Hey! Thanks for watching. We had to re-upload, and we appreciate your patience. We misstated the date that Erasmus went to college, so we made a change, and here's the corrected video. -stan
I'm pretty sure we're okay with you guys taking ng down and reuploading videos for corrections. These are suppose to be educational, so it matters they're right. Thank you for all you guys do!
That's because ,at the time ,the Burgundian Netherlands,particularly Flanders was the wealthiest part of Europe. A huge commercial centre with the biggest production of art and luxury objects.
I was thinking the same thing and as a Scandie I found it a bit annoying. I'm sure the name 'Northern Renaissance' is the the reason for this but it's a bit annoying that 'Northern' does not contain most of the actual most Northern European nations (ie the Nordic) and even though they're using an already established name, they could perhaps at least have mentioned that it's not actually Northern Europe they're talking about...
Humourous. Informative. Of course many would see a false dichotomy in the end bit- does a society have to be either fair or stable, with mutual exclusion? Or is a fairer society inherently more stable?
Maybe because this is a history course and not a geography course. What exactly has Scandinavia contributed to the history of Europe in the 14th and 15th century?
@@karlkarlos3545 For one they could've mentioned the Kalmar Union, which was the only time that all of Scandinavia was ruled by a single person, and a reigning queen at that. The Hanseatic League is also very important in regards to European trade, but hasn't been mentioned at all. Lithuania was pagan until 1387, a worthy reminder that image of a Christian Medieval Europe is misleading. In the 16th century Scandinavia became one of the fiercest battlefields between Catholics and Protestants, leading to Sweden becoming a protestant powerhouse in the 17th. All of that is (I would argue) relevant.
@@Oxtocoatl13 don't forget that at the time Pagan Lithuania was the biggest state in Europe and competed with Moscow over who will lead the Rus people. Maybe some people would find that surprising?
Me too, these were specially awesome, though difficult . I'd go for some kind of equilibium between the dichotomies he presented. It would look messy as a result, but much better than taking some extreme in most issues.
same. he always puts some thought-provoking questions which are really of vital importance. a brilliant teacher is the one who not only teach u what he thinks, but also teach u how to think and get ur own answer ur own lens of observing the world
Sad to see you omit the continuation of Machiavelli's "better be feared than loved" instruction: "Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated." That caricature of Machiavelli as a sociopath writing instruction books for tyrants is regrettably common.
Also, sad to see Machiavelli discussed solely through the Prince. His Discourses paints a much more nuanced picture of his political views. He was interested in political stability, which could be achieved either through effective authoritarianism (The Prince) OR through a complex system of laws designed to inhibit rapid change in a Republic (Discourses).
0:00, 0:34 Renaissance *_Northern Renaissance_* Gutenberg's Printing Press 2:36 Literacy Rate Rising 3:30 Painting 4:30 The Father, The Patriarch 5:13 Girls get some education. Universities grow. Humanism, Human Society, Human Law Erasmus- Beginning of The Reformation 7:52 Protestant Reformation "Luther hatched a different bird entirely" 8:30 Machiavelli, father of Classical Liberalism "Better to be feared, then love." _Art of War_ (Win War, Gain Power, Rule Powerfully) 10:23 Thomas More, _Utopia_ , Executed for opposing Henry VIII Divorce/Anglicanism 11:23 _Book of the City of Ladies_ by Christine De Pizan: Queen Virgin Mary, Idealism vs Realism 13:07 Where you sit in the world
Machiavelli isn't the father of classical Liberalism, because CL begin in early 18th century England with Adam smith, Stuart Mill et altri. Besides, CL is an economical doctrine based on Calvinism, not an amoral negative anthropology, which was what Machiavelli created. As for Thomas More, he did in fact intimately opposed Anglicanism but he did not oppose Henry's divorce because he said nothing against it or in favor of it. The king interpreted this silence as hostility towards his actions and had him executed. Yes, Henry the VIII was a Machiavellian. Thank you for your post, it was an interesting read.
@@malleableconcrete They also skipped the first few thousand years of European history and will probably disproportionately focus on colonial countries, Italy and Germany while barely mentioning the rest. The same way Asia could be covered, too.
@@gf1917 True. Although, I think we'd be better off if they cut it into the several regions of Asia. Namely: North Asia (Siberia), East Asia (The Chinas, The Koreas, Japan, and Mongolia), Southeast Asia (The Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Myanmar, and Vietnam), South Asia (India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, and The Maldives), West Asia (aka The Middle East), and Central Asia (the Stans, Iran, etc.)...
I am so glad you discussed Christine de Pizan. I studied women in medieval Europe and came across her texts. She is really a fascinating and inspirational person. P. S. I laughed a lot at Machiavelli is the Erasmus living in the Upsidedown
He.....talks.....much.....slower.....than.....before...... I'm just kidding, its all good, but compared to the original season you do talk so much slower now.
Is it just me or did John had a bit more enthusiastic voice than he had last episode? By the way, another great lesson. As a history geek, I really love your videos. :3
@@crashcourse joe of steal appreciates the lack there off a extra voice speaking about stuff so I can frame that stuff to secure my power in my state stuff like my name being Stalin not steal or the holodomor never occurred your thinking of the holocaust and I never genocided any Ukrainians now make that or else YOU GO TO SIBERIAN WORK CAMP.
@@TheTexas1994 Without Stan CrashCourse would probably go plummeting into the depths of the millions of educational youtubers that nobody cares about. Luckily, whenever my teacher says "okay time to watch John Green" my entire class erupts into cheers.
Yes! I’m so glad you mentioned Christine de Pizan! I didn’t hear about her until my senior year of college in a course on the Rhetorical Tradition (from the Greeks to present-day European philosophy). Thank you for including women intellectuals in European History!
I'm not sure why these videos are not called "Western European history" since the rest of Europe has not even received a mention in 3 episodes. Time stands still East and North of Berlin, I guess.
@@LethargicGM I'll disregard the imperative of your handle and engage with you anyway. I'm not saying that calling it the northern renaissance is wrong, I'm saying that from my perspective it didn't happen in Northern Europe.
@@GoDLiKeKakashi It's because the course is based off what is focused on in the AP European History course, which is fairly Western-Europe-centrism. On the bright side, the rest of the Europe gets a little love once Russia starts becoming important, so We'll hopefully get some more information then!
I read Machiavelli's The Prince in high school and I totally was amazed by it. It definitely got me hooked on political science. I couldn't believe that such an old text could feel so relevant and captivating.
Some other good points that The Prince was not meant to be good advice: - One of his more famous pieces of advice is to arm native country men as they are by far more favorable than foreign armies or mercenaries. This seems like good advice at first, until you consider that he's giving it to a tyrant ruling over a former republic (one which had a previous republican uprising that was thwarted). The ruler's own countrymen, if armed, are likely to overthrow him. - He advises ruling from within the city itself rather than being removed from the city. This, again, seems like bad advice that would make an overthrow far easier.
@@russellconklin960 Only unpopular leaders are in danger of a coup. If you follow "The Prince" then you won't be unpopular. -The average person does not want anything from their government. They just want to not be oppressed and left alone. Avoid cramming down your values on your subjects for they will resent you. -If you must punish the populace or a rebellious subject nation then make it swift and brutal. Quick punishments are forgotten but long humiliations only further stir up resentment. If only Germany had listened to this advice when making the French pay reparations in 1871. Or the French in 1919. Or the Xiongnu who demanded yearly tribute from China. -Avoid supporting allies who actively oppress their people as this will hurt your own popularity. Other great advice: -People with little power must use "fortuna" or luck/chance to gain more power. People with lots of power should avoid taking such large risks and instead rely on "virtue" or stability. This is basic game theory.
@@genericyoutubeaccount579 Not breaking promises is also basic game theory. Only unpopular leaders are in danger of a coup? "It is better to be feared than loved" This book is filled with contradictions, but one thing it does NOT describe is how to be popular with your citizens.
@@genericyoutubeaccount579 'Avoid supporting allied who actively oppress their people as this will hurt your own popularity' Cough US government cough Saudi Arabia
I know that you dont have a ton of time on these, but I wish you had given Machiavelli the proper context. If one reads his other writings you realise that his purpose in The Prince is to tell virtuous leaders what they will need to do in order to improve society. Machiavelli's prince is ultimately selfless in that they must establish institutions that promote stability but which render the Prince obsolete. Machiavelli is a realistic idealist, he wants a better world but understands that it can only be achieved by winning under the rules of our worse one.
@@Nasir3623 I hope you are being facetious here. The only way to conclude that Machiavelli is Evil is by looking at him out of context. In context it becomes clear that liberty and freedom are his ultimate goals, he just happens to be realistic about how to achieve them.
Not really the transition from hand written to printing press made making a information actually available to the masses while the transition from cable to the internet made information alot more easy to obtain and always just one click away its like saying the transition from gliders to planes is the same thing as the transition from horse and buggy to cars.
John: "..ballet, fascism, automatic weapons,pizza and defensive minded football" Most people: "He said football!! :o" Me: " He understands enough football to make a reference about the spread of defensive football from Italy across mainland Europe :O"
I got no money to give since I'm a poor person. But I'm so happy you guys make this. Erasmus for life. I'd rather be an idealist that dies trying than a realist that makes no difference for the common man.
My favourite fun fact about the Renaissance and misspelling- at some point, somebody accidentally wrote “horny Moses” instead of “holy Moses”, so during the Renaissance, Moses was depicted as having horns.
That was actually earlier and was due to a mistranslation of the Hebrew from the old testament into Latin. Keep in mind that horny and holy don't sound anything alike in most European languages.
9:07 I love how, after he mentioned that Niccolo's shoulders were dislocated, John Green doesn't tell us that he was fine afterward, suggesting mans wrote a damn book with screwed up shoulders
Very nice episode, I loved it! :) I especially like the story of Erasmus of Rotterdam and there is a fantastic book by Austrian author Stefan Zweig about him and Machiaveli which is exactly about the struggle between "Gaining Power" and "Doing Good". It was written between the world wars and it is absolutely relevant today as well. I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoyed this video :)
I love the question at the end, one thing I have been challenged by in moving to a different country is my worldview and just how much I was shaped by my Northern European upbringing. This is something that I think especially applies when people talk to people from the 3rd world, especially Africans. There is a tendency to dismiss anything that does not agree with our ideas and thought processes as being the result of inferior education.
"Matthias Corvinus patronized art and science; his royal library, the Bibliotheca Corviniana, was one of the largest collections of books in Europe. With his patronage, *Hungary* became the first country to embrace the Renaissance from Italy." But I guess Hungary is just one of those '72 bajillion mini-states of Central Europe' that we won't be hearing from in this 'European History' series.
Yes. Matthias Corvinus was quite a big deal in Europe, at that time. But, since the Kingdom of Hungary was not in Germany or somewhere west of that, it will just be overlooked in these series. Oh, wait. I just restated what you said. I agree with you. You could bet there will be few references to Poland, or the Romanians, the Serbs, the Greeks, maybe footnotes for when Russia is discussed. But at least we learn again how what someone from some german town said something and revolutionized the history of Europe.
I literally just turned in a northern renaissance art project in ap euro afew hours ago and I was looking for one of these to see what I could add on to it but couldn’t find one smh lol 😩Good video
Pleasantly surprised to see you all include Christine de Pizan and The City of Ladies. I discovered her through the Stuff You Missed in History Class podcast and find her absolutely fascinating. Thank you! I also really appreciate the questions you ask at the end of the video. It's so important to keep in mind how our beliefs and ideals are shaped by our backgrounds, experiences and positions in society. Few experiences are universal.
It is better to be loved by your people and allies but feared by your enemies and to strike decisive retribution to allies who betray you, kinda like how the USA destroyed Japan and then rebuilt them and made them an allie; but if Japan was an allie before hand and turned on us. It is better to do what's necessary to make your country stable and then focus on fairness afterwards, and if possible make right some of the wrongs committed in making the country stable. A country should be both effective and uphold its vertues only throwing those vertues to the wind in the most extreme and absolutely necessary situations where it seems no other option will work, where the stakes are your country not some small-scale operation on a foreign continent.
Peter Harrop Most of our history until the 1700’s: not important 1754: Seven year wars happened but we got overshadowed by the Americans 1812-1815: we beat the us in the war of 1812 but no one really cares 1860s: we gained our independence from the British but we didn’t fight like the us so no one cares and it isn’t interesting The rest of history: hey we were here for all major world events including the world wars but we were never the focus of anything Done, the entire history of canada
Machiavelli’s masterwork was the Discourses on Livy which is a great critique of classical understandings of history and gives a good idea of his political philosophy. The Prince is the most famous because it’s the most direct and digestible. Keep in mind though that, his main political goal was to create a “safe” Italy. He was a proto-nationalist which is why you see subtle hints directly to the Borgia’s to use their control of the Papacy to take over and unify the Italian peninsula and make the Pope into a hereditary monarch. He also believed that extreme acts of violence would be justified in achieving this end but also gave sound advice on soft power.
Even in the discourse he notes that a strong republic must be founded by a powerful autocrat who then gives power to a republic. Reading the discourse on livy is integral to really understanding the point of the prince
elfarlaur The Prince is great as an introduction and encapsulates Machiavelli so well that it’s perfect for any overview of political philosophy. But yeah if you want to delve seriously into his work and engage with his ideas, you HAVE to read Discourses. John mentioned Art of War but Machiavelli also wrote a play, La Mandragola. It’s actually pretty funny and has some subtext that you can spot if you’re familiar with his other work.
I was thinking the same. Polish renaissance is kind of a big deal. It could also have been cool to hear a sentence or two about the actuel northen countries.
Hoping that at least it will be mentioned . But it is a small hope , for seeing how this series is progressing - I can conclude that will focus mainly on Western European History .
Surprised you didn’t comment on one of the more interesting aspects of Erasmus legacy: the Erasmus Programme. This is the European Union (and some others though sadly soon not the U.K.) programme to encourage greater depth and breadth of learning through encouraging doing a year in a different European university which I think is a very good post modern example of Erasmus ideals
It seems rather obvious to me that anyone who has studied history, humans and human nature, should see that Utopia is a pretty pipe-dream that could never work, and Realism is the best way to go. Utopia sound all nice and cozy, but almost everything in it requires humans to change their very nature --including many biological traits-- and to not only change a few people, but EVERY single person who lives, INCLUDING those born psychopaths. Which is impossible. The reason is simple: In a society filled with good and virtuous people, the manipulating, back-stabbing, ruthless person will quickly rise to the top and end up ruling. And the kind people will both be too naive to see it, and unwilling to take the drastic measures necessary to stop it. (Well, that, and from what I have seen in history, revolutionaries tend to end up swapping out a bad leader for a worse one.)
Whoa... The ending lines is really something John. Regarding your question there, despite living on a "peaceful" era, I might identify myself as a Machiavellian. What he says makes sense. Though, I am not a warmonger myself, one needs to prepare for a war if you want peace. Coz who knows when will people backstab you.
I'm always cynical of the concept of a Renaissance - a lot of the classical texts that you mention as being re-discovered were always there and known about, Charlemagne circulated them in the 8th century, Alfred did in the 9th, it's less an alteration of state of mind and more a democratisation of that state of mind. Nevertheless, a very enjoyable video :)
Of course they were always there - after all, the old texts that the humanists re-discovered were copied by monks. But there are more than five hundred years between Charlemagne and the Renaissance, and attitudes had changed. (And even the transmission of texts through the Carolingian Renaissance - there's a reason it's called by that name - was very spotty.) That knowledge was scattered across Europe, _very_ rarely copied every few hundred years or so, and quite obscure. Even though the humanists began hunting down ancient manuscripts all over Europe, the material they got was not much. Most of the lesser-known (and a few of the well-known) texts from Antiquity are based on only a handful (or sometimes even _one_ ) manuscripts surviving into the Renaissance. For instance, Tacitus, one of the more famous Roman authors: Of his _Historiae_ , exactly _one_ manuscript from the 11th century survived in all of Europe. Of his _Annales_ , exactly _one_ manuscript from the 9th century containing books 1-6, and _one_ manuscript (the same as above) from the 11th century containing books 11-16 survived, the rest is lost. Two manuscripts, only a single thread. And that's one of the big names, and the most important works. They were _not_ always known about.
@@varana you're conflating surviving manuscripts with circulating manuscripts - fascination with Rome and Classicism doesn't appear overnight, manuscripts were copied yes, but more tellingly the stories were retold in different cultural backings - Orfeus and Orfeo being the immediate example, but there were countless others. Ideas were copied into the Arabic world from the classical texts too. To call the 'Renaissance' a Renaissance is disingenuous, the behaviour existed under Charlemagne and Alfred the Great, to call it a 'Renaissance' is teleology to the highest degree. Which is fine in entertainment, but in education it is most unsuitable.
@@GuthlacYT My point was that those manuscripts were _not_ circulating. They had to be hunted down all over Europe in obscure libraries. And while it was possible for a medieval scholar to travel to Romania to look at a manuscript only available in a monastery there, it was not a common or easy thing to do. That knowledge was exceedingly rare even among the scholarly elite. And yes, while ancient themes and stories were retold and spread, the approach of the Renaissance was to go directly _ad fontes_ , back to Antiquity itself, not the tradition transmitting hints of what the ancient authors had written through multiple stages and re-tellings. The utter fascination of Renaissance artists with the very few examples of ancient sculpture is fundamentally different from the medieval view of those traditions. And it is that fundamental change of perspective and attitude that makes up the Renaissance. Even for things that were always in plain sight, like Roman ruins in Rome, they looked at it with a different mindset. Of course it did not appear overnight - nothing does, and that's a truism that isn't even disputed or anything. But to deny that this basic shift in attitudes towards the ancient world (and by extension, towards the "medieval" age) happened at all, is being contrary just because it sounds cool to challenge a prevailing narrative.
The prince is not satire. It was a plan to unite Italy and Machiavelli lead an army at one point to do just that. Maybe you should read the Prince and learn about the life of Machiavelli.
Psychologists like Freud tells us that our mother's have the biggest effect on who we are, while historians like John here, seem to be telling us that women play little role in it. I wonder who was taking care of the sick when half of the people in Europe were stricken .. In the history of the game of football, often recounted at our family dinners, one finds little mention of women. Ironic as guess who made the dinners which facilitated the discussion. In the history of raising children, instilling moral 'fiber' (if that exists), and taking care of the injured and the weak we find .. well I don't know because it wasn't in any of my history books in school. They say Eurler was sickly. I wonder how it is that he was taken care of well enough to have made his contributions. .. doesn't the other side also have a evolving progressing culture with people who made outstanding contributions, or is there no other side?
@9:38. If this idea seems a bit twisted and cynical... you'd be right. it is. in fact, his entire point was that while yes, its better to be feared than love, they aren't mutually exclusive, and that they are two different and possibly related beasts. In the original Italian, it is dripping with sarcasm. His whole point was that it is a dumb dichotomy, and the real answer is both. The people should fear you because of the power and authority you wield, but also love you because of the protection and proper governance.
"but also love you because of the protection and proper governance." because that is a given? Consider the strongmen in history, who did they hurt the most other then their own subjects. Now correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't he blindly lay all the moral justification on the office, not considering that the wielder of said office is human as well? In the end its all about ego and identity. A Zero Sum game mentality which people like Sayyid Qubt also spoke out for after he was tortured.
The prince is not satire. It was a plan to unite Italy and Machiavelli lead an army at one point to do just that. Maybe you should read the Prince and learn about the life of Machiavelli.
Hi :)! Huge fan of your classes. Just for everyone's information, confirmed by UNESCO, the oldest movable metal type printing was made in KOREA :) Printed in 1377 ,The second volume of "Anthology of Great Buddhist Priests' Zen Teachings" is the oldest ! Thanks you all!
I'd always thought that The Prince was a satire, given that it was so short in comparison to all his other published works, and also that it was a response to the people who'd imprisoned and tortured him.
When leftists are confronted with someone thinking with realism they always think he's not serious because they are so close minded they can even conceive a different way of seeing the world.
@@benjaminfrank9294 Machiavelli in life would probably be considered a leftist by your standards. He was exiled by a despotic, realpolitiky government, and was an ardent republican throughout his life.
You say "western legal tradition" you mean the codex system, in the west the common law system which evolved seperately in England is probably as much that tradition if not more so outside of continential europe.
Gee, I hate John Green here less than I do his "Crash Course U.S. History" videos. Here, he's somewhat less snarky and less contemptuous of everything that has gone before him. He seems to have missed the obvious possibility that Thomas More wrote Utopia as a parody. A lot of Machiavelli for a video of the Northern Renaissance.
I'm sure John Green isn't the only redeeming thing about Indiana, he is however all that comes to my mind at this moment. And almost enough to make up for Pence..... Almost
Hi crash course could you please add a bit more maps with state boundaries? You never show this but it is really interesting for people to know the geopolitical setting!
James Endicott there are enough maps of this era, although some borders are vaguer than nowadays, it does give a good idea of the geopolitical situation
Desiderius Erasmus is often called Erasmus Rotterdamus here in the Netherlands and especially Rotterdam, oh local pride. Keep convincing yourself that the renaissance was a Dutch thing. Don't mind that even the word ''renaissance'' itself isn't Dutch in anyway.
You are not really being fair to machiavelli, he does not argue that it is better to be feared than loved just that you need to be feared first or you won't live long enough for people to understand why they should love you. Same thing with fair and stable. It's pointless to set up a perfectly equitable system if it collapses immediately, only by being stable first can fairness be strived for. Order does not stand in opposition of freedom in Machivelli's eyes it is that stable point which you need to move the universe.
I cannot believe I just had a test (one hour ago!) at a class I am taking and I did not see this video befooooore! Disappointed at the Universe’s timing!!!!!
Thomas More was right in saying Ethiopian priests can get married actually. they do. Deacon Micheal,an Ethiopian, upon his meetings with Martin Luther in the 1530's told him about this and Luther was astonished.
Copying books by hand is so frustrating that monks actually had a demon dedicated to typos: his name was Titivillus and he'd be cursed every time some unfortunate monk had to copy a page from scratch. They would also doodle on the margins. In one manuscript the monk who who copied it wrote at the end something that amounts to "It's done. I need a beer."
I guess my problem with realists, such as Machiavelli, is that while I understand why they see progress and processes as means to an end - the end is never actually under our control. Means are really all we have. It reminds me of the differences between Dr. Haber and George Orr in 'The Lathe of Heaven' - Haber means well, but he believes in a rational and utilitarian control to effect stability and the greater good. Orr, on the other hand, believes that our individual daily actions and acceptance of a lack of control lead to a more natural and equanimical world.
