Is America the New Rome? Whatifalthist Debunked 

Trump protects the Constitutional Reoublic and all rights. Global team wants to desteoy the Reoublic for a system were a big gov force on you wgat to eat,how to speak, how to think.....

Yup. Those crisis have the exact opposite causes. The main reason for Bronze Age collapse weren't as much Sea People. But the development of iron works. Previously Empires gain huge advantage if they have operating bronze works, but that demand higher level of organization and global scale trade network. Because empire rarely have both copper and tin mines on own lands. With development of steal works. Any random tribe could start making equal quality equipment and need for empires disappear. The sea people were just result if this change. While Frankish Empire didn't really collapse. But fall victim of inheritance law what hold Holly Roman Empire on knees for almost half of milenia. France, Germany and Italy still did keep mostly the same level of relations as before that. And Roman Empire didn't actually fall. With Frankia being Roman province. Just that East and West stop recognizing legitimacy of each other.

He doesn’t say that the Bronze Age collapse is like the Frankish Kingdom collapse. He argues that the fall of the Roman Empire is the modern the Bronze Age collapse -barbarian invasions, huge population decline, and civilizational collapse. The Bronze Age collapse was the og trauma that sparked the classical era similarly to how the Roman collapse is our og trauma.

Even saying the Frankish Empire "collapsed" is going to far. Its like saying the Roman Empire ended in 472 when it continued for another 980 years. The Frankish Empire is still around. Its called France.

feudalism was never real: www.jstor.org/stable/1869563

The only stopping him from being a full blown fascist is that he was born 80 years too late

Personally the biggest shortcoming of the modern left is that they remain as worker focused as they are. Worker's rights are still important of course but in today's society consumer rights carry a lot of weight as well. A lot of the modern far right actually appeals to consumerism by pointing out the ability of the megacorps to force all kinds of content down people's throats and take stuff from them.

The left though does have a habit of prioritizing facts over narrative which does hurt them quite a bit cause it's narrative that compels people. The only way to change someone's narrative is to provide them with an opposing narrative, presenting them facts that don't fit in their narrative usually doesn't work as they will just dismiss or ignore them. The left also has a habit of talking about stats and theories rather than focusing on the actual things people can see.

@marshalmarrs3269 And you would dig rice in the field in exchange of not being whipped. Because East Emperors consider themselves as perfect and refuse any changes in the society.

The man definitely has a "blind-ego" vibe to him.

@@flowgangsemaudamartoz7062 Very much so. It seems to me to be a very common trait among conservatives regardless of age, race, or nationality. True, it's certainly not exclusively a conservative trait, but it does seem to be a more evident trait among them.

Meh, he's fairly intellectual. Don't get butthurt about your city. He's from a different part of the world. I'd probably find it odd, too, and you'd find my hometown odd. No big deal

@@MeanBeanComedy It wasn't just that he said it was odd. He said it was the *oddest* place he's ever been. And the mofo has (or at least claims to have) travelled extensively all over the world. And I might find your hometown different. But unless you practice human sacrifice there or something I wouldn't likely call it *odd!* And the guy isn;t anywhere near as smart as he evidently thinks he is. All of his videos are filled with factual errors and places where he jumps to weird conclusions or sees relationships in things that are mere coincidences (some are even in his titles).

@@MeanBeanComedyMann get his nuts out of your mouth, you’re trying a little too hard in these comments

can you drop the name of the book please!

@@Hwje1111 okay, so I think I should have specified that I'm talking about the modern concept of nationalism that is intrinsically connected to the nation state. Yes, nationalism does go far back to ancient history. I don't disagree with that at all. The concept of a nation state is modern, and their official creation was with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. What I was trying to say is that the concept of modern nationalism, as tied to a specific nation state, began during the Hundred Years War.

@@Hwje1111 “The Westphalian system, also known as Westphalian sovereignty, is a principle in international law that each state has exclusive sovereignty over its territory.”

@@wholesomedoll6635 A Distant Mirror by Barbara W. Tuchman

@@Hwje1111 ancient Israel was not a nation state and the people of that time did not have a concept of such a political entity. Israel and Judah, as a "united monarchy," was more of a tribal confederacy, and people then would have identified themselves based upon their tribe. An Israeli identity did not exist like it does today. And that is really the core distinction here, you can look back at ancient history and say any unified polity was a nation state but the people who lived then did not identify themselves as part of an overarching nation state as we understand it today. You've mentioned ancient China before, perfect example. The ancient Chinese people didn't view China as a nation, it was an empire and people's loyalties were to local governors or the Emperor, not the polity itself. Sure, people had a concept of country, a land comprising of people that share a culture or language with, but the concept of being loyal to a nation itself didn't exist. Ancient China, Persia, Rome, and etc were not nations, they were multiethnic conglomerates.

He reads a lot of pop-history books from the last decade which makes him likelier to say stupid shit that doesn’t make sense, the old book reading list just makes him more chauvinistic

He should refuse to read any historical works written past the 1940s.

1960s is too recent. That's his issue. Gotta go even further back.

Wait until he finds out these were influenced by Islamic architecture

@@none2912 you’ve got it the wrong way around bud. Gothic cathedrals drew their influence primarily from evolutions of Romanesque ones, which if the name doesn’t indicate it, drew theirs from Roman-era basilicas.

Some days; every waking hour... I❤🍝🍕🍷🏟️🏛️🎭🥾📖📅🏺🇮🇹🪙⛲⚓🧭🥗🍅🧄🧅🍞🎪 🪐 🌞🌕⚔️📨👑💖⏳ Su Mo Tu We Th Fr SA Etc. Etc. ego gratias ago roma pro multis ❤

I day dream the mongols and Romans take over the universe

​@@KOCChristian Oh god

@@KOCChristian Meanwhile, I have a wet dream about Tokugawa shogunate

And then they got their asses kicked, trust me i'm italian and studied a lot of classic history, rome was a centrally planned theocracy

I don't even believe one should be forced to dismantle his arguments. The guy puts 0 effort in what he does. He deserves all the slack that gets tossed his way.

Actually, the Romans did have political parties in a big sense, maybe not in exactly the modern way we understand, but they did have political parties such as Optimates and Populares, for example. Actually, most scholars do agree that Christianity did "united" Europe to some level or the other. As a matter of fact, one can argue there were fewer wars in Europe during the Mediveal times compared to the last 500 years of history. The fact is Christianity was a glue that kept Europe to some level together. You don't really see that with other regions, at least not in the same level. At 19:50 I mean, some cultures are better than others... Unless somehow you think the society and culture in Afghanistan are just as culturally vibrant as, let's say, I don't know Polish culture and society? 21:45 believe it or not, that's not his views on china. The Chinese themselves believe their culture hasn't changed for about 5000 years. 23:00 What he meant by "more creative" is like they invented a lot of technological progress more than any other civilization, which is pretty true. If that wasn't the case in colonialism, it wouldn't have happened to begin with. 23:35 and what do you think everybody else is doing? The Mongols, Huns, Chinese, Mali, Timurid Empire, Otomes, Aztecs, Incas, Moors, and many other non Western Empires? Just to put it in perspective, the Mongols did kill about 10 to 12 % of the world's population. The Moors killed more Spaniards in one week than the entire Spanish Inquisition. So I don't understand your point about the European colonization? Empires happen?

​@@Δ-Δ-Δ-Δso what you're telling me is that you have no counterarguments against this vid got it

@@moustachio05 Huh?

@@landsknecht8654 What the hell is even the West?

While I don't necessarily agree with him. I think there is some truth to his statement. The division between parties, radicalism, rebellious attitudes and overall untrustworthiness of the government. Mainly started in the early 2010s on the left in more niche groups. Slowly gaining traction. Then really ramped up in popularity in 2015-2016 where it then sparked a similar thing to start happening on the right as a response. While one group is obviously not to blame i think there is definitely some validity to the claim that the Democrats or whatever you want to say kind of sparked it all.

To say the right wasn’t becoming more anti government before 2016 is preposterous. We had militias popping up in the early 2000s and we even had that thing where some rancher who was trespassing on federal land tried to start a revolution in Nevada that wanted to overthrow the government there. So to say that the left is at fault for the alt right we have today in the US is bs. Also, u ignore that the democrats have been sticking to centrist candidates that learn towards the right. We had Obama stating that he was sympathetic to a certain form of conservatism. Not to mention, Obamas Middle East policy was just a continuation of the previous Bush administration. @gotworc

Literally every major collapse of Empire has different cause. Bronze Age Empires fall because ironwork's make need for extensive trade networks obsolete. West Rome fall due to migration crisis. East Rome was conquered. Franconia face inheritance crisis. China face adaptability crisis, where Emperors refused to acknowledge changes in world order. Soviet Union has economic collapse. Only common pattern is that world change and Empires tend to born on specific advantages what become obsolete over time. So either they adopt of fall. On top of that some cases of collapse are falsely attributed. Like West Rome didn't actually fall, as become overtaken by Tribesman. While many of its structures adopted and survived even today. Furthermore it already did not look like Classical Roman Legions, due to change in technology. In fact people would have hard time to notice difference between Late Rome and Early Medieval. With round shields and heavy Catafaracts (knights).

And no. US is not collapsing. Despite internal divisions and some economic problems. US is still in far better shape then China. What actually may collapse due to poor preparations to issue of Middle Incom Trap. When they waste they economic growth on competing with US and pissing of they all potential allies. Currently only real threat to US is Trump who may similarly blow up country for arbitrarily appearances of power. No one else make America as Weak as Him! Anyway. US faced worst economic crisis in the past and US military was even in worst shape. Yet, the core aspects didn't change. Whole idea of US collapse is libertarian propaganda and only thing what actually may end US hegemony are Americans themselves. Democrats seriously should consider education reform. Especially adding elements of political and international affairs education.

1000000%

And this channel is loony revisionist lefty zone

I still watch, big fan Will be subbing and reading your list

You're a liberal?

@@yannislaurin5438 nah but its pretty obvious what whatifalthist’s agenda is and if you can’t see it that speaks volumes about you ✌️

I'm 5 months late but I would like to add that the growing influence of both merchant and craftsmans guilds also played a huge role in urbanization and played a role in bringing about the industrial revolution after

have an updoot kind stranger!

*than.

Whatifalthist mentions this too.

That makes no sense why do you think there was a revolution America is a Republic not a Monarchy

@@1F098 in terms of reach, influence, pure logistics, trade deals, economy, and land mandates the British Empire at its height is just a better comparison.

@@NobodyJones I get what you’re saying in a power aspect, but the United States was based upon the Roman Republic.

buzz word warrior we got here

​@@jrc25_when people say things like you said it makes me smile because I know exactly what you are, and even though I may be in hell at least you have it worse than I do.

@@aaronhagel9796ok dude what the hell?

​@@jrc25_its true tho, literally

@@ambmamb8370is it though? I mean, you seem pretty upset over someone getting called a “buzzword warrior”. Besides that, is he really wrong? It’s kinda crazy people call someone a incel because of something unrelated to women. Grow a pair and maybe you’ll understand 🫡

I don't think he means like that. I think he means from a civilization like Spain did.

you gotta see any video where he talks about africa to a significant extent it genuinely feels like watching Cecil Rhodes or a phrenologist rant

So Turkey?

​@brandonlee4858 No, it belongs to the minions and gru

I am pretty sure "colonies were unprofitable" is not true across the board; most colonial ventures were pretty profitable at one point in time, or else the colonial powers wouldn't bother with them. I am sure there were particular cases when the colonial ventures turned out to be more of drain on resources than a source of income, such as during scramble for Africa, but make no mistake, scramble for Africa was not the whole of colonialism.

when people bring up colonialism being unprofitable they forget that it isnt just the state reaping the benefits, the same people often paying for colonies (the taxpayer or discovery era peasant) arent the same people exploiting the land, slaves and resources that come with it (the merchants, aristocrats, governors and eventually capitalists)

@@tereziamarkova2822 The argument is totally braindead to begin with. Did the US trying to bomb Vietnam and southeast asia back into the stone age lead to "profitability?" No of course it did not. Saying this is proof of America's "civility" or "generosity" because amongst American commentators at the time there was a genuine belief they were doing something beneficial to humanity only shows America's depravity and barbarity. It also ignores the deeper and more interesting historical fact that those who made the fundamental decisions in American government had substantial material motivations. They did not want any rival systems to American soft colonialism to exist at all, because they felt it could threaten to induce other countries to fall away from American corporate extraction and domination and adopt alternative models of self determination. Whether it was communism or anything else didn't matter. Independence of any kind was not permissible because of the "rotten apple" could spread the "contagion" of self determination. Imperial predatory states take actions which they believe fit into the larger strategic design of profit and enrichment. This does not mean that each action in itself will be profitable directly.

Thank you. The second comment, and most thorough, that pushes back on these claims/points. I was pondering these exact points before reading the comments.

@@csfischer007 No problem man, it seems like a lot of these people leave out a lot of information and just go by their rhetoric without understanding history. Maybe they do know history they're just ignoring it to push an ideology.

Good comment

Even if it did "unite" Europe, I still hate Christianity. It's still false, and still laid the groundwork for everything Christians whi e about that's wrong with our societies.

Agreed

I think it’s fair to say that Rome and America are entirely different kettles of fish.

@@TheDrumstickEmpire Disagree. America has many similarities with Rome and even modeled a lot of its government on Rome. Look at the parallels: 1. Rebellion against a king 2. Set up a republic 3. Republic became too big and corrupt and a semi-empire, not taking care of its citizens and instead importing and outsourcing labor 4. Rise of populist politicians whom the optimates republic supporters hate

What's wrong with his take?

@@minutemanchan7232 pretty good but it has it;s own simplification of European colonialism as well as "Northern" Domination. Which isn't inheriently wrong but is too simplistic

I always seek out critics of Whatifalthist since despite watching him, I don’t agree with everything he says. Every critic ends up spewing some Marxist drivel. Turns out people shouldn’t get their history from RU-vidrs and should actually read a book 🤷‍♂️.

@@imperator8801 please give me an example of said marxist drivel

it's right here :)@@gooblewoobles3686

@@gooblewoobles3686 His argument that the origin of capitalism is tied to colonialism. He ironically ignores evidence contrary to that oversimplified grand narrative. Like how Imperial Spain was a feudal society, not a capitalist one, when they colonized latin america. Or how non-European empires also had colonies whose resources they exploited, but never developed capitalism.

You will find economists has advanced a lot since Marx. Marx got a lot of fundamental things wrong.

Is it not obvious, he has heard of Marx? Every few comments is dripping with Marxist sentiment.

I’m pretty sure althist guy is conservative

@@ungusbungus2486 I think he calls himself a classical liberal in his videos, but anything that’s not left is considered conservative at this point

​@@ungusbungus2486he is slightly, but barely.

@@bobby_c07 Please, he is very conservative.

@@TreeGod.Just because someone calls themself something doesn’t mean shit. An idiot can say they’re smart ALL they like, doesn’t make them any less of an idiot. He’s 100% right wing

1865 just expanded the plantation.

we have slaves? where? where can I buy one?

Yeah instead he's a revisionist neoliberal.

The worst part of whatifalthist is he’s so full of himself he has a “consulting business” and charges people money for his “advice”

Despite the fact that whatifalthist is the very definition of a pseudo intellectual who’s ideas are literally just “vibes” and far right bullshit

Whatifalthist political alignment isn't the issue, its his batshit ideas and rhetoric that are.

@@logangustavson batshit? i disagree with lots of his takes but thats more on answers to problems.. not the problems themselves.. hes usually right about those if you disagree you are in a cult.

​@@notastone4832I mean I agree with that too but being able to identify societal problems are not hard. Being able to provide and implement solutions is incredibly hard. For instance, just because you agree with him that male loneliness is an issue, it does not mean you agree with his batshit crazy idea of joining a civil war. Being able to provide solutions is way more important in social contexts and is MUCH, MUCH harder.

Carthage got invaded by an empire. The USA is the most powerful country on the planet and no one invaded them since 1812

Should we be watching out for the Canadians?

For real, every critic of Whatifalthist I’ve seen ends up spewing some Marxist drivel.

I know there's a lot of people who think whatifalthist is stupid but I think he hits the mark on most of what he says. He is not far right, he just has a realistic view of human society and events. I don't think 100% is correct but the people who suggest he's a whack job or lazy either aren't paying attention or they happen to be marxists. That's what I can tell

​@@imperator8801I have noticed that internet leftists absolutely hate when non leftist history or political RU-vidrs have a lot of success. To them it is heresy that people can agree with non leftist people or ideas.

@@spencerbuck1074Even though his videos are just a psuedo intellectual making bullshit because of the fact his sources are either EXTREMELY outdated or non-academic, so he relies on ignorant people or arrogant twats as sources

''you just have compeiting political views of how the world works''@@mylerwilson4879

Riveting commentary

What a copout argument

So? Is it correct or not, not whether something is centric

@@TonyFontaine1988 it gives an incredibly biased view on everything, he also lets his politics ruin a lot of it but acts like he's apolitical

well that's a nice way to say racist AF I'm not as polite

@@Bluebelle51 lol, the "dats racist brigade" out in full force.

@@TonyFontaine1988 truth hurts sometimes LOL

Not really? The dominance of Europe is actually an incredibly complex affair that had different causes in different parts of the world; the reasons why Spaniards were able to conquer Central and South America are very different from the reasons why colonial powers were able to strongarm China in the 19th century. In any case, just the Wikipedia page on Great Divergence (as the edge Europe had gained over the rest of the world is called) lists numerous more or less convincing possibilities, this video presents just one of them - though I agree that it does so very badly. The hypothesis goes that Spain and Portugal, having gained the will to expand trough reconquista and the ability to do so by the seafaring and military technology (which was pretty good, though still not quite on the level of China or India of the time), first went after the colonial "easy pickings", especially in the Americas, which were technologically behind and lacking in several crucial technologies (horses, immunity to most diseases) mostly trough sheer geographic bad luck. Having gained vast wealth from these "easy pickings", they forced their rivals in Europe, like England, France and the Netherlands, to keep up and expand as well, kickstarting a competition over parts of the world that weren't as urbanized and technologically developed (again mostly trough geographic bad luck). European powers were able to exploit their newly acquired subjects for vast amounts of wealth that fuelled the technological development, which in turn meant that Europeans were able to trounce all over their former peer competitors like China, Ottoman or Mughal Empires (which didn't have the motivation or the opportunity for the same kind of aggressive overseas expansion).

The dominance of Europe was not a guarantee and therefore cannot be reduced to creativity. Also, individual ingenuity has played a big role throughout history whether we’re talking about a competent navigator, a Machiavellian general, or a genius inventor. To call a group of people superior or more creative because of the chance contributions of a few of its members is ridiculous. Personally, I think that the enormous benefit europe had was its proximity and access to so many vastly different cultures and civilizations and the cross pollination of ideas and technologies that came as a result from that. There were several expanses of land and river valleys where a group of people could isolate for a few centuries and then emerge with new innovations to spread. Europe’s access to the Mediterranean played an enormous role in its later dominance as the Roman’s were influenced by the Greeks who were influenced by Egyptians and Mesopotamians.

To my knowledge medieval europe had only close contact to one culture which was the islam and even there only limited trough the space trade and crusades. Meanwhile the ottomans could pull from the same roman/Greek history and had close contact to both slavic/orthodox and latin /catholicism;the steppe nomads the Persians and don't forget the Muslims traded from one side off the world to the other with written records of trade visits as far apart as northern China and the holy Roman empire even down to what is now Madagascar, by logic of exposure to different ideas ether they or southeast Asia should have become what europe had. Ps. I know the spelling isn't the best pls don't judge on that to harshly

Please listen to historians instead of Alt-right RU-vid videos. Loads of factors led to Europe snowballing over the rest of the world. Making a functional civilization is tough. The first one to create one during the age of industry has an unimaginable advantage.

@thoughtsuponatime847 Europe was in a constant state of war from before the fall of the Roman Empire until the end of WW2. Maybe all that war gave them advantages? You know, technology?

Then why are so many historians not right wing?

​@@mylerwilson4879they like lies, especially those who insists Nazi Germany was anything but socialist

@@joao.fenix1473 Even though not one socialist supports nazi germany

@@mylerwilson4879 Because learning facts by hard does not compensate for a lack of pattern recognition.

​@@salzigerfranz1291 Presumably, you see a pattern between the late Roman Empire and Modern day America. Would you care to elaborate, please?

Cry

@@baneofbanes thats what a leftist does when someone disagrees with them.. not a right winger.

Are you 10

wait, we DO know what the US did to the middle east tho over 6 million dead brown people is usually called "genocide" but you do you boo

Except.. We do know most of it?

Rome would have been considered global in the sense that they controlled most of the known* world