History's greatest fall from fame - the most famous person you've never heard of 

Wish there were more videos like that

AnUBis is CoOl

Agreed. However the destination video to that really old smithy or old bridge talking about the first rail cars was really good

Yeah life doesn’t get much better than this.

This is exactly the lindybeige that I want and love. Could there be more to come?

The guys a genius at capturing an audience.

Thanks for the tip about 15 minutes. We'd been about to turn off the dreary intro when I saw your comment and we skipped ahead. Mind you, it was still boring when we got there, but at least we learned the name. I think there's enough here for a good 5-10 minute video.

@@captainidiot4301 not everyone! I didn't get halfway - and Hannibal is one of my heroes....

@@jonathonjubb6626 try smoking some pot and try again!

why does lindybeige always look like he's fresh from the trash can

It is easy to believe that she is still famous in Algeria. In the wider world, though, Cleo seems to have dominated.

Numidia is an air conditioning system you dipstick.

bro as an algerian do you think it's crazy that people bring up the french's occupation as some crazy crime against humanity and totally undue but the moor occupation and subjugation of the the native africans is actually perfectly fine

@@ogfridgeman5546 the French occupation is discussed more because it’s recent history, whereas the moors have been around for a long time to the extent that people have kind of forgotten they aren’t indigenous to that area. In the eyes of Europeans, the image of a litham-wearing moor is what first comes to mind when thinking about North Africa

@@ogfridgeman5546 or Spain for that matter

Hardly anyone can spell Julius Caesar, though

@@hungrycrab3297 Yep. _Really_ measuring historical notoriety by counting the original artworks? I'd say Stalin is more famous just by number of surviving portraits and statues, especially when you include photographic evidence of the ones that were torn down since. Other modern cult leaders are similarly famous, Mao especially. Of course, if we talk about western classical/ancient history, then I'd argue this order: *Alex, Julius, Cleo...* and from then on your mileage varies. I never thought of Sophonisbe being _that big_ in art, so I did learn something here. She's one of two Carthaginian women I heard of, the other being Dido who is mythical however. When you narrow down just to classical women... sure, Lindy makes totally sense with Cleo being first, followed by Sophie.

Yeh I think Caesar is probably more famous than Cleopatra, although not by much.

It's a fine color.

Weird observation but you're very right

Wouldn't have it any other way.

I only came here to note whether anyone else has Lindy pegged as one of the handful of pseudointellectuals who claims Jesus wasn't a real historical figure.

@@fisharmor IIRC he has been agnostic about the existence of the historicity of Jesus elsewhere

There are very few artworks of jesus prior to the 7th century cause of the banning of icons in the byzantine empire but yeah prolly he outweighs her

jesus wasn't white

@@arc-sd8sk He was fictional. Pick your flavor

Bro, you just made me picture Lindy on a stage, flute in hand, singing Aqualung... Thank you xD

He does bring songs from the wood.

🤣

I'd confidently say that Caesar, Jesus and Mohammed (among others) are considerably, considerably, more famous than Cleopatra from a global, historical stand-point. And Queen Elizabeth II? Michael Jackson and John Lennon were arguably far more famous during the 20th century.

On the one hand yes, on the other hand it works better rhetorically to point to two other examples of famous queens.

@@PrinceTrillian I somehow missed he was comparing queens.

@@gandalf1379 I only realized that halfway through typing a comment agreeing with you... ;D

In the same way we “remember” figures, who lived hundreds of years ago, yes.

I swear he's a researcher for the hitch hiker's guide to the galaxy.... or possibly even the encyclopedia galactica.

but in a good way

Fictional characters don't count.

@@azdgariarada There is no doubt at all that he was a genuine living human being, and no serious historian disputes the simple fact of his existence. Whether or not you believe in everything ascribed to him is another matter entirely, although you can't possibly dispute the number of artworks or the proportion of the world's population who have at the very least heard of him. Even in Islam, he is recognised as a prophet, so that is two, and arguably three, of the world's major religions (Judaism because his coming was long prophesied in their religion).

I suspect Thor is currently more famous than Jesus.

@@Milamberinx Everyone has heard of Jesus, Thor is a bit less widespread.

@@phillee2814 That's a massive statement. I have seen multiple articles from well known scholars that cast doubt on the existence of Jesus being an actual being. Add to that the many more articles that also claim that he was probably a mixture of various rabbis wandering the area around the same time. The fact that there is no direct evidence and the first writings are many decades after a supposed death means that yes, there is serious dispute. The fact that 3 religions mention a prophet in totally different ways doesn't help the matter at all and wouldnt provide any evidence. But as you say it doesnt matter if a man existed or not, it matters if the feats ascribed to him happened or not, and for that there is zero proof .

The problem with history is we just keep making more of it.

Well, when he said Sophonisbe, I DID know she was a Carthaginian woman who was betrayed by Massinissa when he switched to the Roman side. So, the latter I believed to be more famous.

That's cool! What did you get to hear from him?

Boomer Sooner!

Plus Masinissa’s people had descended into turmoil with political unrest of GoT proportions. He wasn’t seen as stable an ally as Syphax at that moment.

That is a tale worthy of it's own video, I thought. Indeed, I'm planning to make it one of the Tales of The Punic Wars.

@@lindybeige 12:30 The Macedonians were Dorian Greeks. They claimed they were descendants of Hercules. Olympias [the mother of Alexander the Great] was from the House of the Molossians. I can't believe you reiterated word for word the propaganda of our North Slav neighbors who claim Alexander was a Slav. Most Greek City-States fought one another at some point. I'm certain you are familiar with the Peloponnesian War, between Athens and Sparta. The Macedonians were without an iota of doubt 100% Greek. Please correct this blunder ASAP. Thank you for your [otherwise] very informative and entertaining content.

@@JohnGeometresMaximos I never said that they were Slavs, and the Dorians were invaders, don't forget. We don't know a huge amount about the Macedonian language, but it is thought that it was related to Greek. The upper classes of the Hellenistic Macedonians adopted Attic Greek as their language. Once you speak Greek, you are Greek, as the term is a linguistic one, so Ptolemy was 'Greek' in that sense. Yes, the Greek city states fought each other a lot, but they would unite against external non-Greek threats like the Persians and Macedonians.

​@@lindybeige The Slav part was badly phrased I admit. My point was not that you claimed Alexander was a Slav, but rather that you used the same rhetoric and reasoning with those who do claim Alexander was a Slav. The Macedonians spoke a Greek dialect much like the Cretans and the Cypriots. Also, in the video you specifically state that Alexander and his family were not Greek. This is your big mistake here. You didn't say that the Kingdom of Macedonia had non-Greek subjects. You specifically made a point about Alexander. Alexander was as Greek as the philosopher Aristotle, and Leonidas the king of Sparta. Greek is not a linguistic term like Arab or Slav. The Greeks were all related by blood/ancestry, language, and worship of the [same] gods. Regarding your last point, I would like to remind you that Sparta allied with the Persians against Athens. What does that prove regarding the "Greekness" of the Spartans? Also, the Spartans refused to fight against Alexander at the very important Battle of Chaeronea. Moreover, you did not mention that in that battle, Alexander had the city-states of Epirus, Thessaly, Aetolia, and Phocis on his side! Is that proof that these four city-states were also not Greek? It's at least nice that you stayed away from quoting the politician/orator Demosthenes whose speeches our Slav neighbors use constantly to make the point that ALL Greeks hated the Macedonians and considered them Barbarians. Of course this is not the case since we have proof that Macedonians participated in the Olympic Games - where non-Greeks were absolutely forbidden to participate! Last but certainly not least we have Arrian's report of Alexander sending 300 pieces of Persian armor back to Greece [as war spoils after the victory on Granicus], with the inscription: "Ἀλέξανδρος Φιλίππου καὶ οἱ Ἕλληνες πλὴν Λακεδαιμονίων ἀπὸ τῶν βαρβάρων τῶν τὴν Ἀσίαν κατοικούντων." "Alexander son of Phillip and the Greeks apart from the Lacedemonians from Asia the land of the Barbarians."

Historical people, not fan-fiction people.

@@Milamberinx So Jesus didn't exist? That's a new one.

@@Milamberinx Jesus is historical figure. Even soviets acknwoledged that.

@@Milamberinx There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than anyone in history apart from Chris Chan

You left out Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of china, who was known to billions of people in Chinese history. As much a contender as Alexander or Caesar.

You spelled antiquity right, but not English

@@TocsTheWanderer sorry, the good old german "sch" writing. Will just never get out of my system. :F

@@leone.6190 yeah, English language is pretty messed up. Ph=f, c=k or s, etcetera

@@phredphlintstone6455 you're watching a video about Greco Roman history and blaming English for the ph and k problem? Hmmm, etymological studies for you.

Rome and Carthage, both brutal in their own way, however Carthage had normalized child sacrifice, Rome had not.

Well ifyou knew anything about the Punic wars and Rome you would know that that the "someone" who spent a lot of time and effort to erase Carthage from history was Rome itself. That Rome totally destroyed the city of Carthage burnt it down and then salted the land it stood on should have clued you in.

@@luisrey4904 fair enough, however in the case of Sophonisba, the only reason we know about her is the Romans passed her story on to us. Also, there's no need to be needlessly dismissive of the knowledge or intelligence of others. Treat others, even those you hold in contempt, as you would want to be treated. Take care.

@@chadparsons50 I mean tbf we only have Rome's sayso about Carthage's child sacrifice and it's not out of the ballpark to assume that's war propaganda; they said similar things about many other cultures too like the Druids - another culture/religion that they made a great effort to completely wipe out. The Romans also tried to do something similar to the early Christian faith citing it as a death cult and persecuting its members until Christianity managed to worm its way into Roman high society. It's fair to say, one of the things which allowed Rome to survive so long is that any real threats to them were dealt with mercilessly - meaning instead of wasting time and lives with the classic generations of rivalry held by other nations, they could one-and-done it with a total genocide and move on with no one later judging them because there are no children and no written texts to tell the story of the fallen nations. Compare it to say the British Empire which is now viewed with contempt across much of the world despite having a similar impact to the technological and cultural development of the human race as the Roman empire because they allowed their enemies to continue to live and tell their side of the story - continuing to propegate anti-British sentiment which still affects modern Britain. If the British Empire were more evil, we would likely view them now with more sympathy because we would only have colonialist propaganda to tell us of that time and the people who fought against foreign invaders. You can appreciate the long-sightedness of their slaughter even if you abhore the immorality of it.

I suspect he's a fan of Paul Spooner's automata and the Caberet Mechanical Theatre.

Indeed, Andrew Felsher.

Infamous

He clarifies around 3:50 that to have the most people hear of you, you have to be alive now, 2 Billion in 1940 vs 8 billion now

@@LewisB3217 still famous though

A bit lacking in the opera/poetry/restoration drama department maybe?

If only Klimt had taken Paris in 1940!

One of the hallmarks of well spoken people is that they use the right words at the right times. I've often come across this strange opinion that people who have a vaguely posh way of speaking would refrain from speaking about essential biological functions and the parts of our cultures we've constructed around them.

I think he meant Octavius

@@Alamyst2011 , yes he was to quick, I think he confused something (I know Octavius also took G. Julius Caesar as full name)

thanks for the book recommendations. I've never heard of him. edit I would add that there are a lot of popular and successful authors now, a few who could be studied in literature classes to some degree, but most aren't. I could see Stephen King being largely forgotten in the future. one can read a Stephen King novel or read The Great Gatsby, Of Mice and Men, maybe some Hesse or Kafka. All that would take less time than reading some of Kings novels. So I think posterity favors quality over quantity. I am not disparaging the quality of the author's work, which I haven't read

I thought of the same person. I live in Douglas, IOM and one day was sitting in the public garden where he has a statue. I had started reading Dracula and noticed the Manx-sounding dedication to “Hommy Beg”. After a quick Google I discovered this was in fact Bram Stoker’s nickname for Hall Caine. It was baffling to me how such an iconic book could be entirely dedicated to this hopelessly obscure man from my little island, whose likeness was standing right next to me.

You mean Cartago Nova? In Murcia?

@@NocKme No, it's Cartagena but yes it's in the province of Murcia

@@NocKme this gives you an idearu-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6kDRL32gTrI.html

@@davidberlanny3308 looks awesome. My girlfriend is from Murcia and every time we in spain I try to tell her I want to go to Carthagena, but she keeps telling me there is nothing to see or do and that no one cares about that place 😂

@@NocKme Hahaha .... It obviously depends on what you like doing!! Its home to the Isaac Peral one of the first modern style submarines, a Roman amphitheatre an underwater archeology museum with lots of old forts that defended the city. It's off the beaten track for most tourists though. Lindy would love it I'm sure ..... Ive worked there for over 20 years but since COVID work from home. Good luck y saludos a tu novia!!

He's mentioned by Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, and the Babylonian Talmud amongst others

Ya I am not convinced he was a real person.

Definitely Jesus. Also, there is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Socrates. If we would count Socrates as historical we should be treating Jesus the same.

@@JMD501 there is enough historical evidence to conclude that Jesus was a real historical person. However there is much less evidence to corroborate anything that happened in the Bible (anything that is not "magical" obviously)

@@JMD501 yeah I mean there’s actual records of him being mentioned but it doesn’t mean he’s what everyone says he is just that he existed.

That's not a conversation. It's being stuck in a nook and the local eccentric picks you to come and monologue at whilst taking all the space you need to escape. Make sure your glass is full otherwise you'll be very thirsty very soon.

Fictional characters don't count.

Yeah. that's a pretty simple, obvious, good point

They aren’t historical At least mohamed has been proved to not have existed And jesus might not have existed either

It’s an interesting point. I think I could argue both for and against that though. Are those people tangible enough?

@@jackglossop4859 the historiography for Jesus and Muhammad as real people is pretty solid. Nothing can attest to miracle work or speaking to God but at the very least they existed and then were used in extensive propoganda efforts. Doesn't seem like the documentation of Buddha is nearly as concrete.

They're the only ones we know of though, there was very probably more that weren't written down by our largely Roman sources.

@@myrddinemrys1332 plus all the records they burned. Still astounding that all that remains is just a handful of names from a state that intimidated Alexander and fought two close-run wars with Rome

About the same with the Romans. At least in the upper class there were very few different given names (and about half of them were numbers*). That's why we know most of them only by cognomen and/or nickname and quite a few Romans had praenomen, nomen gentile and cognomen in common (sometimes even nickname) which can make it very frustrating to look them up. And often some given names ran in certain families, making it even more likely to find such multiples. Even Roman historians sometimes confused them. *secundus, quintus, sextus, septim(i)us, octavius, deci(m)us (3,4 and 9 seem to have been left out). It did not matter btw, whether the child actually was the second, fifth etc. Only Postum(i)us was limited to kids born after their father's death.

@@Segalmed I’m not sure I agree with the claim the Roman’s had about the same amount of names. A quick google search of Roman first names have a result listing 160 male names for people looking for baby names

@@garrusvakarian8666 Yes but remember one thing, we have vastly more Roman sources and of multiple levels of society. Furthermore said sources originate mostly within the culture.

Lindy seems to have deliberately cut off "history" in the year 1900. Before then, educated elites and artists were all highly trained in classical knowledge, including Sophonisbe. The 20th century's mass media created entirely new classics. Imagine the buffoon who admits in society to never have heard of Mickeymouse and James Bond. But _really_ measuring historical notoriety by counting the original artworks? I'd say Stalin is more famous just by number of surviving portraits and statues, especially when you include photographic evidence of the ones that were torn down since. Other modern cult leaders are similarly famous, maybe Mao is more "famous".

Having said that I felt the need to add that those you speak of do sound like fascinating people and stories

You could have made all of that up and i wouldn't know the difference, but it's fascinating even then. I'd love to see a video about that story

I'd like to hear about the 8 surviving books. Been taught that the native Americans left no written records. Interesting to know if that is different.

​@@grant1863 I'd refer you to my comment on TreytheExplainer's "Books You Can (Never) Read" video, where I talk about Mesoamerican writing systems and books more in depth, but in summary: Yes, writing was definitely a thing in Mesoamerica, and actually only shows up a few centuries after the very first sites (like San Lorenzo in 1400 BC) that have things like large monuments, class systems, aquaducts, etc: The Olmec Cascajal Block from 900AD for example has inscriptions on it. Other scripts like the Maya, Zapotec, and Epi-Olmec ones developed over the next few centuries. "True writing" actually has a rather strict definition that would exclude things like Egyptian Hieroglyphs, but at least the Maya script was for sure a true, complete writing system. Later Mesoamerican writing systems, like by the Aztec and Mixtec, tend to be more pictographic: arguably less "writing", and more sets of drawings that have standard conventions to be interpreted in a specific way. But that can still yield a lot of information (Like everything I said was from Mixtec pictographs), and even these still have some elements of more complex writing systems to them. Like in a lot of ancient societies, writing and reading was mostly limited to nobles, elites, and scribes, and not all sites or civilizations have heavy use of it (but it certainly wasn't niche, either: hundreds of Maya sites have inscriptions, for example), but things like dates, numerals, and basic glyphs are pretty widespread and were used even in places where there's not evidence for heavy, extended samples of writing or pictographs. I'd also say that in a lot of cases, the lack of evidence of writing doesn't mean it wasn't there, since in a lot of cases ancient cities are buried under modern infrastructure and only small parts of sites are able to be excavated. Books also don't preserve well, so any from well before Spanish contact would have decayed already, and the Spanish burned pretty much every book they could find that was in use during colonization: We know multiple Aztec cities had large royal libraries for example, all destroyed. There's probably less then 20 surviving pre-contact books today: 8 Mixtec ones, 4 Maya ones, and then maybe a handful or so of some from Central Mexico (Aztec, Otomi, Totonac, etc). There ARE dozens of others if you include ones made with a blend of Mesoamerican and Spanish scribal conventions produced during the early colonial period, though: The Codex Mendoza for example has both Aztec pictography and Spanish text. "Book" is also a loose term here, the technical one used is codex/codices. These were made from either paper, or things like deerskin, and rather then having multiple seperate sheets bound together on a spine, instead they were giant sheets that folded over each other like an accordion. So I guess they're more "scrolls" then "books". Some were also just single page manuscripts. Stone inscriptions were a thing too, but what method was more prevalent or if both were depends on the culture/civilization. Writing in Mesoamerica generally dealt with political records (wars, political marriages, births/deaths of rulers, alliances, etc), astrology and astronomy (Mesoamerican calendar systems had heavy religious connotations and symbolism, with different days, months, years, etc having different meanings) and tax documentation. There are some examples of things like maps or land surveys too, even botanical/herbal documentation, but most/all of our examples of those are colonial period codices so it's hard to say for sure if those were a thing pre-contact too (I'd wager they were). Poetry, narrative style historical accounts, etc existed in Mesoamerican societies, the Aztec in particular had a huge tradition of phislophical poetry, but those were passed down orally: Even in the Maya script where you can easily record those sorts of things, they really didn't, and most Maya writing tends to be pretty dry "On X Day Y happened" sort of affairs without much qualitative descriptive or abstract text. Outside of Mesoamerica, there's not much that people agree should count as writing even in a fairly loose sense. The closest contender would be the Quipu or khipu used by Andean civilzations (down in Peru, Bolvia, Ecuador, etc) such as the Inca: These were series of ropes tied to each other sort of like in a keychain shape, where the color, position, length, and number of knots on the Quipu indicates different information. Some argue these are more just like something akin to an Abacus, more just number counting/storing devices, but others believe and some recent research (Look up "We thought the Incas couldn't write. These knots change everything") suggests they could encode qualitative, abstract information too. There's some surviving Quipu (according to that article, actually around 900), but we can't really read them. (The Mesoamericans also had Quipu too, actually, but there's only like 2 historical references to it and no examples survive of Mesoamerican ones, so it's pretty obscure even to Prehispanic history archeology nerds like me) Some argue that some iconography on other Andean things or Mississippian (which was the latest of a long line of cultures in the Eastern US that built towns and large earthen pyramids, the larger Mississipian sites like Cahokia are outright pretty much cities, albiet with wood and earthern buildings rather then stone ones) ones might be pictographic writing, but it's not agreed on.

Interesting that my more pertinent comment seems to have been removed...

Careful,

Nah. I’d put Jesus of Nazareth or Mohamed ahead of him. And Napoleon. Alexander. Confucius perhaps. Ghenghis Khan.

@@davidtuttle7556 ...Julius Caesar - he even has a month named after him. Nobody says "I'll book you in next Adolfey."

Charlie Chaplin? I didn't know he was Austrian.

@@davidtuttle7556 Jesus wasn’t famous when he was alive, maybe a rebel rouser around Palestine, but nobody knew who he was outside that area, and continue to not know who he was for 100 years after.

Actually my guess was Julius Caesar. Just because nearly every monarch (in Europe) saw himself in his tradition. The titles Emperor, Kaiser, Tsar all basically mean "reign like Caesar". Every ruler wanted to be like Caesar, or wanted an empire like his. All the eagles are copies of the roman one. Even the Ottomans saw themselves as legitimate heirs of Caesar.

It's obviously the guy who designed the Bren.

I was wondering about him too.

psycotik..i feel alot of pain and dispair..autism on big scale

@@verac6731 he´s sick

hes dead

Used as cannon fodder by Banderite neo-naghties.🤣🤣

Go braves

Not that this wasn't great, it was. But stil...

I think Caesar fell for her as a part of his "I just can't wait to be king" campaign, as well as her connection to -- and posession of -- Alexander the Great. I didn't think she jumped to Antony until after Caesar's assassination, but that might be Hollywood influencing me. Antony likely saw her as a source of wealth, legitimacy, troops, and ships.

Also, many people don't know that Cleopatra is a very very Greek name, and clearly not an Egyptian one. Essentially, all Ptolemaic Cleopatras were named after *Cleopatra the mother of Alexander the Great* .

Ghengis Kahn made quite the impression in his lifetime let alone ever since.

Jesus of Nazareth, Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, Ghenghis Khan and Alexander the Great are probably the top five other than guys like Hitler lol

@@simondean5227 I'd say Hitler is more known than the last Cleopatra

The median human at the moment was born in the 1700s so potentialy the most famous person would be someone who came to fame around then and is still known today, maybe Napoleon? Alternatively the christians would argue Jesus which I honestly think isnt a bad argument.

@@DylanSwayneHughes I would probably say if not Jesus, then Muhammed who WAS a historical figure, while Jesus' existance is a bit more controversial

@@Unknownmonkey13 Roman's had records of jesus of Nazareth

@@Unknownmonkey13 Not really controversial. Even non-Christian proximal sources (Tacitus, Josephus) were very happy to say there was a man called Jesus to whom various miracles were attributed. The controversial bit is the resurrection (except to muslims, who think he wasn't crucified iirc). That said, the Buddha might have a better case given the populations of India, China, Japan, and so on, and the fact that he was born a thousand or so years before Jesus, so has a bit of a headstart.

I'm certain that Jesus, Mohammed, and Siddhartha must be the most famous people on the planet, but if we set aside religious figures I think a case could be made for Hitler being the most famous person (or infamous, in this case).

Good luck with that

Rumors have it he has been lost in Alps

-- which makes you wonder, doesn't it, just how "famous" she was . . .

Lol no