Boy this video is going to be controversial. Remember to remain civil to each-other in the comments. Link to Patreon, check out my cool maps and History of the World- / whatifalthist Twitter- / whatifalthist
Sorry for number 3 I made a mistake and left out the reason for the why we look down upon the Middle Ages. The big reason is that modern Western civilization came out of the failings of 14th century Medieval Civilization. Medieval Civilization lasted longer than it probably should have and thus collapsed spectacularly in the 14th century. Thus, since modern Western Civilization was formed out of Medieval Civilization, we remember it at its most brutal and dysfunctional and forget all the successes it had in the previous 500 years. The best source for #3 is "The Age of Faith" by Will Durant
When you talked about Europeans in Africa, why didn’t you speak about the Atlantic slave trade or Leopoldian Congo, or the apartheid. I feel like those are significant points made for the argument of exploitation of Africa that you didn’t mention
I’ve been wondering I had an argument with this guy about the German Army of World War II and saying that not all or at least less than half or more than half of the Germans that fight during World War II were not harmed by Nazis or radical Nazis most are just fighting for their country I would say about 35% were really hard line Nazis and from what the sources I seen I leave that to be true but is that just a misconception on my part
He explicitly did mention the slave trade and South Africa tho... And specifically clarified he was talking about the direct colonial period. As for the Congo. Though Belgium didn't help any it was just as murder heavy before and after.
Have you ever heard of struggle between Holy Roman Emperors and Popes? It lasted several centuries, and got to a point where one Emperor was exluded from the church.
I love how we moderns look down on tenement housing, poor farms and mental hospitals, while we are surrounded by thousands of people living in tents or just shelter less on the sidewalks.
Depending on how to define "direct,, I wouldn't argue for any form of English at all. I see his statement interpreted as regarding politeness and yeah okay Americans and Australians sure are rude but when giving criticism in a work environment America is much less direct compared to Germany. At least before everything was globalized. A few years ago Germans were still much more direct in terms of criticism and orders to an extent far greater than in any Anglo culture.
@@authenticbitterleben7434 probably true, you can see that on the chart with American English vs. French. The French are _not_ shy about giving negative feedback and being confrontational, lol. German culture/language is probably different than French, but they might be more similar to each other than either is to American English in that way.
@@RickJaeger I disagree. This is a cultural difference. You perceive the French as not shy. The French (and many others) perceive the Americans as rude. The difference is the French being polite and indirect while criticizing; the Americans shed politeness off and are brutally direct. The French also take a very generalist view, of reason A against reason B; the Americans take a view of "My American way or the highway", which is very confrontational. Isn't it curious that American presidents routinely say or mean "You're either with us or against us" (Bush, 2001, First Invasion of Irak) and put themselves in the same footing as dictators from China, North Korea, and Turkey, to name a few?
As far as the fetishization of the "noble savage" goes, Thomas Sowell writes of this as a recurring theme throughout (at least) Western history, as many Roman writers would glorify the Germanic tribes as well for rejecting corrupt urbanity and living in nature.
But there was a reason to glorify the Germans. They were not in fact savages. Note they used metal weapons and tools. As the uploader points out, Rome essentially was a state where the rural areas were taxed to support an urban civilization. (Hmmmmm.....sounds familiar...)
@@Fridaey13txhOktober They repeatedly lost, but due to shitty emperors got to keep their land. Large parts of Germany and Hungary were subjugated by Marcus Aurelius, but when he died Commodus just abandoned the conquests. Same with Germanicus's conquests being left behind by Tiberius and so on and so forth
7:12 I'm a culinary student, and I notice this about every time a professor talks about the past. A lot of assuming, without research or context. A common one is "the Egyptians accidentaly discovered beer, and had no idea how yeast worked" (seeing as beer is older than agriculture, it was already old news by the time of the pyramids), or even "they ate only meat, and only occasionally would feed on other things" (the societies that are literary called hunter-gatherers), or the opposite: "the Aztecs were incredible due to their highly vegetarian diet" (ignoring the fact that they had no choice, and even raised small dogs for protein).
@@fainitesbarley2245 people from incan empire, used to eat those cuyes, alpacas and llamas, but non different from other places: Wealthy people ate a lot and more variety more than the usual normal low class people.
Regarding the Aztecs, The bodies of the sacrificed did not go to waste. The grim details are laid out in the histories of the Conquest. The Spanish Conquistadores, in order to obtain grease to lubricate the hubs of their animal drawn wagons, had to render human corpses. The Meso American civilizations had no livestock. Meanwhile, introduced disease from humans and from imported animals killed beyond count. And cruelties willfully inflicted by the conquerors where recorded by some of the accompanying clergy as testimony for the future.
"The Native Americans were hippies and in tune with nature" thank you for clearing this myth up. Too many people mistake Native Americans for having always been a peace loving people especially when considering what the Aztecs did to other local tribes or the Iriquois did to the Mississippi (obviously doesn't justify European colonialism but it just proves the whole argument is a moot point from both perspectives)
The notion of peaceful, good hearted hippies in tune with nature extends to almost any nation or people that are poor and simplistic. People in the 1st World also think that any poor people in poor countries are embodiments of the native tribes (the blue apes) in the movie Avatar. Its so naive. When in fact alot of times its quite the opposite. Poverty creates a situation for people where the need for decency is not present, and forces them to do unjust, immoral things. Growing up in a world like that teaches you to be immoral and unjust too. While wealth creates a envinronment or situation for people where evil and immoral actions done out of desperation are not needed. People can "afford" to be purely good and decent, and if you live your entire life like that, then it becomes part of your person. Theres a reason why crimes like murder and rape are so present in poor regions while they are less present in wealthy regions.
As I Mexican I just realized that certain myths are only popular in certain countries, since down here we are taught in schools about Aztec human sacrifice and their liking for war, and how apaches frequently disrespected our borders and raided some towns, while in the US you are taught all natives are pacifists
@@pabloarellano5485 Really depends I was taught about the Native wars. My kids are being taught the same America is huge. Frankly its nit really possible to say "American schools teach this". Because the schools are ran locally and as I said the nation is huge
@@MrKrusten crime rates are low in poor regions. Crime rates are low in rich ones too. When the rich and the poor live close together, crime rates soar.
@L Dikx Not fully serios, but you do realize that Napoleon was a corsican, which is italian culture, and that Corsica was only recently occupied and not even properly annexed by France when Napoleon was born ? Napoleon's father was from Tuscany and his mother was genoese. His primary languages were corsican and italian and only at the age of 9 or 10 he learnt french. Not to mention that his family actually fought agaisnt the french, trying to maintain Corsica independent. In others words, he's not that much french in origin. Which explains his military prowess :P
There is very little hard evidence for the Congo Genocide. The colonial authorities would have had to kill more people than were actually living in the Congo. Each individual member of the small security force would have had to have killed tens of thousands himself for the narrative to be true. Surely there was cruelty, not doubt, but to call it a genocide of millions is a false narrative pushed by Black American intellectuals in the 20th century so they could have their own holocaust to guilt white people with.
ElCadejo172 When did I call it a genocide? Afaik, for the exploitation of the Congo to be a considered genocide it had to be the intentional extermination of the population. Millions definitely died, there's no question about that, but it was in the pursuit of the Belgian king's desire for profit and not for the mere extermination of an entire peoples. Not to mention many had their hands chopped off, which there's also plenty of proof. I'm not sure how anything you said refutes the fact Europeans exploited Africa.
@@SurprisinglyDynamicAnimeSideC I'm not sure if you're an American, but it is common for American children to be taught about the "Congo Genocide" even as most cannot find the Congo on a map. Your assertion of millions likens Leopold to Hitler, Stalin or Mao and it originated as ridiculous propaganda from professional "anti-racists".
ElCadejo172 Millions _did_ die in the Congo. And yes, I'm an American, and children are _not_ taught about the "Congo Genocide" until high school, and even then it's mostly glossed-over. So now I'm doubting that _you're_ American from how little you seem to know how broken and Americentric our education system is.
remember the thing that whatifallthist said about slavery likely being necessary to develop an advance society. even we today have slaves in third world countries and yet people say "the troops are heros"
@Luís Andrade i mean, in those days, there wasn't really a difference. Athens for instance, the most open society that we think of when thinking of ancient Greece had slaves atleast from what I've seen, so there wasn't much difference but it was the norm
Asdf He is wrong on that, poorly paid workers are enough, look at ancient Persia who despite having no proper slaves were able to build amazing architecture and roads which even the biased Herodotus said "were expertly maintained". And as he said, degree matters, the majority of Spartan slaves were poorly treated, routinely massacred, routinely beaten, routinely humiliated, and could be murdered or raped with no punishments. Compare that to pretty much the rest of the near east (there might be some exceptions I don't know about), the slaves where treated badly but at least they had rights and assaulting them could get you punished.
Fellow historian here. On your point about Indian morality, I often wondered as a young lad why the Indians didn’t simply unite to fight the Europeans more than they inevitably did. I once asked my history teacher this question, since much of our lessons on Native Americans clearly portrayed Europeans in an evil light and the Indians as the good guys. My teacher told me Indians were too few, given the effects of the plague, which is partly true. I later learned through my own studies that Indian unity was an extreme rarity. Rather than being alarmed by the immorality of Europeans, Indians usually found them and their industrialized trinkets very alluring. They mostly enjoyed the Europeans, especially when the Europeans would trade them rifles and ammo, which the Indians could then point at their long time Indian rivals. This in-fighting amongst Indians is rarely ever spoken of.
Other popular myths: 1) Crusades happened purely because of religion. It is usually used in a "religion is bad" disputes. In reality, Crusades had certain political, social and economical benefits which could interest the rulers to go on Crusades. 2) When people make direct connections between the modern nation and some old one: Kievan Rus = Ukraine/Russia and not some other nation, Macedonian Empire = Macedonia and not some other nation. Such perception of history disregards the fact of migrations and cultural changes. These ideas are usually promoted to make people proud of their heritage.
Example of the second one Phoenicians and Lebanese people Thracians and Bulgarians Wessex and English people Vikings and Scandinavians Thirteen Colonies and Americans
yeah the use of crusades for religion is bad is really retarded, if the crusades was only motivated because of religion, the crusades could have happened earlier
@@appleslover It's simple, really. You said yourself just now that linguistic differences make one's identity, and this is how most Quebecers see it. There are about 8 million people descended from French-speaking catholic stock and who have been conquered 250 years ago by a British force. Attempts at assimilating them have been mostly unsuccessful for various reasons, so here we are today, you still have a ton of Quebecers who identify as such and not with the (rather artificial) Canadian identity. Of course there's a lot more nuance I could inject in it (the large amounts of French speakers outside Quebec, the Quebecers who reject the Quebecer identity for various reasons and prefer to call themselves Canadian, the immigrant population, the very word Canadian being used to refer to French-Canadians up until the end of the 19th century) but that's the gist of it. Or an even blunter way: a watermelon ≠ a pineapple a cat ≠ a dog Quebec ≠ Canada
@@appleslover Where are ya from, brother? The way I understand it, most French-Canadians refer to themselves as such, not just as Canadians. Almost like they're their own mini-nation inside a much larger one. It actually works, too! ...for The most part... 😆😆
Here's a question for ya, my northern compadre: I can read French fairly well, due to speaking native English, conversational Spanish, and beginner French, but I can somehow u understand spoken Québécois better than Parisian French. Why is that? It caught me off guard recently when a French-Canadian RU-vidr busted out his Native tongue and I somehow understood the gist of what he was saying! I jumped out of my seat! It was weird!
This guy have an aglo centered point of view. The reason why incas were fighting a civil war and their economy was on problems. Was becose their society colapsed by the plage. But in the views of this guys it was not related to the arrival of europeans.
@@nicolasignaciomerinonunez114 aglo? You mean Anglo? Because the Spaniards aren't Anglos my friend that's the English - totally different country. Also, blaming the plagues on Europeans is like blaming the plagues on the Asians; neither society had the technological advancement to know about disease control enough to prevent contamination. Plus, while Americans got Smallpox (which no longer exists outside of a lab) Europeans got Syphilis (which still exists and kills people to this day) so they got their own back in the long run lol.
@@trollerjakthetrollinggod-e7761 I mean, Louis Pasteur's Germ theory wasn't published until 1861 (and the link between Germs and infections was published in 1878) when beforehand then the prevailing theory among the educated about the spread of disease was split between 'spontaneous generation' and 'Miasma' - or 'bad air' causing disease. If you think that a bunch of soldiers knew more about infection than the best of pre-1861 scientists and doctors centuries beforehand, then it was certainly very selfish of them to keep that knowledge to themselves, and strange that they didn't protect themselves better. Catapulting dead bodies into cities is a millenia-old tactic to demoralise an enemy, the fact that the Mongolians used plague bodies is at best more akin to deductive-reasoning than outright knowledge of biological warfare (similar to how people used to poison wells by throwing a carcass into it) and plague-blankets are even more of a stretch for claims of intentional harm.
The only historical misconception that really counts is the one where everyone thinks every other country/race/religion/gender is guilty of wrongdoing towards them whilst their own is oh so fluffy and cute and whimsical and innocent, always picked on and bullied by those other big meanies.
It's probably worth mentioning that the growth of cities during the early and mid- industrial revolution was caused by immigration from rural areas due to surplus population there. Cities did not, as a rule, grow due to internal population growth. This does indicate something about the brutality of the industrial revolution, but it also does indicate something about the constant inability to support a growing population in rural areas.
No, cities were population sinks from the dawn of civilization until about 1900 or so (in the Western world) due largely to contagious diseases. Improved hygiene as a result of industrial era developments in soapmaking and plumbing, and the late-industrial innovations in water supply (chlorination) and sewage disposal (activated solids sewage treatment plants), are largely the things that have allowed urban populations to grow by natural increase. So actually, you're wrong about it indicating anything at all about industrialization.
??? Industrialization meant that machines could perform farm labor that had previously required many people to do, which is where your "surplus population" in rural areas came from. There were less farms, and less farm jobs, so people moved to cities to work in factories. The same thing happened in Mexico after NAFTA, corn prices dropped so much that it was cheaper to buy US corn than to grow it for themselves, and it led to millions of farmers seeking work in large cities, or across the border.
European colonisation was not inherently profitable true, but that is WHY it became so exploitative. They had to force native men into labour camps to either work on massive plantations or mining for raw materials just so they could get some money back from the whole thing. And not to mention that, just because the colony wasn't worth it financially for the whole empire, it might have been for one person. Cecil John Rhodes (who you should definitely make a video of) became a billionaire, perhaps one of the richest men on earth, from colonialism and he for that reason continued to drive it forward.
I know african colonies were more of a tool to use in international relations and to keep concert of europe/League of Nations alive by making concessions when necessary (Britain-Italy border exchange 192X). They were also big tools for pride and was also source to conscript soldiers from. Unless you are talking about specific colonies like Leopolds Congo(Which was very bad) or some specific parts of British and French empire
"labors were forced to work in massive plantation and mine". Cool story bro, it was the same shit for most of Europeans at that times. My grand grand father worked it mines in north of France from 13 to 62, for almost nothing. And yes, some very rich get money from colonization, but again, same thing in Europe. Pretty sure that the mine where my grand grand father worked made someone very very rich too.
Coast of Africa was also important in strategic sense that your ships could get coal in middle of travel beetween european and more lucratice colonies. Thats why "unimportant" islands and coast's were "important" in age where your ships need a lot of coal to sail.
@@mrsupremegascon yes, essentially, the same thing that was done on Africa was first done on the peasants. But back in Africa it was part of a much larger cultural shift, which was, basically, forced.
so do the san of southern africa, i am unfamilair with the pamiri but if they are anything the san people then largely extinct (being a meer shadow in terms of numbers and population spread) and politically irrelevant.
Bruh the intro is super relatable, I as well get fairly upset when a person makes a mistake about something historical. An example I remember is from a couple years ago when my class was learning about ww1, and I was making corrections left and right like "No one called the central powers axis" or "its pronounced Bulgaria not Buljaria".
They tried twice actually. First France offered to change the Ivory Coast for The Gambia, but UK declined, lmao. And in the 1970s they tried out the Senegambia confederation, but it didn't work out, yeah.
@@haydenpack6947 While they theoretically could, since the colonization of Africa by Europeans, it practically has not. Furthermore, it is for all intents and purposed forbidden by international law. I suppose there could be some sort of peaceful land exchange between two countries, but I am not aware of even this happening anywhere in Africa.
Number 7: “Industrialization was awful” is a markedly frustrating misconception. The ability to mass produce goods lowered the price of said goods, making them available for more people to obtain. I think part of this misconception also comes from idealizing a quaint past where the artisan gave his or her creation a unique quality that elevated it above the soulless creations of an assembly line. Of course, one forgets that if shoes were custom made, fewer people could afford shoes. It’s equally bizarre that the early, high, and late Middle Ages are sort of seen as a single period without consideration for geopolitics either. A person living in the Eastern Roman Empire would have had a very different life than one living in Brittany. There’s also, as you alluded to, a tendency to confuse the late Middle Ages with the counter-reformation. Even theologically 13th-century Catholicism looks more familiar to us than its 16th-century counterpart.
Industrialization was very awful, though. Immigrants were systematically exploited, being given poor-paying, labor-intensive jobs with very few rights, and not to mention that the work environments were incredibly hazardous. Industrialization was a crucial step for us to enjoy the world of mass production we live in today, but to say that initial conditions weren't horrid would be to downplay the limbs lost and the various horrors that needlessly fell upon factory workers (the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire arguably being the epitome of such).
@@sylvestergharold7265 Exactly, the whole industrial age was an multi-national social experiment; at no other point before in human history were so many crammed into such a small space as a city for so long, which is why thing like waste disposal to prevent cholera, plagues and diseases being part of daily life rather than occasional events, reliance on merchants for food rather than growing your own allowing scammers to cut foods like bread flour with non-edibles like plaster of paris or brick dust to reduce costs, creation of workers rights, child labour laws and health and safety protocols, pressure on doctors to perform sugeries and other medical procedures quickly rather than correctly so they can move onto the next patient not to mention the number of harmful chemicals whose effects only manifested after years of use - all mistakes that needed to be happen before we realised it was an issue and worked out ways to prevent it.
Proto industrialisation : little farm wokers would produce at home for merchant a certain amount of a certain patern. Almost self suffiscient, in the same time.
Some aspects of industrialisation were shit. Like working in dangerous factories, pollution etc Vs working on a farm. But yes it made goods way cheaps.
@@Neion8 No. Studies showing asbestos killed people were presented to that industry before 1900. We continued to use it, spray it etc. through the 1960s. It is still legally sold in India. Industrialization is not universally good. If technologies had rolled out in a different way, if the peasantry of England hadn't been driven to destitution through the late middle ages and the Renaissance industrialists would have had to earn their labor force by providing competetive wages and a better standard of living than owning your own farm or craft business.
That was amazing. You managed to challenge a couple of my presumptions; I’m going to have to rethink my stance on the Middle Ages and their relationship to the Dark Ages.
I deeply appreciate the book recommendations, I'm studying history at uni and it gets real annoying with some groups judge the past peoples with modern standars for their political agendas.
That last part about judging peope by modern standards is so unbelievably true. I'm a member on quite a large AltHist forum,and we constantly have this debate, like, I joined late last year, and I've already been part of, or observed three different ones.
Omg. Your first part about getting upset when someone starts to frick with history is so true. I got way too heated the other night at a friend of mine when she started criticizing a bunch of aspects of Western Civilization and saying things that simply weren’t true.
@@tron1852 I don't know what documentary you are talking about but in the latter Empire almost all soldiers and plenty of generals and emperors were provincial, including of course the north african provinces. Would they look black in the modern sense? Maybe some of them. Would they be women? No
@@michaelpsellos2560 north African is definitely not black. Brown, sure, but if we're being honest you'd probably only see little difference from the north African Roman's to the Italian or Greek Roman's.
@@ncls.1371 Yeah I don't know how it was back then but nowadays there exist a pretty wide range of skin colors in north Africa. Probably no one you would mistake for sub saharan though you're right
"I'm not sure how much effect the Europeans themselves had on Africa." 21 countries in Africa speak French as their official language. 29 in total. I'd say there was a pretty big impact. This isn't even the most damning mistake in the video, just the most glaring.
I was actually wondering wtf I was listening to. I commented about lumping Indians hating Churchill with Holocaust deniers of the Jewish or Armenian hating variety.
Very few Africans I’m in the former french colonies actually speak fluent french and fewer still use it in regular daily communication it’s at most a public lingua Franca for governments but almost everyone speak native African languages everyday
French in Africa is mostly for the elite, but more importantly, it was deliberately maintained by African leaders on a common accord because that gives them a convenient system to talk to each other. Otherwise they would have to manage a bazillion dialects. Imagine the president or prime minister of your country only speaks the dialect of his people group and stayed in place for 20-ish years, his language would gradually become the de facto language of the country and make every other groups become second-class citizens, leading to social unrest. But since none of the sub-groups has French for its native tongue, you're alienating everyone equally, thus alienating no one. Which funnily enough is the Frenchest thing to do 😂
The African one is a bit off to me. While economically speaking for an entire country European nations didn’t benefit however for private individual corporations they definitely benefitted. A perfect example would be in the diamond industry most of the diamond stores that we go to that are based in France and Switzerland were established in between 1875-1908 around the same time colonization started and and mining was going on. Just that industry alone had siphoned billions. And that’s just one industry let’s not even talk about rubber or Ore. not to mention that a lot of the same industries that were established during the colonial period are still there. Also Europe was very cost effective at how they ran their operations on the continent. For millions of Africans they built their houses out of recycled sheet metal as it was a way cheaper option the building proper buildings that were most likely only saved for important landmarks or for the very few European inhabitants.
@@dejankojic4293 that is an extremely romanticized view of African states and kingdoms, it's a lot more complicated then that, to deny otherwise is to play into the Noble Savage view of Africa. It really depends what region of Africa and who colonized it. Otherwise Ethiopia and Liberia should be the most advanced and happiest nations on the continent and not artificial states like Ghana and Botswana.
@@dejankojic4293 By saying "they would be happier", you are praising them. Humans are not happier because of the reality that surrounds them, it's biologically wired. We tend to idealise realities we don't live in, because they adjust more to our views and desires, but it's only that, an idea, reality is far different.
@@dejankojic4293 And no, their purpose was not exploitation, it ocurred, but was not the goal. The goal was more like "getting a girl because all the homies are married". Exploitation was more individually driven, like with King Leopold
"Immensely subtle regimes that could be very nice places to live." What a refreshing description about, for example, the Persian Empire. The phrase could be applied rather fittingly to more modern states too, I think.
>Immensly subtle regimes. >Ottomans stealing Christian children and indoctrinating them into becoming the Sultan’s personal death squad. >Islamic caliphates treated Christians subjects like second class citizens until they converted. I think the Islamophilic view that the Islamic empires were good places to live if you were non-Muslim is another viewpoint that needs to go.
@@megakillerx This. It's not even just the jizya tax on non-believers. The Islamic world also had laws prohibiting the marriage of Muslim women to non-Muslim men (but of course Muslim men were free to take non-Muslim women as wives.) While I'm not a fan of judging historical practices by modern morals, this kind of discrimination is still far from great and definitely not much better than how almost any other region treated conquered peoples.
@@megakillerx I would agree with you, if I didn't compare that to what it was like elsewhere. Europe in that time was a horrific bloodbath of religious extremism - protestant and catholic people were killing each other on mass. He never made the argument that they were good places by modern standards, just that they were the best during their time.
@@megakillerx so christians were treated like second class citizens in the Ottoman Empire, how terrible. What do you think muslims were treated like in Western Europe at the same time? Way worse obviously.
@@jakub8782 Why yes, how else should you treat a foreign invader that tried to murder you, uproot your faith, you culture and your way of life? Give them a slap on the wrist? But then again, i still fail to see how the iberian ultimatum of “convert or be exiled into North Africa” is way worse than the Ottoman ultimatum of “convert or be taxed into oblivion and have your sons kidnapped and be indoctrinated into the Sultan’s personal death squad”.
I never could hold back chuckles when modern day activists behave as if atrocities are uniquely European and only exported to the rest of the world later on. There are segments In the ancient history of my people (Chinese) that always leave me disgusted when I happen upon them, where entire urban centers of men, women, and children got buried alive or otherwise executed _after they surrendered_ by hostile armies whose generals happened to have psychotic fits after conquering those cities, and rivalries between upper-echelon nobles often ended with entire families _and those of their friends_ massacred. It doesn't seem to occur to them that every country was draconian back then.
I disagree that people believe atrocities are uniquely European. However European atrocities are directly linked to our history in the united states. You are suffering from the straw man fallacy.
@@dy031101 1. What activists are you referring to? 2. Another straw man fallacy. I never claimed atrocities were not linked to all of human history. The history of our own country's founding is taught more in the united states than other elements of human history. Whether or not you or I agree with that being the right thing to do. Personally, with limited time, I would rather learn about our own countries history, and how it has shaped our country today, than that of ancient china, as an example. 3. I never attacked you personally. I never claimed to be special. This sounds like an ego attack, implying your ego may have been damaged by my comment. Apologies.
@@DOMOzCHANNEL >>What activists are you referring to?>I never claimed atrocities were not linked to all of human history.>The history of our own country and ancestors is taught more in the united states than all of human history.>Whether or not you or I agree with that being the right thing to do.
Yep trying justify that they're native to North India(even though the majority haplogroup in North India is R1a and that haplogroup originated somewhere from the western or Central Asian steppe region)and that their culture and language isn't related to Europeans(even tho their language is apart of the branch of the Indo-Aryan which is a sub-branch of the Indo-Iranian language family which also a sub-branch of the wait for it,wait for it.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Indo-European language family you know the language family that includes almost all of the European languages,Iranian&Aryan languages,Armenian languages,and the extinct Tocharian languages and they worship Indo-European Gods case close)
10:03 I think that is a missconception, too. The working-hours in an agricultural society was normaly lower than in the industrial age (harvest season not included). It just was not that well payed, especialy when the main farmland was occupied by big landlords. The reason that the farmes went to the cities was not the hard work on the land, it was because the hard work in the city was better payed.
Additionally, the closing of common lands forced a huge portion of farmers into poverty, where city/industrial jobs were a way to survive. I disagree with the video on that section from the study I've done on economic history in university.
In a factory you get payed every week or two while in agriculture the produce only grows every couple of months with varying degrees of success, not to mention having to go out and sell said produce.
1:30 - The Prussians did send observers to the American Civil War, but they looked down upon the American armies as undisciplined rabbles (in the first months of the war they were probably right if Mark Twain's account is any indication) so they probably didn't learn much.
@@skullcrusherm7425 The Caste system did achieve its current form during British rule. The Caste system started becoming more rigid during the Gupta Empire (220ce-550ce) but it became weaker over time until the 1200s due to the rise of Jainism and Veerashaivism which challenged Brahmanical society. However, it became more rigid again from the 1200s to 1450s due to early Islamic rule where highly influential Hindus made it rigid as a resistance to the early tyrannical Muslim rulers. However, from the 1450s to 1800s, the system became less rigid again due to Vijayanagara Empire, regional Sultanates and later Mughal Empire which all encouraged caste fluidity within communities and the administration. However, from the 1800s to early 1900s, caste became more rigid than ever before. This was because the British organised communities based on caste and religion in their censuses among other things that came under 'Divide and Rule'. From the 1900s onwards, due to the rise in free thinking amongst the Indian elite and intellectuals, caste became less rigid and social restrictions were gradually lifted. To be honest, the caste system wasn't as bad as people think it was; it was just as bad as the class systems used in other parts of the world at the time and fluidity between castes was just as common. Its just a shame that it still exists in India whilst other cultures have managed to almost completely get rid of it.
@@brownbricks6017 The Caste system did achieve its current form during British rule. The Caste system started becoming more rigid during the Gupta Empire (220ce-550ce) but it became weaker over time until the 1200s due to the rise of Jainism and Veerashaivism which challenged Brahmanical society. However, it became more rigid again from the 1200s to 1450s due to early Islamic rule where highly influential Hindus made it rigid as a resistance to the early tyrannical Muslim rulers. However, from the 1450s to 1800s, the system became less rigid again due to Vijayanagara Empire, regional Sultanates and later Mughal Empire which all encouraged caste fluidity within communities and the administration. However, from the 1800s to early 1900s, caste became more rigid than ever before. This was because the British organised communities based on caste and religion in their censuses among other things that came under 'Divide and Rule'. From the 1900s onwards, due to the rise in free thinking amongst the Indian elite and intellectuals, caste became less rigid and social restrictions were gradually lifted. To be honest, the caste system wasn't as bad as people think it was; it was just as bad as the class systems used in other parts of the world at the time and fluidity between castes was just as common. Its just a shame that it still exists in India whilst other cultures have managed to almost completely get rid of it.
What if the Meiji Restoration failed? What if the Knights' Templar never fell? What if the Raid on Harper's Ferry succeeded? What if Bleeding Kansas never happened?
I can kind of answer #2. The Knights Templar were taken out by Philip the Fair primarily because they owned a lot of France's Debt, were a Papal force in country at a time when the King was trying to fight Papal influence, had ambitions to create a Papal state in country and were fabulously rich. Now, for the Templars to survive, that requires Pope Boniface VIII to survive and this isn't that difficult. When the Pope got word of what Philip was doing, he prepared to go down there to put a stop to it. Philip promptly sent thuggery commandos (yes I'm calling them that) to kidnap him (yes, I'm serious), which resulted in the Pope being decked across a room and dying a week later of a brain aneurysm. The result of this led to the French taking over the Papacy and rampant corruption that led to the Protestant Revolution. Now, if Boniface hadn't been decked across the face or was out of town, then he'd lead a Papal response to Philip. This likely would've led to France being invaded by militant orders and Papal loyalist countries, which Philip had no chance of winning. This would either lead to Philip being killed or deposed. This would mean the Papacy would still be in Rome, would not have taken such a massive reputation hit and such would not have suffered such massive corruption. While Protestantism likely would've risen eventually, it would've happened much later, since a lot of the issues that led to it occurring under Martin Luthor would not have been as exasperated. That means the 17th century would've completely altered. Likewise, Philip's line is completely derailed and France would've lost quite a bit of territory in the process. Now as for the Templars, they likely would've gotten a sizable chunk of France to rule for the Pope, essentially becoming akin to the Teutonic Knights. Like them, they would've lasted several centuries but probably would've been bested by the locals (either the Germans or French). They would continue to exist today as charity and honorary organization, much like the Hospitaliters. Hope this answers your question.
Aiden Wieder exactly my thoughts, with something like the Kansas Nebraska Act allowing the incoming settlers that populate the territories to decide if they will allow slavery or not some serious conflict was bound to happen
@Luís Filipe Andrade One point you're missing. If the Cotton Gin was never invented, slavery would have died out long before a Civil War even happened, because slavery would not have been a profitable economic system for the Southern landowners to latch onto. The South would have inevitably industrialized, like the North did. And African Americans would have been freed from slavery as early as 1840.
A) The drawing of borders was done with some help from the Africans, since Europeans literally created governments for these countries when they left. Yes it had an insane amount of issues, but that doesn't completely lie on Europeans, especially since massive public opinion throughout the whole world, as well as the USA and USSR encouraging decolonization, as well as unrest in the colonies, put extreme pressure on the process, forcing it to become an unnatural escape from Africa, instead of a natural lay of the colonies with consideration, at the cost of them being colonies for longer. B) Tribes always fought each other anyway. Like mini nations they conquered land from each other and like nations they allied with other nations to destroy. Also he only mentioned the economic viability and exploitation, even mentioning that what the Europeans did was wrong.
I am reading Durant now along with the unabridged rereading of Gibbons Decline and Fall plus the Historia Augusta, and it is some of the most exciting portrayals of history I have ever read.
The eleven misconceptions: 11 - World War I commanders were idiots 1:01 10 - Oriental despotism 3:18 9 - Dialogue 4:41 8 - People in the past were stupid and immoral 7:00 7 - Industrialization was awful 8:58 6 - The Europeans exploited Africa 10:43 5 - Early civilizations were good places 12:58 4 - The Dark Ages were terrible 14:58 3 - The Middle Ages were primitive 16:26 2 - Migrations never occurred 18:04 1 - The Native Americans were hippies 19:48
Dude I've watched 12 of your videos in 2 days and I wanna watch more... I'm scared to check how many videos I have left but this content is amazing, thank you so much.
They probably would have expanded more if it wasn’t for their inheritance laws/rules. Like most pre 17th 18th century successions laws are quite flawed and lead to usurpers like in Imperial Rome with a general on a winning streak of battles could be proclaimed Emperor by his legions
@@thomasalvarez6456 that's pretty dumb to devide the empire between generals. Why wouldnt they chose one sucessor to rule the empire like 90% of the empires?
Egypt was ruled by a Mongolian slave-soldier in the thirteenth century surprisingly. The Mongol overlords and troops would probably mix into the local mamluk elite and Egypt would become independent again
@@wirelessbluestone5983 i don't think that's how it works. It is the population that represents the country, it is not because the elite is semi egyptian that the country would become egyptian, it like the european royal families, they are often mixed but the kingdoms still independent from each other and that because the population is different from a kingdom to enother.
A common misconception, especially in the USA is that Columbus reached America, as in their country. He, of course, never set foot in North America. The only part of mainland Americas that he set foot on is what is modern day Panama (hence the city of Colon, Christopher Columbus in Spanish is Cristobal Colon) and what is modern day Venezuela.
My favorite example of how people of old times being introspective and intelligent is some people can observe their blind spots in their eyes. With know understanding of how the eye work seeing an object disappear and re appear in your peripheral vision would be confusing at best and possibly terrifying. Explains a few folk tales of demons or spirits that disappear and re appear in front of you.
10:37 - Just to clarify, Marx was never against industrialisation, he was simply against the profits of industrialised labour going to the bourgeois class rather than the workers or proletariat. Hopefully that clears things up.
Marx has been refuted so many times by real economists that is really boring to hear someone explaining marxism. Prehistoric and very anti cientific theory. Also really dangerous.
@@FragRevel you talk about Marxism as though it’s an economic system, it is not, it’s a method of analysing the relationship between the human mind and the world it exists in. Marxist economics is a load of outdated garbage I’ll be the first to admit that, but that doesn’t mean the system of analysis Marx created should be discarded.
@@solortus Just because it's been the most successful so far doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be reformed. Capitalism through climate change is literally destroying the planet (yes i know the soviets were extremely bad for the environment as well).
Not to mention the fact that he fails to recognise the difference between Marxism and Marx’s theory as detailed in the communist manifesto. I like his channel in terms of historical documentation but his political understanding (with the exclusion of certain aspects of geopolitics) is soooo limited
true, but no one is saying that the Europeans were doing out of the kindness of their hearts. Most people where properly just in it for the money (as most people tend to do) although I will say that Europeans didn't see it as simply a way of exploiting (maybe except the Belgians), They saw it as a way of exporting civilisation to Africa, which they thought gave them the right to conquer. This is analogous to how Microsoft sees its vision to "empower companies of all sizes to be their best".
True, however, Europe would still have had the same level of wealth without Africa, and Africa would be much poorer without Europe (this, however, doesn't justify any act of conquest in itself)
Well done. Facing our favorite misconceptions head on is the hardest thing, but the best way to deal with it. Truth is always better than the alternative, no matter how much we would prefer the alternative to be the truth. Very well done, indeed. Please keep the outstanding videos coming and God bless you, my friend!
18:34 Oh wow! Look at the Ainu! I never new that they used to populate such a large area! Of course they were probably ancestors of the Ainu, but still.
Another misconception I'd like to bring up is the idea that European line infantry tactics in the 1700s were insane and that the Americans won the revolution because the Native Americans taught them how to hide behind rocks. I was even taught this idea in a college course and it's just so blatantly idiotic.
This is obviously a sensitive issue and I should point out that I am not an expert on the subject. I just think that there are problems in the argument given in this video on this point, and I'm setting them out here. Moreover, "Europeans have exploited Africa" can be understood differently. If exploited is taken to mean that Europeans have done their utmost to extract as many resources as possible, I think that is wrong. As said in the video, there was no huge investment and industrialization would have made the exploitation of Africa much more efficient. I rather have the impression that the Europeans have mainly tried to extract as many resources as possible by relying almost exclusively on the local populations. In Madagascar, for example, slavery was massively used to build the infrastructure needed by Europeans, particularly for the transport of local production to the metropolis. There was therefore no cost to France apart from the deployment of the military, but there was a transfer of resources from the colony to Europe. It seems in fact that the wealth exploited in Africa is not so huge compared to other colonies or even to the resources present on the continent. If we take into account the fact that they have been exploited almost exclusively by the labour of local populations without modern tools, the term "exploitation" seems appropriate. Nor should it be forgotten that this is not the time of current liberalism. Empires tried to be as self-sufficient as possible and sought to obtain the resources necessary for their industries through colonisation. In this perspective, the colonies were mainly to produce enough resources to keep the industry of the mother country functioning, no more. In fact, the local populations were more or less (depending on the place and time) forced to produce various resources for the colonizer and used their pay to buy products sold by the colonizers (another considerable source of wealth for the industry of the colonizing countries). Anyway thank you for your very enjoyable videos.
Even to think that it was just Europeans is very ignorant, in the grand scheme of things the Islamic world exploited Africa for far longer, to a far greater extent and were far more brutal in doing it. At the end of the day every civilisation that beats another in the field of conflict have tended to go on to exploit and mistreat those they defeated, it's not just Europeans but humanity
I think the question can be broken into three parts: - Have the colonizers mistreated Africans for material gain? Yes, definitely. - Has this lead to a net benefit to the colonizing countries? Not really, trading for the needed resources would be more efficient in the long run. - Would Africans be economically better off if there had been no colonization? Only if they had adopted Western ideas and technologies on their own
@@TapOnX True, this whole thing is so deeply mixed with emotions and current narratives that we have forgotten what questions we actually are answering, moreover many people would answer yes to all 3, but when shown evidence to the contrary, would simply move the goal post by switching the question out with one that is easier to defend.
Something you could add to a part 2: The Renaissance is a separate era that follows the Medieval era. The Late Medieval era is considered to be from mid 1200s to around 1500. The Italian Renaissance happened from the 1300s to 1500s. Donatello died the same year the War of the Roses ended. The period that involves European exploration and early colonization is the Early Modern era. Point of note: a lot of modern Medieval fantasy stories are set in the Renaissance. Organized armies, crossbows and realistic paintings
I kinda feel the use of exploitation as synonymous with stealing of physichal resources for monetary gain is misleading. I understand the argument of europeans not having gained much monetary advantage from colonizing Africa, but there was clearly some form of resource that they were looking for - you even mention it actually: relative political power compared to other european rivals. Would you still argue that taking political and geographical power from the native population of Africa is not exploitative? It also seems like you are arguing that the europeans taking control over african geographical areas and implementing their governace (whether directly or not) has had an insignificant impact on history - which might be me misunderstanding your intentions, or might be a statement with which I cannot agree based on my understanding of our history. In either case, I still appreciate you having made this video. It is a good thing to challenge persistent ideas not based in the reality of history. Thank you!
I think his point was refuting the general idea Africa is poor because Europe ravaged it of all resources. In reality European colonialism in the late 18th & early 19th century introduced technology Africans wouldn't have acquired otherwise.
@@imoyabrax450 lol what geopolitical condition, every single African government before colonization is a joke and people lived like savages like Incas and they are real primitive compared to the average technology and considering that Europeans have actually modernized most of Africa, I don't see how it is wrong or a disadvantage to Africans, the governments which came after colonization are the ones that caused massive resource plundering for their own good and left people like slaves
...but, it would be amazing. It's mind blowing that one of the world's largest sky-bird preyed on the world's largest land-bird, in the land of the world's smallest land-birds.
I just discovered your channel a couple days ago and I’ve been absolutely tearing thru your body of work. I love the info and context you provide - America defined by 10 ethnicities is a wealth of historical course correction that started filling gaps for me that have never really made sense. I have a kind of overly simple question maybe: would you say it’s safe to say that humans are humans and if it makes sense that We modern men would do a behavior, historic man would have likely done similar? So when we hear that public atheism in the Middle Ages was common, should that not be surprising and should I try applying that context to a lot of historical information?
The oldest wheel currently was found in Slovenia, but yes we cant know where it came from, besides we dont know what else my lie underground somewhere, considering most finds are accidental
@@gajmlinar6950 i believe the idea that it was invented in modern day ukraine comes from indo-european invasions, which we know spread the wheel. although that doesn't mean they invented it.
When I was in the military, I became friends with a Jew who, while not my first Jewish friend, he was the first one really to tell me about their history. One thing I wasn't expecting was he said that the fanatical anti-Jewish attitude of the Arabs is actually a recent development, only really becoming a major force about 100 years ago. Before that, he said there would be isolated outbursts of persecution due to an emir or caliph having a personal grudge, but it would stop as soon as that ruler died or was out of power. Kind of like how Christianity was mostly tolerated by the Roman Empire, but you occasionally had someone like Nero come along.
@@ressljs as a Syrian I can tell you that eventhow it wasn't always perfect jews and Muslims all lived here in peace up until the conflict with Israel. Propaganda just spread fast and many became anti-semetic. There were definitely many Syrians who had nothing against jews but it wasn't socially acceptable.Although I have to say that the younger generation (luckily) is much more educated on the matter due to having the internet.
As a history professor, I found myself saying "hmmm well..." very often. You made A LOT of bold statements and I appreciate you for increasing our society's knowledge. I enjoy your videos and they get me hyped up to debate.
Except he got the part wrong about 1600's Western Europ to Islamic comparison. Since Islam came to existence, women had the rights to vote, own property conduct business and HAS to see her family at least twice a year and in most middle class households people meet their relatives (especially the woman) waaay more than that, more like on a weekly basis. Whilst in Europe you had governement officials coming in the house to punish your inobedient wife. Lemme get this straight, I left islam and sexism had a big part to do with it, but I hate when folks use the same stereotype of "West is less sexist than brown muslims" if we are speaking of "degrees" here I would say the form varies but the content is still there
@@refugetube4800 Perhaps you would like to expound on why the Koran entitles a man to 4 wives... but not a woman to 4 husbands? The Koran has much to say about how men should control women, but not the other way around. Please answer without reference to the Bibles (Christian or Jewish) or by making odious comparisons.
@@v1e1r1g1e1 are you stupid or you just acting like one? Next time read well before typing nonsense like an angry teen. I said I left Islam cuz its sexist but you guys are on another level and your stinginess continues to prove it
I know this video was posted two months ago, but I only discovered this channel recently (although I wish I'd learned of it sooner). I really like the way it works to present history with an authentisity-based, non-dogmatic lens--trying to speak the facts for the sake of speaking the facts. I really look forward to seeing more videos in the library.
The mythology behind the native American peoples is one of the most important things you mention here. People believe they were saints, in part to demonize the westerners who came after them. They did indeed fight wars of genocide and conquest, deforest their lands, and engage in slavery on a wide scale. Brave of you, frankly, to include this in the list!
This is also done with Africans during the Atlantic slave trade. It’s usually portrayed that Westerners came into Africa and enslaved the population themselves directly. In reality, the slave trade was started by African tribes and countries who had conquered other regions and taken them captive, then traded those captives with Westerners. Modern people tend to worship the poor innocent African tribals who were just going about their peaceful Stone Age lives before the Europeans stormed in and enslaved them all. Africa was a thriving part of the world for centuries, and a lot of that was due to slavery in some form or another.
@@christiano9693 not really. The biggest misconception is that today's Islamic countries actually practice sharia law. That's total bullshit. Iran and Saudi Arabia only enforce the laws that suite their regimes and call them Sharia Law. Many of those laws are actually way too far and sometimes false. Back in the day Islam really was present in the Umayyad and Abbassid caliphates, and the other states during theor time. Of course, not everyone was extremely religious and all, but real sharia law was actually there and many people were religious. We can't call them Arab empires either because they were dominated by races that weren't Arabs like Berbers, Persians and Turks. The Arabas were the majority only until around 710. Once the Caliphate expanded to other cultures, those cultures slowly started to mix with the Arab culture, with many elites preferring the Persian way of life for example as opposed to the ancient Arabian way. Caliphes and Sultans started trusting foreign races instead of Arabs, with the Abbassids giving huge influence and power to Persians later on, only to replace them with Turks some century later. Eventually, more and more cultures blended with the Arabian one. The last time the Caliphates were truly Arab was probably around 800-900.
@@alidokadri we are agree. I say that talk about islamic golden age or similar is like say the islam is the cause of that knowledge accumulation (the cause is the empire, Islam is just a tool of the imperial expansion and justification) when in fact Islam consensus reject the follow of the observable truth in order to find truth nature of God and world (christians do the opposite and this contribute to western successfull). Passed this imperial sweet moment, Islamic countries are the nothingness in knowledge accumulation and development. And when I say that Islam is the cause of almost all social and political problems in muslim countries, just look at them, religious civil wars is the most obvious, all the crimes in the name of "God's law" implementation other, tech kids more religion than useful things for countrie success, the high inbreeding marriages for sexual repression, the low incorporation of women to work (I know a man prefers just work him but if you are I competition with countries that both sex work you have a problem), the incapacity of have a democracy because if a religious party win eventually this subvert democracy, the absence of human rights recognition (because Islamic countries have their own vision of human rights based on sharia)...etc
I wanna clarify something with the first myth, the way WW1 was fought was not new. In fact you could see mirrors in the American Civil War, especially towards the end. The technologies had advanced between the two, and WW1, was much more brutal, but in almost every way, the American Civil War was very much a proto-WW1. Point 1: Massive stalemat, with the exception of the Mississippi, no side was able to gain or lose much ground until the end of the war, especially in the main hotspots. When we are taught about the Civil War, we are taught about many offenses on both sides ultimately going nowhere for the better part of the war, such as the many attacks into the north, usually perpetrated by General Lee, or the initial failed attacks on Richmond. 2: Technological advancement, while not as extensive as WW1, the ACW used many new inventions or is one if not the earliest use of a preexisting invention in warfare, such as the repeater rifle, modern bullets, the ironclad, railways, gatling gun, and early submarines. There are a few other inventions that were new or untested in war at that point. 3: Shift in tactics, the Battle of Bull Run is famous for this combination of tactics that were slowly being dated and citizen naivety, but by 1864 with the Siege of Petersburg we start to see a full on trench warfare in the fashion of early to mid WW1 So, simply put, a precedent did exist, but everyone thought it would end up like the Franco-Prussian war, not the US Civil War
The Russo-Japanese war was even closer to WW1, being only 10 years before. Europeans watched it keenly (mostly because they were worried about possible Russian agression, and also because Japan had a "British" navy and "German" army so they could see tactics and ships in actual action), but don't seem to have noticed how grim the land campaign got (and how much worse it might be if, say, both countries had the majority of their armies on either side of a land border...)
I don’t buy this Petersberg-WW1 trench warfare statement. Armies have been fighting in trenches during sieges for hundreds of years. Nothing about Petersberg wasn’t seen in the second siege of Vienna, for instance.
Whatifalthist I’m Afro-german it’s huge in some tribes they speak a Germanic dialect similar Dutch. Namibia is great just don’t call is South African because we hate we people do that.
@João Antonio honestly the market is flooded with diamonds now. They’re not nearly as valuable as they once were. The gold that ended the Bullion famine, however, now that African “contribution” definitely benefited Europe a great deal more than Africa
@Petri I'm aware, and I'm nkt able to rewatch the video right now, he made it sound like Africa somehow benefitted from their colonization, when they clearly didnt
6:01 this is not entirely true. People did of course swear in the past, just not in the same way we do. Words and their meanings change over time and common words back in history might have a more serious meaning today. If you want to learn more about this watch this video by Simon Roper, an excellent anthropologist and historical linguist. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ARgGguQlQ0w.html It's also important to note that more formal language was used in the literature from the past, and thus isn't truly representative of how people commonly spoke, meaning that we aren't getting what was actually spoken, but instead a formalization of it. It's not hard to realize that people didn't really speak like they do in Shakespeare. Another note is the inaccuracy of the point made at 6:30. Old English and Southern English are not incredibly close, they just share a few pronunciations. Simon Roper also has a video discussing this. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4rb0HPDnc8Y.html
Interestingly enough in my language we still swear sometimes like people from medieval times. Ok, even in english there is "damn" and "in god's name", swears with a more religious context. But we swear on words like "sacrament", "cross- crucifix", "cross- cruzifiction" and so on. Even some class/caste related swear words like "one who got shorn up from behind" (i really have no clue how i should translate this), which describes the style of hair serfs had to have in medieval times, so you basically call him a serf, a rightless man on the lowest social level, even though this class system died in our society around 500 years ago. Another one is "crucify the turks", even though the thing you are swearing about has nothing to do with them or generally any person. Maybe because my ancestors saw the invading turks as kind of dark wizards who could hex people.
You should have mentioned the Belgian Congo during your Africa segment. That was undeniably a brutal, exploitative slave state made entirely for profit EDIT: not made for profit. It was made because Belgium wanted to have an empire. It couldn't have been initially founded for profit because the Europeans thought nothing was there. It was when rubber was found that the congolese people were exploited
Whatifalthist as much as I like your videos there are countless instances where Europeans got more out of Africa than it put in. The French government extracted billions post independence from 14 of their former sub sharan colonies by dictating the financial guidelines of the separation of French rule and even have first claim to some of their natural resources. And by carving up the continent with no regard for ethnic differences when independence it created the space for civil wars,military dictatorship, ethnic cleansing and easier for neo-colonialism to start again. The Congo Is just one of the easiest explosions to cite due to the sheer brutality
Whatifalthist you forgot to mention how Africa was carved up for strategic reasons like the French control over the Sahara was used to link up their colonies in Algeria, Gabon, Senegal and the Ivory Coast. Many countries saw no economic investment other than military installations
Fun fact: Africa was such an easy conquest for Europe because they (the british in particular) often had numerical superiority and Africa went into a dark age before colonization after the fall of their empires.
Another interesting fact: from what I've read, during the Opium Wars (even the Second one in the 1850s), a number of the British were expecting a VERY hardfought and grueling war with the Chinese (remember that they were still considered an empire before then). The fact that it ended up being so lopsided was incredibly surprising to many Europeans (as the Chinese were thought to be much more advanced than other powers of the region and most nations around the world, which they were to some extent). The exploitation of China really got started after 1860, when China accepted nearly unconditional surrender to the British and French forces.
Thank you on the witch craft and bathing comment for the Middle Ages. I had a coworker (I work at a fast food joint while working on BSE) who honestly thought that people bathed once a month and that you'd die by 30. And for the witchcraft thing I often turn to the Council of Panderborn.
Yeah, I was expecting something overall better. I am now thinking that I was simply not the target audience of this video and my expectations were a mistake.
@@Onlinerando Yeah, this was my second. I was impressed with his Timur video and instantly subscribed to Al Muqaddimah who assisted with it, then I watched this one which left me 'not wanting more'.
Even though the main point seems right imho, I too feel like this was quite a subjective . And found quite interesting that your view of europe was so foccused on the source nations of the northamerican colonizers.
If Italy didn't unify the North would have been taken by Austria and the south by Spain. The Pope would have been kn a better situation between 2 of his besties rather than cover by the Savoys.
I like the thought of one of the Moroccan crisies starting off WW1 as very nearly happened. Mainly because in that war Serbia would not bleed nearly as much, and would probably only join war late for spoils like Romania/Italy instead of having to bear the brunt of the war and massacres as in OTL (25% of all people died in the war, more if only counting men, and there were massacres of Serbs in Austria-Hungary too which don't count to this dark score). Bulgaria might even join Entente with no easy DoW on Serbia while they could instead try and take Constantinople from Ottomans. OTOH Austria and eventually Germany had to commit many troops to Serbian front, these would go elsewhere and potential be enough to win or at least knock out Russia a bit sooner.
I’m going to talk about if the Qing never existed. All of this would account for if the Ming did industrialised and modernised. 1. The Ming encounters the Opium Wars with Britain and wins it so it drives the colonial powers out of China instead of a longer war. 2. China builds up the military response to Japan modernising & trading with western powers. 3. Japan tried to invade Korea but failed to do so because of China advanced navy and army so then Japan will suffer a revolution & isolation after it. 4. The Ming dynasty supports the anti-communists Russians so therefore the Soviet Union will lose the civil war more likely and gained support of western powers. 5. The Ming send troops so the axis is defeated very early by 1943 and with Japan being isolated, the US would not intervene. Major powers would be British, French, Russians, and the Ming dynasty during the 1940s. 6. Eastern Europe, Russia, and the Ming dynasty would be an alliance. British empire, French empire, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and occupied Germany would be an alliance sort of like NATO. The US, Japan, Mexico, Central America, and South America would be an alliance. 7. With Russia and China having inferior economies compared to the western colonial powers still then Russia will end up in a economic and political crisis and will make concessions. 8. With the Qing not invading, then China will be in a much smaller area size that will exclude Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, and Guangxi probably and leaves with about 1,910,000 square miles of Chinese land as modern Chinese territory. 9. China in the alternate timeline would not include Dalai Lama as part of the Chinese nation. I know some other people also speculate that later Tang would exist with the Ming falling, Ming dynasty having a huge wealth gap that leads to rebellions probably, potentially Ming could have bad emperors that lead to lost of the Opium Wars, and Ming could reform its economy based on capitalism by 1700s and become a dominating capitalist empire by 1800s and 1900s. With all this said, anything could possibly happen had the Qing conquest didn’t happen.
X1 Gen KaneshiroX The Ming couldn't industrialize or modernize. It was practically intellectually, socially, and technologically stagnant for its duration, especially when compared to the dynamism of the Song. Part (certainly not all, but part) of why the Qing failed to modernize was their arrogance, which might be even worse under a dynasty not ruled by “barbarians”.
But to answer your question, OP, I think the Ming probably would've been overthrown by the Shun dynasty (which probably wouldn't last very long) or gone into a period of civil strife before being reunited by some warlord.
Public bath houses were common in England throughout the Mediaeval period. They were banned under Henry VIii as a danger to morals - an accusation aimed at Roman era baths.
The idea that our king - mostly known for having multiple wives and affairs - was concerned with the moral degredation of commoners is hilariously ironic, thanks for sharing!
Nearly done with number 11 but still thank you so much for helping me understand about the myth and books to read of these things. Keep up the great work.
The Europeans, as a whole, didn't benefit from colonizing Africa, but the citizens of the Congo Free State, in the 1800s, would disagree. The Belgians, in particular King Leopold ii, benefited greatly.
