and while Christianities early hostility to the culture that had suppressed them for centuries certainly didnt help, it was Christian scholars who rediscovered the works of ancient scholars and recreated them that we have any knowledge of these events at all. We know and value the works of Aristotle, Plato, and many others because of the thousands of hours spent by monks re-translating and copying them. What standard do we judge ancient people by? Were the Romans monsters for enslaving and conquering so much of the world? Or were they a force for the spreading of education and advanced civilization? Do we judge ancient people by the standards of today? The standards we have thanks in part to the benefit of thousands of years of history? Due we judge them by comparing them to their contemporaries? Does slavery become acceptable when every civilization in the known world practices it? My only point is that it is not easy to make any moral judgments of the ancient world, especially when the historical account has very few sources and what actually happened is up for debate.

Brendan Coulter applause all around, reply of the year

Brendan Coulter Simply amazing!! I took a screenshot of your reply - it’s too good not to and I don’t want to forget it 😁! I couldn’t agree with you more!

That doesn't change any of my points. If some one stated that Islam is only ever destroyed ancient knowledge I would attempt to correct the record there as well. If your claim is that Islam saved many ancient works, therefor Christianity is responsible for the fall of the Roman empire and the Dark Ages I would have to disagree.

Yeah It'sa great movie but the problem is they protrayed this event or conflict like a clash between science and faith. Which is not true it was more a political than religious conflict. The new christian power was on the rise and they were opposed to an old elite who wasn't christian , who persecuted them in the past. They were doomed to clash. And religion has nothing to do with that. Hypatia in real life wasn't neutral. Even if this movie is great they portrayed the christian as one dimensional evil and dumb who were oppose to science. And yet throughout more than 1000 years where the church was the dominant power they encouraged and pursuit scientific knowledge and art. So I think this portrait of christian is not fair they should have bring more nuance.

Dude this is misleading, the library was rebuild by Christians and few centuries later was burned by Muslims under the order of Caliph Omar, the Eastern church co-existed in harmony with the classical legacy, in Constantinople the holy Christian city giant statues of Greek gods and mythical creatures like Hera and Hercules and Helios stood on the main streets next statues of Christian saints and they were destroyed only by the Latins I the 4rth crusade only the quadriga was spared and rebranded the horses of saint Marc and now they are standing in Venice. And when the city was burned the local poets used Helene of Troy as a name for the burning city in their poems lamenting its bloody Sombre fate. There was no dark ages nor a schism between the church and classical legacy. This is just a western centric view of the medieval times.

I would be careful about how you view this film. It is a good rough historical fiction and it touches on some interesting themes; but the writers actually seemed to only use an account by a neo-platonist historian named Damascius (Hypatia was also a neo-platonist, if that tells you anything). A good chunk of modern scholars have concluded that this was not a religious issue like how Damascius gives the account, but rather more related to a political struggle between Christian leadership or secular roman leadership (not to say the roman leaders weren't Christian).

Alexandria was having conflicts even before Christianity arrived between Jews and pagans. And most of the library was burned by Cesar even before Christianity arrived.

Man I was getting mad as a Catholic but then when I read the comments I realized that this movie portrayed the Christians really badly

Im unfamiliar with the Bagdad House of Wisdom but the the magority of the works created in Alexandria were no longer there when it burned.

@@brendancoulter5761 The Bagdad House of Wisdom was were the Islamic scholars got many of their ideas and innovations, it was destroyed by the mongols sadly...

effawefweafawefwefwfqwWQEWEFEYHTYKJYUKUT brute on brute combat

The only ignorance is in the film itself.

Indian libraries also were burnt 🔥 by Abrahamic religious.. They were oldest library.. In earth..

i LOL'd

Rocket? That's no rocket! That's an ICBM with a nuclear warhead! Where it's going, nobody knows~

@@applemauzel An ICBM is a rocket.

@@victorconway444 I don't mean to be the smartass, but the difference between a "rocket" and a "missile" is simple: When the controller/person has no control of the projectile after it leaves the weapon platform, it's a rocket. You simply aim at the target, the projectile leaves the platform and moves on a more-or-less straight line towards the target. When the controller/person does have control of the projectile after it leaves the weapon platform, whether through laser-guided systems, on-board cameras, or even wires hanging from the projectile connecting to the controller (known as wire-guided systems), it's a missile. So in essence, an ICBM is a missile (that's what the M stands for), because we can control its trajectory and course after it leaves the missile silo.

Um, no. That's what makes it a _guided_ missile. The term "rocket" refers to the means of propulsion. A "missile" is any projected weapon - yes, including thrown rocks.

She wasn't a scientist. She didn't even teach science.

@@roboarcado5552 the sciences encompass many fields

@@doubtful_seer And neoplatonist voodoo isn't one of them.

First they change the meaning of the words and then try to take away your voice.

@@roboarcado5552 Much better than Christian voodoo that worships a corpse on a cross.

The story told in the movie has exactly nothing to do with the historical facts.

I saw agora Like 15years ago, and Anger caused by propaganda and false historic image of facts and times, almost drived me to madness

That's the point of the whole film, thanks for putting it clear. Those who think it's anti-christian biassed haven't seen how pagans killed christians in riots or how jews killed christians in the Church....They oddly blame they are victims for being portrayed as anti-scientific, as if they didn't condemned efectively a good part of the ancient knowledge (as every one religion) just because it wasn't part of their ideology. Answering that some Fathers of the Curch knew about pagan world and they preserved it just for love of knowledge it's bullshit...It was preserved just for practical reasons cause could be used to defend Christianity rationally (that's the way it's used in St Agustin's works, who was half of his life a pagan), the rest of works that couldn't be "diggested" as christian where prohibited or presented as false claims if not destroyed.

I know. Paganism and Christianity both gave birth to the modern day Christmas holiday.

People was ofended because this film is portrayed as history and it is everything but such.

I very much agree, godzillavick. Very good observation.

@Baron Von Grijffenbourg as a conservative christian I agree with your comments 100%. Those who claimed to follow the teachings of Jesus have always known the duplicity of Churchers that were built to gain power under the banner of Christianity.

It's what I like to call the "Library of Alexandria Fetish Syndrome", or LAFS. Which basically consists of the argument that 4th century Christians delayed the space age by destroying a temple with no books.

More along the lines of fundamentalists destroying and otherwise prohibiting the scientific method for centuries in an attempt to ensure dominance.

Christians justifying murder and destruction of knowledge, hilarious!

Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus First of all, I am an atheist not a Christian. Second of all I am not trying to justify jack shit, I am merely stating facts. There was most likely no library in Alexandria at all in the 4th century.

marvelfannumber1 I was talking to Alekzander.

Aline G wow I didn't know you could read and write Ancient Greek?

***** I can always learn before I go :p

if there was any, it was likely that they were mostly destroyed by all the destructions and renovations done for the past centuries, but yeah count me in on reading some grade A philosophy.

Aline G Do you speak/read Ancient Greek though?

A German U-Boat If you see the comments up above, another lady asked me this question and I said, "I can always learn before I go."

Too soon

The Library was mostly empty, most of the collection had been sold or relocated to other libraries before it was burned

A question since i found an Egyptian from Alexandria. How do you see us Greeks in Egypt. Do you think that our civilizations are combined and if yes,did Islam change,as Christianity did in Greece? Greetings from Athens.

@@nickpaschentis5284 half Egyptian here ( I guess that counts ?) Most of my Egyptian family members consider Greece the ancient sister country from Europe with so much shared history and mutual influence , but then again they are really into history so perhaps the common man thinks Greece is just another European country . As for the religion stuff , I think it changed mentalities A LOT , and it has definitely left a marked influence . Oh by the way you guys in Greece have the best islands in the world .

@@ahmadtarek7763 Thanks mate,I appreciate your reply. If you ever come to Greece,and don't want to go to usual places. Go to Lepanto (Naupaktos),Corcyra (Corfu),Rodos(Rhodes)or Syros,I promise you won't regret it. And so you know,if we take Religion out,we Greeks consider Egyptians and Romans(Italians) Brothers,and many Egyptians live in Greece. Oh,and Egyptian girls are Pretty.

@@danielmandor483 The whole building was razed to the ground by the mob, contrary to the film. It also no longer contained any scrolls from the Great Library, since sources before 391 refer to the collection in the past tense. There probably wasn't much left of the Great Library by Hypatia's time. Also, astrolabes were used 5 centuries earlier, so she definitely didn't invent them.

@@nickpaschentis5284 I was born and raised in Greece and I've never heard someone say "thanks mate" unless they were imitating someone else. XD And what does the appearance of Egyptian girls have to do with anything?

Only for the religious fanatics to burn it down later. EDIT: replaced "Christian" with "religious". Any religious fanaticism, weather it be Christian, Muslim, Pagan, Jewish, etc., is bad. Religion can be good but too much of it, especially its superstitious beliefs or occasional power-hungry leader, can cause problems down the line.

@@clinton8421 cHrIsTiAnS bAd

Keyboarding all these comments

That would be very interesting.

@@keyboarding5593 Yeah Edward Gibbon's viewpoint has been pretty much debunked.

@Uchiha Obito What if I told you that the movie was propaganda and that the real events described in the original sources indicate that the reverse of this presented situation really took place?

@Karna What if someone eliminated you first?

@Karna you need to retake your English courses again or something, you are truly nearly illiterate

Paul Mayson Then you’d be incorrect.

@@tdoychev720 You don't have to learn English to be considered educated, you can learn French and have a good company hiring you in France, German can benefit you more in the way of Science because most of it was wrote in German. Even Latin if you feel like wasting your timem

Thanks for trying tho

Sorry, man. We Christians are here to stay.

If only you had succeeded!

Tua culpa.

Paganism is still a form of religion tho

And if this destruction of knowledge and history never happened, Nick would be able to tell us how accurate or inaccurate the movie was.

leftists love doing this

Perky Bellsprout #TheLeftDestroysNeverBuilds

Pete W. that’s funny

Okay, who invited the clowns to this comment section?

3 years late but the Library was a shadow of its former self by 378 and other prominent libraries have taken shape centuries earlier in the Mediterranean

6 years late but Constantinople didn't exist when Aurelian was around...

Same here gonna find this movie and buy it. I think Amazon has it. It's incredible christians who behave so benevolently have an ignorant and bloody history of zealotry. Christianity to my understanding is a book of stories plagiarized from other religions.

You better not take this seriously - Agora is full of inaccuracies and downright propaganda.

Not to mention in the 9th and 11th century aswell.

That's still 700 years gone to the dark ages

The True Gamer What do you mean by gone? Because the so-called Dark Ages only referred to Western Europe. Eastern Europe was doing alright and Asia was continuing as before. I mean fuck Chinas golden age was taking place then. Unless you think the world is nothing without Europe then there were no years lost technologically.

wait i thought china was invented in 1860 or something

Thats the point! The sad truth is centuries occurred where the dark ages in Western Europe were rampant.

Toughen up

ur a pussy

*hugs*

I CRY EVERY TIME I HEAR ABOUT HER i'm crying right now her story was too inspirational and her death was too tragic

you didn't about her beacuse she is minor historical figure of which we know very little about. most of what you see in the movie is product of creative freedom

@@MeanOldLady whom ever does it is condemned no matter what was his religion or ethnic or origin, being a muslim doesn't mean that i agree on such act.

Dar al hikma wasent destroyed by Muslims it was destroyed by Turks and mongols

The same thing happen in Indian subcontinent some of the famous universities, libraries like Sharda, Nalanda, Taxila were destroyed by the invading religious fanatics.

@@antonk1524 Darul Hikma was Destroyed by Mongols correct

@@rationalmind3567 Please refer to mean old lady's comment and my answer to it,

You must be ripped

@@lupohutchington269 … hahaha! Not when I watch movies mate!

@@mrpappas10kay54 "Mens sana in corpore sano" Every ancient greek philosopher was trained to be a soldier and got buff at the gym .Also many went to orgies.

@@lupohutchington269 They were also drinking wine ‘cause “In vino veritas” (latin) or ΕΝ ΤΩ ΟΙΝΩ Η ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ (Greek). What’s your point mate?

@@lupohutchington269 by the way is “animus” not “mens”!

And Alexander said ' if I were not Alexander I would be Diogenes' I too have knowledge.

😂

Diogenes was a hobo ultra stoic Philosopher

@Josel Summerfield Diogenes would be very upset to find out that he had better manners than somebody else. But then again, he was from Athens and not from "F off" country.

I agree I wish I had a father like that. At least we have ppl today that challenge conventional societal non-sense Candace Owens, matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro. Thank God.

@@frankdeleon4209 Sure, all of those anti science people are exactly like her father....

The Dark Ages is the name for the early medieval ages. Sorry if the name offends you. And the biggest problem wasn't that the church smothered or suppressed teaching, it was that all the teaching had been lost in the fall of Rome. Society had to completely start over. That's why many of the things that were common knowledge in the ancient era were not figured out until the Renaissance. I don't think Nick is blaming Christianity as much as he is saying how tragic it was that the Roman Empire was destroyed in such a complete and total way.

No, again the Dark Ages is again an archaic term that isn't used by the modern historian. It should be referred to as the Migration Period, which began during the decline of the Western Roman Empire and continued after it, where Germanic Tribes were moving across and settling in its remains, and was a tumultuous time for the European continent. You do make a good point in that with the fall of the WRE there were certain things that were lost to society for a period of time, but to suggest that society had to 'start all over' is completely incorrect. Society continued and flourished, even during the Migration period.

Austin Monreal Society flourishing and society starting over are not two mutually exclusive terms. You know just as well as I do that a lot of the knowledge of the ancients were lost, and was only re-discovered in the Renaissance, 1200 years later.

Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing. When you say, 'society had to start over' I think of the almost apocalyptic sense that historians had in the past concerning the Dark Ages, where society was completely destroyed and they had to start over from the ground up, as if going back a whole age or worse. Is this what you mean, or something else? As to what Nick means, he clearly seems to be blaming the church in the video as the reason for the stagnation of technological and scientific progress, because it was the dominate institution in the west following the fall of the WRE. He was clearly making a parallel between the fanatics of today (ISIS) and the church during the Medieval period.

Austin Monreal I am not talking about the loss of all knowledge, and I am certainly not suggesting its the church faults. I am saying, that because large part of Rome was burnt to the ground, because many historical libraries were destroyed and because many documents were scorched, knowledge was lost, and that is knowledge we did not regain until 1200 years later. And that is the loss. And Nick clearly describes in this video that it was the violent clashes that caused it, and therefore just as much the pagans fault as the Christians. Violence destroyed the libraries. Violence from both sides. And as for your criticism of Nick. I suggest you watch the video again. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NwUwjkEveBE.htmlm42s

Quite right.. and in fact technological and scientific development in Europe continued after the fall of the Western Empire. The moldboard plough for example spread across northern Europe in the 5th or 6th century and three field agriculture developed around this time as well.

Shipmill was also invent in Western Europe by that time as well. Discovery of how rainbow occurs was noticed by clergymen also. The revival of classical knowledges was very in-vogue for so called 'Dark ages'.

The term "Dark Ages" is one that academics refuse to use. The proper term is "Early Middle Ages". One school of thought says that the period wasn't "dark" at all and cites stuff like Gothic architecture, tapestries, and universities as examples why. Another group says that they were only "dark" when compared to Rome and Greece. Neither side will blame Christianity for any kind of technological slow down. If anything the blame for that rests on the shoulders of the Roman government, who feared new tech falling into the hands of barbarians.

Whilst you are right in your statement. Still a LOT of knowledge was lost in those times with the destruction of those places of learning, so there was some inpact. If Alexandria was still going as strong as in the earlier days. A lot of things could have gone differently. But we can never be sure now.

Yeah, but if we had no dark ages, we would have advanced much further. Think of it this way. Until the dark ages, everyone was pretty much evenly matched, with the West having quite a bit of an advantage. The dark ages were exactly that, stagnation and death. The rest of the world was insulated from that, so they kept going. But even the progress of societies such as early Islam even, are due TO the west because of figures like Aristotle and other greeks whose writings survived.

Yeah there are tons of awful people and shitty things

@A Moye That's racist, and because white people expanded a lot more and progressed a lot further than most other cultures. They still weren't very nice for most of recorded history but they tried, oh they tried.

@@accomplisheddiplomat4091 I am not white but I agree, with the exception of their acts in the new world, the white man truly brought some great progress and unity in the world, people saying white people fucked up everything are just racist

Accomplished Diplomacy um expanded yeah they sure did into territories that weren’t there’s and started wars and plagues and most bad parts of history

Chidera Nkameme And also white people did sort of ruin a most of history

The film contains numerous historical inaccuracies:[10][254][256] It inflates Hypatia's achievements[149][256] and incorrectly portrays her as having discovered proof to support Aristarchus of Samos's heliocentric model of the universe, which there is no evidence that Hypatia ever even studied.[149] It also contains a scene based on the final episode from Carl Sagan's Cosmos in which a mob of Christians raid the Serapeum and burn all of the scrolls in it, but leave the building itself largely intact, aside from knocking over a few statues. In historical reality, the Serapeum probably did not have any scrolls in it at the time of its destruction[c] and the Christians completely demolished the building to the ground.[10] The film also strongly implies that Hypatia is an atheist, a notion directly contradictory to the surviving sources, which all portray her as a devoted follower of the teachings of Plotinus, who taught that the goal of philosophy was "a mystical union with the divine."[

Another great inaccuracy is that it failed to acknowledge that the only source of the story Hypatia is from two Christian scholars and it's been written the vast majority of the Christians in the area are horrified at the things that a small Christian sect did. Hypatia's death is more to political wrangling by two ruling governors. Add to that as he briefly touched most of the Library of Alexandria was largely burned and intentionally ransacked by Julius Caesar and his men, who took much of the libraries treasures to Rome and burned the rest, all that is left at the time of the movie is just a small storage room by the temple. So all those books lost to time are all Julius Caesar's fault. The idea that Christianity is against any learning or science or keep records old discoveries is pure bunk. The Christian fathers are well learned of all Hellenistic and Roman teachings, from St Augustine, St. Ambrose and St. Jerome, all are followers of Greek philosophies and all applied it to their theological thinking. During the upheaval of the fall of Rome to the European barbarians, it only the Christian monks and scholars that keep the flame knowledge alive and even added more thoughts and Philosophy than the other religions out there. Science that we have today is based more on the Christian scholastics and Universities developed during the Middle Ages and not the Neo-platonic schools. We should also not forget that the Christian Byzantine empire is thriving at that time is still continuing the it's progress with it's own golden age.

"had a tendecy (sic) to both corrupt and exagerrate (sic) records, particularly when it came to Roman Emperors." You mean like Roman Historians had been doing for centuries? If anything, the monks were more reliable record keepers.

Do you have any examples of monks corrupting or exaggerating Roman records? Sounds like more nonsense.

this movie is brilliant though

I know right! In the span of a half hour I went to not knowing this movie existed, to trying to find it on Netflix

Speaking if Netflix, anyone wanna want to see Marco Polo review? XD

For which he gets sued. Nice one, Egeda

I would love a Marco Polo review from History Buffs. I'm interested in the show, but with my limited spare time I'm not sure I want to devote what little I have to it. History Buffs has a way of getting me curious and eager about history related things, two feelings which had been thoroughly stomped into the dirt by my middle school and high school history teachers many years ago. Lol.

Yeeeeeee

the one with the horses

just saying it went for like 2 minutes which can really drag when it comes to audience retention. I like nick's videos and what he has to say but the intro need to be snipped down

I vehemently disagree. The new intro is fun, short, snappy and to the point. I ain't got the time or patience, honestly, to watch a 1 minute long intro for a show, over and over again. I've seen it once, I get it. I get the idea behind it, it's good intro. Just not appropriate for youtube and it's community.

+FoggyFogzmeister You say that like you're forced to watch it, You can just move your finger and skip it ..

YEA NICE! Zuper-COOL Heir! NARMASTE:})

i vaguely remember hearing about some of your wonders . 'magic pots' those wells, the irrigation and some ancient astronomy towers, not to mention all the spiritual stuff recorded in those 5k yr old texts

Indeed.

Draco lord Theism leads people to deny or have trouble in new scientific advances, leaders try to squander and suppress advancement to keep their power and so no one questions their beliefs. Theism also makes people more likely to believe in ideas without any backing evidence, this hindering scientific advancement and make the scientific method seem not as necessary. In short theism breeds and supports ignorance, all while dividing us evermore due to religious zealotry.

@ Truth underlies all knowledge. One cannot claim to possess knowledge if it is based on false premises. A true Christian should value truth and not fear it because Christ himself claimed to be "the way, the truth, and the life." If Christ is not the truth and what he taught were lies, then as 1 Corinthians 15:19 surmises, Christians are "of all people most to be pitied." By the same token, if an atheist or a secularist claims that there is no truth or that all truth is relative, how can the same person make a respected "truthful" assertion about a Christian believer's ignorance. Indeed, such an extreme skeptical view of truth seems to originate from the same all-too-human reaction to "dangerous" ideas (truth assertions) that we see in this video - fear.

Wow some people don't get my point, what I said then is about the fact extremism whether it is religious or not is bad its not about religion is bad and science is good but rather not being able to question and challenge your beliefs is something a fanatic/extremist would do, its the person who determines and takes in his ideas, not the ideas itself that is the cause because people have understanding and people who misunderstand, misinterprets things.

@Draco lord Like how Cathedrals built greatly increased architectural skills, techniques, and procedures in Europe. You ever heard of Notre Damn?

Saving Private Ryan :)

+History Buffs cool that's my favorite movie on history

+History Buffs Your end statement makes this one of your poorer reviews, you claim this set human advancement back centuries. What proof do you have? As a history buff you must of realized knowledge and ideas are lost and rediscovered throughout human civilization and know that in the end it is all for naught. Yes the steam engine was invented hundreds of years ago but what use was it to humanity then when slaves were cheap and accessible and such technological advancement were just expensive experiments. Your review becomes more speculation than a look at facts, the reason I subbed to you was to get the facts not what could have been, that's what alternative histories channel is for.

Totally subbed. I always get shifty eyed when a film/show gets released based on "real events". Always doing my own digging to see how accurate it all was? Love knowing there's a channel that not only supports the film's art but points out the blatant inaccuracies made b/c Hollywood =p Interesting stuff and much appreciated, man =D

+Albert Veisman That was highly informative and worries me as I like Nick and his efforts to educate us and correct the mistakes made in his film reviews. Thanks for this informative comment.

The simplest thing to do is let it go, and accept focusing on the world as it is now and it could be, rather than endlessly theorizing what it could have been. But I understand your frustration, nonetheless.

People seriously overestimate the importance of the Library in later years

Even if the library wouldn't been destroyed, christianity would have still oppressed of scientific studies and other beliefs. The correct thing to say is; What it Christianity and any other religion would have never grewn too dominative and aggressive that it would have not dictated people's lifes and beliefs, thus slowing down the scientific progress that humankind could have achieved, driving europe to the section of history named the 'dark ages'. One can still only wander and speculate what would have been the alternative course of history as there are so many affecting factors, but i personaly belief that without christianity ever forcibly rising to such dominative role through history, we'd definitely be living in a different kind of world.

​@@Hukkavei yes without one of the absolute cornerstones of western civilization (Christianity) things would be quite different - but in what way - nobody can say

Just because knowledge exists doesn't mean it get accepted. It wasn't just the Christians who had problems with certain knowledge that didn't fit their worldview. Notice that we have large groups of people denying the efficacy of vaccines because it doesn't suit their particular view of science. My point being that was always take a step forward and two steps back as the human race.

The film contains numerous historical inaccuracies:[10][254][256] It inflates Hypatia's achievements[149][256] and incorrectly portrays her as having discovered proof to support Aristarchus of Samos's heliocentric model of the universe, which there is no evidence that Hypatia ever even studied.[149] It also contains a scene based on the final episode from Carl Sagan's Cosmos in which a mob of Christians raid the Serapeum and burn all of the scrolls in it, but leave the building itself largely intact, aside from knocking over a few statues. In historical reality, the Serapeum probably did not have any scrolls in it at the time of its destruction[c] and the Christians completely demolished the building to the ground.[10] The film also strongly implies that Hypatia is an atheist, a notion directly contradictory to the surviving sources, which all portray her as a devoted follower of the teachings of Plotinus, who taught that the goal of philosophy was "a mystical union with the divine."[

@@soheil527 You know your stuff

@@soheil527 , Your name says it all. Ignorant fool

@@Nimmie111 whaaat? dumb beeetch

***** One, no it is not. Just look at the Mongols or the Soviets to see what men can do when not driven by fanaticism. Second, my post was mostly focused on the Eurocentrism of the review's ending, so I would rather discuss that.

***** First, pick how you are going to list your numbers. Either you spell them out or use the numerical symbol, do not alternate. Second, I misspoke. Both the Soviets and the Mongols could be and were fanatical, but they were religious fanatics. Third, who invented gun powder, civil service exams, meritocracy, and paper, just to name a few things? China. Fourth, if you took courses on the origin of Western Civilization, most professors would point to the Mesopotamian city states around six to seven thousand years ago. Fifth, in my first post I am referring to the period around the end of the Western Roman Empire, not modern times, so your examples of the China in modern times does not work. Sixth, I never mention Japan, and I know that until the late nineteenth century it was a shit hole. Seventh, I am confused as to why you are bringing up modern day examples for the modern world, could you please explain to me why you did not use examples from the ancient world to talk about the ancient world? Finally, do not respond if you cannot come up with a mature and well reasoned response that takes into account realities of the ancient world.

China had a few major disadvantages. 1) China was not immune from the destruction of knowledge. Chinese history was wrought with internal and cultural conflicts. While motivated less by religion, often times knowledge of past dynasties and ethnic rulers were discarded, seen as inferior, damaging, etc. 2) Chinese civilization flourished along the large rivers that cut through the country. While very conducive to growth because you can grow insane amounts of rice along these rivers, the location of Chinese civilization centers also placed them relatively far away from sources of coal which was key to industrialization. To assume that there was no attack on knowledge anywhere else in the world is absurd. Every time a new group comes into power, particularly a group that was persecuted by the previous group in power, there will be a loss on knowledge. During the Qin Dynasty, Ancient China was already harnessing the power of Natural Gas. (Granted, the Emperor also took Mercury to try to live forever...) Over the years, technology and science was gained, and then lost as Warlords and Emperors fought time and time again. Not to mention China had an extreme isolationist policy towards outsiders, which stagnates technological and scientific growth as more often than not, it is stimulated by the exchange of ideas. It's why the Romans were so good at it, they took over everyone rather than kill everybody.

***** First, yes. Any college that teaches Western History has courses on the origin of Western Civilization. Second, yes I have taken courses that cover the beginnings of Western Civilization. Third, what is with the sass, if you have a problem with people citing their college courses taught by people who study these subjects for all of their lives then say so. Fourth, I do not have a China fetish I just want to point out that China gave the world a lot of technological advances and thus prove you wrong by showing that it was not just the West that advanced the technology of the world. Fifth, real mature come back. Sixth, I know that the Roman Empire did not end with the Western Roman Empire. I love the Eastern Roman Empire's history post the fall of the Western Empire. Finally, with the Eastern Roman Empire a lot of the technology and ideas from the previous thousands of years were preserved under Christian leaders.

Charlie Wu My argument with China was that at the same time the Western Roman Empire was falling apart, other areas of the world were doing just fine. Also, during the European Dark Ages many other areas of the world were still advancing their technology. I am not saying those other areas did not have problems or disasters, I am just saying that looking at the situation as the Christian fanatics ruined everything is wrong, since other areas of the world were doing fine.

I'm not the original author, but let me comment on a few points myself. "A. As other commenters have pointed out, saying that we would be more technologically advanced today if Christianity hadn't hit the scene is simply false. Rome was on its way down due to a wide variety of factors that had little to do with what its state religion was. Not to mention the fact that, following the same logic, there are several other cultures in the world that should have technologically out-grown Europe by a wide margin during the Dark Ages." I don't agree. First, Rome didn't fall suddenly one day, it lasted several centuries after the birth of Christianity: and yet in those four centuries and 3/4 there is not a single Christian scientist, strike that, there is no single Christian scientist for the first _eleven_ centuries of Christian history, why is that? I mean, for 4.75 centuries the Christian live _next_ to Pagan scientist and yet they do not produce a single scientist or discovery, why? Second, nobody ever said that always and everywhere the blame of the decline of science is to be put on Christianity, elsewhere (China, India, Islamic contries) there are other reasons; but as for Europe we _know_ that Christians were not intrested in science and technology, so we must put the blame on it. "B. The Dark Ages are not called that because science and technology ground to a complete halt. They're called that because there are very few records that survived the time period, so outside of major events, we don't really know much about what happened." Wrong, they were called "Dark Ages" because they were "darker" than the splendour of the Classic civilization, from a material and cultural point of view; so much that the little bounce in the age of Charlemagne is called "Carolingian _renaissance_", and not because they had more written records. Furthermore, it's true that we have many fewer records of that period than the previous one, yet we have no clue whatsoever that the material or cultural level of the Dark Ages were on par with those of the Classic period. "In fact, many historians these days limit their use of the term or avoid using it altogether, specifically to prevent people getting the wrong idea about the time period." Because it is an interesting period. But no historian claims that, again, the technological and cultural levels of the Early Middle Ages were on par with those of the Classic period. "C. Christians were actually the ones keeping philosophy, learning, and libraries alive during the Dark Ages via their monastaries. Monastic records form most of what we know about that time period, so it's inaccurate to say that Christianity was responsible for and helped maintain the Dark Ages. Furthermore, the actions taken by the Christians in the events of Agora, while reprehensible, do not represent the religion or it's followers as a whole. As other commenters have pointed out, there are several noted Christian scholars from this time period who you seem to have completely ignored. Now, I'm not saying that Christianity or its followers are or ever were perfect, but to suggest that they were almost single-handedly responsible for the Fall of Rome, and that they intentionally held European scientific progress back is patently absurd." Wrong on several accounts. 1) there is no single Christian scientist in the first eleven centuries of Christian history. Christian "scholars" were interested in theology, not science. That's why Christians preferred killing each other (and the Jews and the Pagans) as shown in Agora, rather than studying science. People like "St." Basil and "St." Augustine preferred the study of theology to that of astronomy and natural philosophy (i.e. science). 2) The vast majority of Ancient books has been lost because the Church was not interested in copying them; so if the Church takes credit for the books the monks preserved, it must also be blamed for the much greater number of books they did not copy because they were busy in copying the thousandth copy of the Bible, or because they were not interested in science. 3) A great number of ancient books we have _today_ comes from Eastern Mediterranean, Islamic or archeological finds; hell, even the original text of the New Testament had been lost by the monks, who kept copying the inferior Latin version! "Sorry, rant over, I just get really tired of people repeating these same tired old myths about the dark ages over and over." I'm sorry too, but even if many people know little about the Dark Ages, that does not mean they did not exist, nor that Christianity had nothing to do with their dislike for science.

I never stated that Rome fell in one day. In fact, I think my saying that it "was on its way down" would insinuate the opposite. The lack of interest in science and technology following the fall of Rome had little to do with Christianity and more to do with the fact that the dominant power in Europe had recently collapsed. In general, people were more focused on survival than the sciences. Those who could afford to explore the sciences had to prioritize pragmatism over the abstract. This lasted until Charlemagne (a Christian) founded the Holy Roman Empire and began the Carlignian Renaissance, during which he worked with Christian monks like Alcuin of York to expand education and the sciences. Also, you're saying there wasn't a single Christian scientist in it's first 1,100 years? In that time, there was Anthemius of Tralles, John Philoponus, Paul of Aegina, and St. Bede, to name a few. In the Dark Ages, there was a substantial movement within the church to learn from the Latin texts of Rome, however, Greek was largely considered the language of academia back in Roman times, and since ancient Greek had more-or-less been forgotten as a language by this point, things were difficult for early medieval scientists and philosophers. And while it is true that monasteries placed a greater emphasis on Christian texts than ancient Roman ones, it's not as if they abhorred the ancient texts or didn't value their wisdom.

"I never stated that Rome fell in one day. In fact, I think my saying that it "was on its way down" would insinuate the opposite. The lack of interest in science and technology following the fall of Rome had little to do with Christianity and more to do with the fact that the dominant power in Europe had recently collapsed." The reason why I underlined Rome did not fall in one day is that in the 450 from the birth of Christianity to the fall of the WRE Christianity gave no contribution to science. In a period in which we have Pagan scientists, we have no Christian ones. What's the reason for this? I say Christian disinterest in science. "In general, people were more focused on survival than the sciences. Those who could afford to explore the sciences had to prioritize pragmatism over the abstract." But when they did not need to focus on survival, they preferred to study a lot of theology and no science at all. Why is that? I say Christian disinterest in science. "This lasted until Charlemagne (a Christian) founded the Holy Roman Empire and began the Carlignian Renaissance, during which he worked with Christian monks like Alcuin of York to expand education and the sciences." Right. And yet the scientific production in the Carolingian Renaissance is close to nihil. Why is that? I say Christian disinterest in science. "Also, you're saying there wasn't a single Christian scientist in it's first 1,100 years? In that time, there was Anthemius of Tralles, John Philoponus, Paul of Aegina, and St. Bede, to name a few." THANK YOU! You are the first who can name a shred of Christian scientist before the 11th century! I've asked that countless times, and nobody could give me a single name! However, Anthemius and John lived before the beginning of the Dark Ages in the Eastern Roman Empire (something that happened a little later w.r.t the WRE), and I am not sure why you consider Paul and Bede scientists "In the Dark Ages, there was a substantial movement within the church to learn from the Latin texts of Rome, however, Greek was largely considered the language of academia back in Roman times, and since ancient Greek had more-or-less been forgotten as a language by this point, things were difficult for early medieval scientists and philosophers." I agree with that. Yet this had not been the case in the first 4.5 centuries of Christian history, and yet no Christian scientist exist from that age (that I know about, at least), why is that? Also, when the knowledge of Greek was fading in the West, people like Jerome did translate religious texts from Greek to Latin, but no scientific ones, why is that? I say Christian disinterest in science. "And while it is true that monasteries placed a greater emphasis on Christian texts than ancient Roman ones, it's not as if they abhorred the ancient texts or didn't value their wisdom." Yet let the majority of the books containing that wisdom to become dust. And don't forget that they even erased scientific books to write religious hymns on them!

A far more likely reason for the lack of contribution to science in the early days of Christianity is due to the fact that it was a relatively small religion (early on, at least) and prioritized defining and propagating itself over scientific pursuits (which are reasonable actions for a nascent religious organization to take). And, even in these early days, most authorities within the church did not have a problem with science and philosophy simply because they had pagan roots. In fact, one of the Church Fathers, Origen, actively promoted the reading of these texts. By the time of the Early Middle Ages, the Church was the primary driving force behind the creation of hospitals and handling medical care in the East, and in the west, clergy and monks constituted the vast majority of educated people. If there was such a disinterest in science, as you claim, then why would the church bother instructing its officials in anything more than reading Latin and knowing how to calculate holy days? Why would it bother trying to learn from ancient Greek and Latin texts? How could any of the scientists I have already mentioned have advanced in their respective fields? Not only did the Church aid in preserving knowledge during the early Middle Ages, but it was, by and large, responsible for the expansion of knowledge in Europe during this time and for much of time afterward. I provided multiple examples of Christians who did focus on science in addition to theology in the early medieval period, in addition to explaining that, while there was an interest within the church in learning from the ancients, the fact that ancient Greek had declined as a language prevented them from making as much headway as we've made in the years since. Given all this, I'm not sure where your arguments for a "Christian disinterest in science" are coming from. I'm also not sure why you describe the Carolignian Renaissance as having next-to-no scientific production, as it directly contributed to the High Middle Ages and subsequent renaissance (unless you're arguing that those would've happened regardless of the CR). I'm not sure what bearing the fact that Anthemius and John lived before the Dark Ages has on anything; you specifically asked for Christian scientists who lived before 1100 AD, not Christian scientists of the Dark Ages. To answer the question of why I included them, Paul of Aegina developed many surgical techniques and authored the Medical Compendium in Seven Books, which was a definitive book on the subject of medicine for hundreds of years. St. Bede focused primarily on the natural world, making discoveries on the nature of mathematics, astronomy, and tides. You're moving the goalposts from 1,100 years to 450 years? Alright, in that case, I would point out that Christianity was an officially persecuted religion until 313 AD, so for most of the time period you mentioned, it's doubtful that any Christian scientists who may have existed would have publicly declared themselves as such. Additionally, Jerome lived long before the time period we're talking about; though if I had to hazard a guess at his intentions, I would assume that he didn't foresee the decline of ancient Greek as a language, and therefore saw no reason to translate other ancient texts. Given the subtle mutability inherent to the nature of language, I don't think this is an outlandish assumption to make. I could only find one instance of Christian monks overwriting ancient texts with hymns and prayers (specifically concerning Archimedes Palimpsest), so I can only assume that this was an extremely rare occurrence. I also found no direct evidence to substantiate your claim that monks "let the majority of the books containing wisdom to become dust." Could you provide some?

". If there was such a disinterest in science, as you claim, then why would the church bother instructing its officials in anything more than reading Latin and knowing how to calculate holy days? Why would it bother trying to learn from ancient Greek and Latin texts? How could any of the scientists I have already mentioned have advanced in their respective fields?" If there was so much interest in science, why so few scientists? If Origen suggested to study science, why not a single Christian scientist in the West and so few and so late (w.r.t. Origen) in the East? "the fact that ancient Greek had declined as a language prevented them from making as much headway as we've made in the years since" The Christian you cited were all Eastern Romans, they actually knew Greek because it was their language. So why so few scholars? "Alright, in that case, I would point out that Christianity was an officially persecuted religion until 313 AD, so for most of the time period you mentioned, it's doubtful that any Christian scientists who may have existed would have publicly declared themselves as such." So you are claiming there were Christian scientists, but we simply don't know they were Christians, right? This position has several problems 1) we know of several Christians, who had no problems to make their faith known, yet _none_ of them is a scientist or shows any interest in science 2) Christianity was persecuted, yes, but persecution wasn't so strong, if it grew to become the religion of 15% of the population by 313 3) once it became a legal religion and then the official religion, we have no news of scientists coming out of the shadows to reveal they were Christians "Jerome lived long before the time period we're talking about; though if I had to hazard a guess at his intentions, I would assume that he didn't foresee the decline of ancient Greek as a language, and therefore saw no reason to translate other ancient texts." Yet he felt the need to translate the Bible, why? Either he perceived that Greek knowledge in the West was not in danger, then why did he translate the Bible, or he thought fewer and fewer people knew that language, then why did he (or other people like him) did not translate scientific books into Latin? "I also found no direct evidence to substantiate your claim that monks "let the majority of the books containing wisdom to become dust." Could you provide some?" Sure. We have the list of the books in the library of Photius, who was a Christian bishop at the beginning of the age in which Christians had the monopoly of culture; and we know he did possess several books we have not (I believe we miss most of his library). So Christian copiers of the age (they must be Christians because there were only Christians at the time) did not copy those books. We have books from late Antiquity(I'm thinking about the Deipnosophistae) which list books from authors that were available at a time in which there were many Christians, yet none of them arrived to our age. We know of Pagan Roman senators producing critical editions of books such as the Stories of Livy, and we know several of those books got lost. We have several books of science of which we have the first volumes but not the last, for example... and so on.

I saw it when I was quite young with my father. I didn't quite understand what was happening throughout the whole movie, but I remember my dad explaining why they were burning books and why it was such a tragedy and I remember feeling really sad at the enormous waste that fell upon the library.

Knowledge can't be destroy. It's always there waiting for the right seeker. That is why it's called a discovery and not an invention. Everything is impermanent, just hope that distant future, archaeologist find our fossil and know that "we" existed; Like the neanderthal or dinosaurs.

@@RmcBlueSky Right. But starting over and over again, however adventurous and time consuming, would be frustrating. Just like kicking over an anthill.

All I had to see was the one scene with the library and I already am

Kyle Ray we do start over and over again though, it is a historical fact, most nations repeat their history every 20 years, as new generations start making decisions. We have gotten better over time, but we might regress in the future, it is uncertain for sure. People like to think that most knowledge from the library of Alexandria was lost, but I do wonder how much we have discovered again over time, and what was actually preserved and not lost.

This film shows the exact point which, in my opinion, the Dark Ages began.

I wished I lived in ancient times-to be able to witness debates that becomes the cornerstone of human civilizations to come. Would have been wondrous.

@@Heidenspross Christians, Judaism, Islam, Catholics. All those Abrahamic style religions did was fuck over the world.

@@crassus300 Islam is exception. Can you tell me how Islam vanished science. On the contrary, islam boosted science with several scholars like Biruni in ıts early ages. After the mongol and curasader invasions, scientific studies were diseppeared thanks to christianity again. Who us in charge???

@@mehmetsadinkara705 Islam is not an exception. The "golden" age of islam is extremely overrated. It was also a very brief period of time. Islam has a very bloody and oppressive history

All of them have exceptions Christianity has the renaissance Islam has the Golden Age and Judaism the period before Rome but all have there Dark ages literally Islam has things like Daesh and the Taliban while Christians have fanatics that hate things shown in the movie and the dark ages and Jews hated Early Christians

@@mehmetsadinkara705 What are you on about? The Islamic golden age was only kickstarted by Al-Ma'mun, who translated Anicient Greek philosophy. Only after the Abbasid Caliphate collapsed, all of the progress was reduced to naught after Al-Ghazali started to condemn Aristotle's teachings. Ever since then it has considered any form of science as Haram.

Cringe 😬

I can't watch it anymore. A great film, but a terrible one nonetheless.

Boo to those people! This joke is thr essence of genius! Huzzah good sir.. i tip my cap!

I am afraid of some sweaters.. angora phobic. Frightened by West Africa countries. Angola phobic. Jump when I hear a single snort 'A Snore aphobia'

Hahaha

Just go to any comments section on a video about Israel or religion (or don't, that's probably the best move). I bet you will be surprised.

ya, it sure did bring out all of the anti-theists and fundamentalist out of the woodworks didn't it?

You just described the Taiping Rebellion in China between the Taiping Heavily Kingdom (a strange type of Christianity) and the Qing Dynasty (traditional Chinese beliefs). No Jews involved (although there was and still is a small Chinese Jewish community in that part of China).

What about the Pythagorian cult? Or the Christians vs Native Americans? European Christians vs the European pagans? There's a shit ton.

Because every time Christians have historically put people through absolute SHIT... they put the blame on the Jews.

because Catholics

I think you'll find modern conflicts more entertaining than the ancient ones mentioned in the comments, so let's name a few. How about Hindu-Muslim violence in modern India, Pakistan and their border regions. Those have been very high-profile and inflamed incidents that have even at times featured in the western media. Japanese buddhist extremists. Ōmu Shinrikyō as the primary example. They did a sarin attack in the Tokyo metro some 20 years ago, and have generally been aggressive. Boko Haram, an organisation of islamist extremists that are VERY violently opposing the other muslims and christians living in Nigeria. And just to top the short list off, there is the massacre of the cave of the Patriarch, which was committed by a Zionist (Jewish) extremist belonging to the Kach movement against muslim Palestinians.

Wasn't Cyril the pope of the Coptic church though, not the Catholic church? Catholicism far as I'm aware, aside from stuff like the Inquisition and their treatment of the Cathars has usually been the more tolerant when it comes to philosophy and science. So that doesn't surprise me. What the movie was trying to get across though is the clash between I guess Religious fundamentalism, and philosophy and science. Least that's what it seemed like to me.

Cordoba at the time of Muslim rule was one of the most educated places in the world. Atleast before the rebellions started that split up the emirate and all the other shit afterwards. I hope someone makes a serie about that time. From the Visigoths, the Muslims, the reconquista. In the hands of a good director it could be so interesting.

Emmett Leone-Woods great comment.

The Inquisition was far greater and better behaved that most people believe. At that time there wasn't a Schism between the seets, so they were (and still are) Coptic Catholics. There is not one piece of historical reference to support the idea that Cyril was being inflamatory. On the contrary, he was defending his people from jewish and pagan mobs.

meh, inquisition was one of the plagues made by us, but... to be fair, they saved more "witches" that they burn. Catholic church, with some (big) exceptions has been a force of good

Thanks man. Although I would highly recommend you research more into it. Unfortunately this is a complicated period of history and I had to condense a lot of it within 30minutes. However it is fascinating stuff. Wish you the best of luck 😃

Thanks man and keep up the good work!

What about making a video dedicated only to the history behind the movie?

how about a review of master and commander?

Agreed! Master & Commander!

Do you have a link for that work? I'd love to read it.

Thank you Thomas, I completely understand your reservations. I also came across the story of the Serapeum being destroyed by either Roman soldiers or by a mob of Christians. Unfortunately I was unable to find more evidence supporting the soldiers attacking but at the end of the day they both seemed to have had the blessing of Theodosius. I made a choice to lean towards the Christian mob account Also another story I came across was that Muslims might have responsible for the destruction of the library or at least an incarnation of it. However I don't believe it. Not because I don't believe they are capable of doing such a thing but from the colorful language they used in the sources. Like the fact the fact the library burned day and night for six months, which sounds like complete rubbish to me. I didn't mention it because of time constraints. If I had any regrets with this review, it was that I didn't go into further detail with my statement of the Dark Ages. Now in my opinion I view the time after the Fall of the Roman Empire a darker age. The standard of living went down as well literacy. The world in the eyes of the common man became smaller and the Church was the dominant institution that regulated what was okay and what was not okay. However that doesn't mean that there was no progress being made at all otherwise we never would have progressed as a civilization. There were monks who preserved ancient text and the Byzantine Empire still kept the tradition of libraries going and etc. Now why did I not go into further detail about this? Because I was wrapping up a review that was long enough as it is and I didn't realize that me calling the middle ages the dark ages would be so controversial. So in future I am going to try and be as specific as possible. In any case this is just my opinion and I would highly encourage any one interested in this period to research more into this and draw your own conclusions. It truly is fascinating stuff. But in any case Thomas thank you very much for criticizing my video in a friendly and polite way. I welcome discussions of this to be made in the comment section in exactly the same manner you executed. Personally I prefer these sort of comments rather than people telling me to change the intro lol :)

Wow I did not expect you to personally respond. (: Thank you for your response it means a lot. It also proves that you really put your money where your mouth is. You are right it is just like Hypatia said in the movie. We have more in common than we have differences. And I think it can also be said that in God's eyes all men are brothers. If you ever get the chance could you do me a favor and review the Scarlett and the Black?

Nick, IMO, you probably would have gotten a bit less flak if you hadn't explicitly claimed that the Dark Ages lasted 800 years. And you also stated things as facts which were at best speculation (that is, that Serapeum still contained a remnant of the library at the time of its destruction).

Actually I think that papyrus would burn very quickly. I am with Nick so far as I agree that the remains of the library was probably gone long before the Islamic conquests.

Because Reddit is the source for historical knowledge?

Christian Constantinople even had a woman (Anna Komnena) write her own Iliad-like book about the history of her family's lineage and father's reign, and really the "Dark Ages" was always pejorative since that's how Plutarch, who essentially popularised the idea, intended it

@@blixer8384 The Latin West forgot Greek, the "Byzantine" East did not--they kept the flame of Classical wisdom alive, and expanded it.

@@blixer8384 RU-vid comment section is among the worst forms of communication.

i refer to the dark ages is the time when western roman falls to the age of charlamagne

Don't do cheri-picking with your saints mate say all the truth about vasil he was hating Greek philosophy

It's weird

Good to know more brazilians watch History Buffs

Pedro Mattos Ev i'm portuguese...

+André Silva ops... sorry

Pedro Mattos Ev not a problem, but could you not seen the simpsons image with the flag behind?

Good new for you, the internet exists and so does most of that knowledge and more. Keep the soul as i'm afraid it's existence is just as your willingness to learn, is not existent.

Lol yeah i laughed at that.

Well, a literal interpretation of the Bible isn't much better

yeah, it's like when people say that christians who hate gays aren't real christians when it's really the other way around.

*Quran

+AbsoluteGinger Yes but there isn't a Christian state killing infidels

Interesting all fine points indeed. But you must admit, there were a few centuries (Perhaps not 800) but a few that Western Europe did trail a bit behind in terms of knowledge and such compared to other places at the time. Some members of the Churches' became corrupt and their hold on the many peasants lives a further degradation. Yes indeed from the Rennisances to the few who saw beyond what was and studied and researched more its not as many thing. But Medieval Europe compared to other places was a downgrade after the Fall of Rome.

First off, I really appreciate your input. I hope you don't take my next comment as an attempt to take down yours. I'm passionate about open discussion. Well, you do make the assumption here that paesants' lives were much better in antiquity than in medieval times. I don't want to make that assumption without further reference. There were times during this long period at which life could be tough, but I don't think a loss of ancient knowledge has caused this. In fact it could well be argued that some of the big problems in Medieval Europe were caused by the progression of technology and the increase in agricultural yields and consequental population increase (or decrease when the carrying capacity was reached) which could have profound economical effects affecting standards of living. What I would want to admit is that the Migration Period was very disruptive. And maybe there was some knowledge loss. But my feeling is, from the things I've read, that it wasn't as much a backward place and period as is often portrayed and in the minds of many contemporary people. I think one of the problems is we don't know as much about the period, because source material is rather scarce. This is true for the 500-1000 AD period. And theirafter main sources are often chroniclers, which often made very 'coloured' accounts. We simply don't have the same quality of sources we have for antiquity and this can potentially blur and distort our image to great extents. The scarcity of preserved source material for these centuries often makes people feel like this was an empty or downgrade period. Let me stress I'm no expert. I did a subsidiary subject in my Biology study about Medieval Europe, but besides that I'm an amateur historian at best. Still I know for sure we should be careful to put names on periods that can easily and quickly paint our views on such periods. There is another assumption in your statement of members of Church becoming corrupt. Namely that in other periods the amount of corruption was significantly less and something inherent about the so called 'Dark Ages' caused members of the Clergy to become corrupt. I think corruption is of all ages. I really doubt if any priest in antiquity couldn't be just as corrupt. And I want to stress the Catholic church was not against science in the way we often portray it. Science was in that time not even a concept as we have it today. The whole attitude towards knowledge was incredibly different from ours, and it is hard to empathize. This also makes it incredibly hard to imagine how a time was compared to any other, especially one we are very familiar with (our modern society). I think it's a bit problematic to measure knowledge and what inventions/developments/knowledge is worth more than any other. How do you compare the invention of the movable type (China 1040) with the Allegory of the Cave by Plato? What would the impact have been if certain concepts weren't discovered at a certain time? What other things might be impacted that would have progressed later, or in other ways? Would this possibly have opened a vacuum for other concepts to be explored? How are all of these things painted by what we still use today? What about concepts that we deem less, while maybe it could prove very valuable in ways we cannot imagine? And often the Church was a centerpoint in the gathering of knowledge. Throughout the Middle Ages the copying of books by monks was the main source of information spreading, and this was pivotal in the transgression of Eastern and Arabian knowledge to the west. Furthermore universities are originally institutes of the Church. Yes the Church could be picky, so to say, in some areas of knowledge. But without even noticing, probably so are we today. And the inquisition, oftentimes popping in mind when thinking about the Church being opposed to science somehow, was maybe more a political than a religious or anti-scientific phenomena. The inquisition became what we think of it today at the end of the Middle Ages, as a reaction to the Protestant-Reformation. Before that it was mostly another justice department like any other in that world. Not the fundamentalist institute it would become and what we remember now. The Church did not claim a monopoly to knowledge, it did step forward as an institute to pose and give meaning to certain things. Today we maybe don't have an institute comparable to that. We don't really have any institute actively determining this. We have scientific consensus. But in a time where communication wasn't as quick, it would be highly cumbersome to figure out what the consensus on certain things could be. Imagine we would not be able to communicate as instantly as we can today, how do we give meaning to all the things everybody is shouting into this world? Why would the scientist in your village be less right than the one living on the other side of the sea/mountains? And think about language barriers scattering communication. This is where the Church would play an important role to the society. It would provide an alternative for consensus in determining what to value and what not. Of course the Middle Ages weren't as scientific as our contemporary society. But I honestly think that by using names like Dark Ages, especially when referring to periods multiple times larger as what we now think of as the modern age, is dangerous; because it prevents us to keep an open view and to keep looking and digging deeper.

Western Europe perhaps. Eastern Europe remained virtually the same considering the Roman Empire was still there. Spain and Italy would also have a very good literary culture during the early middle ages. Not to mention the Carolingian Renaissance in the 8th-9th century.

Yes, I very much agree with you.

JuanHans Oh do not worry I didn't take your statement that way as all, I am practically breathing a sigh of relief that I can have an actual intellectual discussion without some mouth breathing internet moron yelling about inaccurate and incorrect historical facts that they know nothing about. Yes yes and yes you are very correct on most of your statements. I too believe that catch all phrase the dark ages is not the correct phrase to represent the time period. I believe it gained traction as some historians and some people attempted to show off a "Superiority complex" in how advanced Europe was compared to other groups or religions at the times and some respond by generalizing some instances of the time periods of Medieval Europe. It all came down to accusations and finger pointing that spread from what I saw but it was inaccurate overall. I was mainly saddened by the time Europe was in during the First Crusade and their actions in Jerusalem and Constantinople, the latter being a city filled with universities, museums, and the like and a large portion of the Crusaders having no idea what they even were and destroying them. I get sad I imagine the utter destruction of human knowledge in these pointless conflicts, whether it was the Great Library of Alexandria, the Great Library of Constantinople, and of course the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, the burning of a book intentionally to destroy information should be a crime in my personal opinion. I weep for all of the ancient things getting destroyed by those ISIS bastards. . .

Personally I find the term dark ages to be appropriate following the immediate downfall of the Roman Empire. Standard of living went down as well as literacy. Now when I use the term Dark Ages, I don't see Western Europe as becoming a Wasteland from the Mad Max series. Of course there were advances in learning made in the Middle Ages, otherwise we never would have gotten to the Renaissance. And there were Christian monks who were responsible for protecting a lot of Ancient texts during this period. But compared to antiquity, I see it as certainly a darker age. However this is the conclusion I have made but I welcome you guys discussing it in the comment section 😃. If someone walks away from your comments and researches it on their volition than that's awesome! I wish I had enough time to put down everything I researched but up to 30minutes is all I can do.

Thanks for the reply! And it definitely *is* a darker age, I agree with you there. And the final destruction of the Library of Alexandria is a great example of how fundamentalism can destroy science. It's a real issue. But I feel like the way you laid it on so thickly at the end of the video felt like it fell into the "religion set science back thousands of years" nonsense that you see coming from the mouths of people who know no history at all. The downfall of Rome definitely cause quality of life to fall, but Fundamentalists didn't destroy Rome. The Visigoths did. And if it weren't for the Christian monks that protected the texts, things would have ended up far worse than they did.

The problem with the term Dark Ages mostly stems from it being inaccurate and Eurocentric. Western Europe immediatly following the downfall of the (Western) Roman Empire was struggling but if you look at regions like Spain and Italy they were generally quite unchanged. Especially Italy which flourished under the Ostrogoths. Education for the average european also became much more widely available for lower class people than under the Western Roman Empire. Then in Eastern Europe the Roman Empire was still around and were doing really well up until the 6th century when the plague showed up and Constantinople would continue to be a center of learning all the way up until the late 12th century. Then there is the whole Euro centric issue regarding the term. Because the rest of the world continued mostly like it did before. China was going through it's golden age during the Tang and Song dynasties, the Islamic golden age made multiple sciencetific advances etc.

Thank you, I thought I was the only one who was thrown off by the rant. The term "Dark Age" is just a completely useless term, even when describing the era of the immediate downfall of the Roman Empire. It totally ignores how the collapse of Rome may have had deeper consequences in one location than it did in another location. It ignores how the fall of Rome might have affected people differently. It gives no real indication about what really is "dark." Are we just talking about the decline of education and literacy? Are we just talking about the decline of more advanced mathematics and philosophy? Are we talking about economic decline? Are we talking about political and organizational decline? When we use the term "dark ages" are we considering the overwhelming majority of the population which are rural farmers, or are we only really considering the established elite? Also, by calling it a "dark age" are we taking the side of the Romans? Are we implying that the best interests of the Goths and other Germanic tribes are somehow lesser than out poor Romans (the good guys)? Are we implying that this "dark age" came out of the blue and isn't the result of Roman corruption and mishandling of social shifts which had been happening for centuries? Furthermore, if we accept that the era immediately following Rome's collapse is the "dark ages", when did the light return? I mean Augustine of Hippo finishes De Civitate Dei in 426 B.C.E., its a pretty monumental way of considering collapse as a concept and certainly has merit as a work of philosophy as well as theology. If Tertullian can damn Late Antique Christianity as being fanatical, why cant Augustine redeem them? What about early Irish monasticism or the 7th century writing of Bede? Maybe we will call the Carolingian Renaissance of the late 8th century brought light back? How about the Ottonian Renaissance? Or, do we really have to wait until the Italian Renaissance to close out Dark Ages? Was life really so much better after the relearned how to cast large quantities of bronze or remake concrete? Finally, to what extent does the term "dark age" stunt out ability to explore the concept of collapse. Consider that during the era of Constantine (a time or Roman reinvigoration), the only woman who really makes it into the history books is Constantine's mother, Helena, and she is only really known for going on an elaborate shopping trip in Jerusalem. As Rome begins to crumble in the early 5th century you have the empire essentially run (for a time anyway) by two women, Pulcheria and Galla Placidia. Women would continue to have an somewhat more expanded role in Europe amongst the German tribes themselves, Amalasuntha for example. Women would even play a huge role encouraging their royal husbands to convert to Christianity, I'm looking at you Clovis. Is the collapse of Rome a "dark age" for women? Not really. One of the most important and competent men in Rome during the collapse was a half-Vandal named Stilicho, would a half-vandal have that much opportunity in Constantine's era? Probably not. So it isn't a dark age for Germans. So maybe what we call collapse, what we call "dark age" is just our bias. It is outsiders becoming insiders and insiders becoming outsiders. Who are we to portray that so negatively?

So many keyboard "historians" who cant wait to jump at the chance to look better at each other. Jesus.

Not only orthodox but catholic too, Back then there weren't orthodox or catholics

​@@Isaiflamandyeah they both existed at the time and were actually united

The last days of the Western Roman Empire.

aaah like that, yeah I suppose you could make that statement.

I think you know what he means

or last days of the unified empire, because the split happens near the end of the movie

he should have been more clear imo. also he repeats the narrative that the dark ages were stagnant etc. that's not commonly accepted anymore, old enlightenment propaganda.

Most people didn’t know how to read so it was easy to convince them that Hypatia was a witch and burn all the scrolls because they don’t seem that important

what would he have achieved earlier? the earlier complete destruction of the earth? the earlier mechanized warfare? earlier mechanized genocide? an earlier exploitation of labor by corporations? the earlier massive rise in mental health issues stemming from the hell that is modern life?

@menkrep1337 bot If you can't communicate in decent English, don't bother trying in the first place.

@@God-mb8wi Well if religion was just a footnote and that studying the great mysteries of the universe was valued, we probably wouldn't have half as many wars. :S

@@michaelblower7363 you do know that only 7 percent of all wars have been religious right.. The other 93 percent have been secular

Please, listen to this man

Yes please!!!

yes please do

yess

Is it good?

Times change but not people sir.

Except Ceril wasn't even there and did not care about her. The movie is just flat wrong

​@@saintjames1995I'm asking in good faith, you have some sources to dispute this?

@@ASTROPLANET13 THERE was a woman at Alexandria named Hypatia, daughter of the philosopher Theon, who made such attainments in literature and science, as to far surpass all the philosophers of her own time. Having succeeded to the school of Plato and Plotinus, she explained the principles of philosophy to her auditors, many of whom came from a distance to receive her instructions. On account of the self-possession and ease of manner, which she had acquired in consequence of the cultivation of her mind, she not unfrequently appeared in public in presence of the magistrates. Neither did she feel abashed in coming to an assembly of men. For all men on account of her extraordinary dignity and virtue admired her the more. Yet even she fell a victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed. For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes, it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop. Some of them therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home, and dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her with tiles. After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burnt them. This affair brought not the least opprobrium, not only upon Cyril, but also upon the whole Alexandrian church. And surely nothing can be farther from the spirit of Christianity than the allowance of massacres, fights, and transactions of that sort. This happened in the month of March during Lent, in the fourth year of Cyril's episcopate, under the tenth consulate of Honorius, and the sixth of Theodosius. Translation as in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers From Socrates scholasticus who lived near her

Yeah, keep finding excuses. How about you answer for the death of Hypatia? Or maybe not. Human lives have never been religion's forte, when it's not of their own.

"Research of nature and thus creation was an actively encourage[d] endeavor," as long as it didn't conflict with official church doctrine. You want to breed plants? Cool! You want to claim that the earth is not the center of the universe? We'll just ban everything you ever wrote and put you under house arrest. (unless we get to burn you at the stake). Not to mention the fact that the church established a pretty strong monopoly on literacy, and was thus able to steer scientific advancement. A monk would never think of challenging the idea that God created all the animals, so nobody did.

GoErikTheRed "You want to claim that the earth is not the center of the universe? We'll just ban everything you ever wrote and put you under house arrest. " Bwahahahahahaha. Get an education, then come back once the name "Copernicus" rings any bells. And no, his writings were never banned during his lifetime, in fact, he was highly encouraged by Cardinals to lecture on his hypothesis. Oh, and want to know the biggest insult to you? Copernicus was a cleric himself. His book was banned LATER, long after his death, during the counterreformation, which just so happens to be far more driven by fear of loss of very secular influence. "Not to mention the fact that the church established a pretty strong monopoly on literacy, and was thus able to steer scientific advancement. " Not to mention that that's yet more bullshit you are making up. The Church had an almost-monopoly on literacy in the early middle ages quite simply because few others bothered to learn. That changed very quickly with the rise of the cities, but have fun deluding yourself that the Hanseatic League was able to trade all across Europe without being able to read and write. "A monk would never think of challenging the idea that God created all the animals, so nobody did." Yeah, probably Thomas Aquinas is just a fictional character and was not, in fact, an actual Dominican Friar. He not only suggested that Genesis should not be taken literally, but also that many creatures had come to be through natural processes. He felt that an autonomy of nature was certainly reconcilable with a created universe as such. I suggest you get a grasp of the actual history of science instead of making up bullshit so that you can entertain your prejudice.

The fact remains that for at least 700 years after the fall of the Roman Empire, Western Europe did retract in both knowledge and wisdom and the Catholic Church took a strong grip and denied much that didn't conform with their beliefs. Yes is it true that the Dark Ages is a term that broadly tried to assume much of the world and Europe at the time, yes indeed it is. But lets not mess around, for a while Europe had become a bit backwards with its dependance on serfdom, the lowering standard of living for the vast majority, and lack of most basic schooling. I say this not to diss or make fun of it but I'm simply stating a fact.

How about it's neither extremes. Copernicus nor Galileo were banned because of what they were saying; Galileo was arrested for disrespecting the authority of the Church. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that mobs of Christians didn't torch the largest concentration of knowledge at the time, or that there wasn't a wide-spread culture of mistrust of those who sought knowledge. Maybe the Pope in Rome was fine with people ... well, men, writing treatises about science that no one beyond the confines of the City would read. But that doesn't mean Priests in Spain weren't burning at the stake anyone who questioned official Church doctrine.

StephySon Europe had become a bit backwards with its reliance on serfdom, but Rome was progressive with its reliance on slavery? Also, Leif Erikson made landfall in North America around the turn of the Millenium. Do you think a Roman ship could have made that journey? Medieval arms and armor were superior to those of the Romans, horse harnesses were developed significantly further already within the first millenium and together with the heavy plough, also a new development, significantly boosted agriculture. But you are also wrong that the Catholic Church took a strong grip - the opposite is true. Around 800, it was Charlemagne who reformed education, boosted the education of the clergy but at the same time saw for it that the schools would be open for laypeople as well. He also assembled plenty of learned people from all across Europe at his court. On his initiative, writing was reformed and standardized, introducing the carolingian minuscules, punctuation was developed and spacing standardized. What people like you overlook is that the grip of the church on the nations was not half as big as you make it to be. Authority of the church over kings was challenged repeatedly and even in open conflict, the church did not always prevail. More, Kings and Emperors often saw themselves as "protectors of the church" but as such also with leave to reform administrative things around the church within their territory. Lastly, you also have an idealized view of Rome. Rome was a shadow of its former self long before it fell. It had been wracked by civil war time and time again, split into several Empires (not just west and east), partially reunited, expanded and shrank. Many of the feats done at its height had long become impossible at its fall. And medieval Europe covered far more than the european part of the Empire. In fact, large parts of the "Holy Roman Empire" had never been part of the Roman Empire. Thus, in large parts of Europe, there never was any kind of "decline".

People lived in peace and harmony before abrahamic religions were founded

@@Nimmie111 Simply not true that "people lived in peace and harmony". People have NEVER lived in peace and harmony. The nomadic hunter gatherers constantly fought and displaced each other for territory. That is the human condition, regardless of belief system. Nature has established a food chain, where one animal kills another to survive. Man is no exception to the food chain. That is reality.

@T-REX THE DINO @Nimmie Rocks at Op Crawling in my skin

@@Nimmie111 no they didn't if there is man there will always be conflict. it is in our nature unfortunately

@None of your Business Excellent Quote! That one goes in my personal "Book of Quotes". Thanks. I'm Agnostic, but try to respect all beliefs, as I have no handle on any. The Book Of Ecclesiastes in the Bible is also a reality based philosophy that I like. In a nutshell, Ecclesiastes is a search for life meaning, that observes that the present generation thinks that it is THE generation, yet the present generation will pass on into oblivion to be forgotten, as have all the generations preceding. A sobering reflection on the reality that we are no more special or gifted than any other.

In the movie I have to say that the pagans decided to attack the Christians in the town centre and what came after is kind of their own fault or at least the fault of their leaders. Cause and effect. The pagans started a genocide and when people started fighting back they were now on the recieving end of what they had been doing to others. Just a thought there. At the end of the day people are fucked in the head and religion is also a tool which fear can be used to control people, how much of religion is true - well u need to find out yourself.

@@SwedishDoomGoblin people like to throw out genocide too often. Why should they (back in the day) think about it as cause-and-effect when it's their fundamentalism that caused this shit? I would say it's more about a battle of truth. Their truths tho (so anything which goes against their narrative gets blamed as sins and get burnt.)

As I type a response on my magic board to send to magic land so you guys (other magicians) can respond. Later I'll Take a magic bus to the magic screening of The avengers. A tale as classic as our own existence just with different names and more magic. Idk If I'm agreeing or disagreeing with you.

Learning is a process. And every time a life enters the world, they must undergo the same process their predecessors did in hopes of achieving their same enlightenment. My great grandmother always said, “Live and learn, die and forget it all.”

Blame religions. They always seem to slow us down.

+gmet12915 this

Bump

***** I second that as well.

Not what I'd call a "fun" fact. A fact, certainly, but not fun!

@@wiseonwords I had fun with it, just as much as all religion is a joke people took too seriously.

Hypatia, unlike Giordano Bruno, was some kind of scientist.

Yeah this movie, comment section, and review are full of cancerous shit and bad history.