So many of the US/Rome comparisons fail to see the major differences. The most important being that the US doesn't have individuals in possession of armies, whose soldier's livelihoods are reliant on the individual. It would be fine to make the US/Rome comparisons if you acknowledge those differences, but usually they don't. Probably because they're trying to make a political point.
Yeah he likes to cite rudyard Kipling, and a few specific people (who if you look them up, were just fascists), his name is rudyard and he seems to have internalized the “white mans burden” into his commentary
PMC come to mind. I think the chances that the military break down is low as the military has already been feminized with lower standard and overt bureaucracy. What might brake the military is when a ground war that require massive men power show up and they can't just rely on overt technological edge anymore because you still need actual people to take and hold position. They will have to rely on Mercernaries more and more until the military become a shell.
@@baneofbanesit’s just that there’re similarities, and the US’ founding itself took a lot from the roman republic, i mean we literally have a senate. The problem is, there aren’t too many actual similarities otherwise
There were two factions in the Roman Republic, Optimates, and Populares. The big policy dispute was land reform, redistributing land to poor farmers. The former opposed, and the latter supported. So- in the most superficial sense- you could map the factions as conservative and progressive respectively; relative to the Iron Age world of the time of course. Caesar was a lifelong Populares. By that logic, the modern equivalent of Caesar- if we're adopting the tortured "New Rome" analogy- would be if a Democrat military general marched on Washington, and got as many Presidential terms as they wanted. Plus legislative power. So yeah, calling Caesar "conservative" is nonsense
Spengler had German nationalism bias, that’s why he conveniently says the West started with Germany around 900 AD He also was a failed novelist, that’s why he also claimed that there’s no possibility for good art anymore, his philosophy says more about him than the actual historical drive of civilizations
@user-os1gu5qb3c Spengler was also a major influence on the Nazis and being a leftist humanist Aspie boi of Jewish,Scots-Irish, French,Ukrainian, Austrian,Polish, Spanish,Greek, Italian and Romani descent I ain`t the biggest fan of the Nazis.
The West Began with Egypt and Sumer. Some argue one emerged before the other. I argue this is not so, but rather absent of common place arbitration, truth is they emerged at the same time. People also like to push the Indus Valley further back than it actually was. The Indus Valley was a patchwork of Sumerian Colonies similar to Southern Italy was to Greece or Carthage was to Phoenicia. It is true that the dominant language was probably Dravidian, not Sumerian. However, it is quite evident that India was always divided by a caste system and it is also biologically certain that the Priestly Caste and the people of Iraq are related.
@@madamkirk there is nothing to debate. Its not possible to argue with him, because he never makes a coherent argument or support it by evidence. He just throws broad, overly confident and, in my opinion, racist statements around and thinks he knows it all. Just look at this video alone. Why is greece eu and america is rome? No reason. How are the punic wars paralels to the world wars? They are not. Why would history move in cycles of a 250 years? There is no reason. He just cherry picks events and classify some of them as good ol Christian civilisation and others as savage decedance. And thats where he becomes, to me, intolerable, in how comfortable and confident he throws out statements like the spanish being notoriously lazy and civilisation peaking in the enlightentment and explaining world poverty when he has no clue what he is talking about. He is the definition of dunning Kruger effect.
@@madamkirk i guarantee you that its possible to argue for any length of cycles if you dont bother to elaborate and ignore evidence to the contrary and at the same time bend the events. Lets just try for fun: 1th century: evil caligula 2th century: five good emperors 3th century: barbarians and civil wars 4th century: rise of christianity 5th century: the sack of rome Now, do you think this is very convincing evidence of a hundred year cycle that can be used to predict the future?
That might be true, but the belief that history is cyclical is common and pervasive. Instantly insulting those who hold this view is probably not a great way to convince them otherwise.
Very well thought out video, considered making this myself but I don't think I can put it any better than you did here! You have a great channel and I hope to see you grow. Remember people, making comparisons to history is useful and necessary, but we shouldn't assume history repeats or even rhymes in any rigid fashion!
8:34 a Heroic age comes when you get enough era score to get a golden age while in a dark age and it gives great bonuses like instead of having a single era focus you can have 3 instead!
Everyone keeps saying stuff like "America became an Empire when we defeated Spain and took the Philippines," as if taking by force all the land from Ohio to California and displacing thousands of people doesn't count as Empire Building.
I Mormonist culture entrenching itself in American culture upholding the belief that "America is the heartland of the Americans and always has been" coupled with the whole "we never conquered, just liberated" attitude towards American new imperialism
all the land from Ohio to California and displacing millions of people doesn't count as Empire Building. Total population of Native Americans in 1900 was 230306 How you got “millions” out of 200k is impressive for someone who is highly emotional over the past events
@@19ate4 Are you arguing that Caesar invading Gaul, killing and displacing millions of Gaulish people and establishing Roman control of the region wasn't empire building?
It's always a bit funny when people say things like this - like, they come from an environment specifically designated as the sole beneficiaries of the American sphere of influence, so of course they'd feel that the Americans were the most 'benevolent empire in history'
@@curtiswong7280yup. Same in many other imperialist nations. Here in Russia many still believe in myth about "peaceful conquest of Siberia" that is based solely on denial of facts. And conveniently, it is Siberia that makes the political elites rich by selling oil, gas and metals
The fact some businessmen profitted doesn't mean the country as a whole did. By expanding outside of the americas through nato and other security agreements, america has become severely overstretched and the isolationist and interventionist divide is one of the key damage points in american bipartisan politics today.
@@mappingshaman5280 I just feel like your statement is not actually related to mine. But I’ve got no disagreements with what you’ve said. At least not without doing further research.
I get more the vibe of someone who does a surface level reading of basic stuff on Wikipedia and the like with enough "contrarian"/revisionist/fringe influences which he then stretches in one direction or another.
I play Civilization and even I know that it's just a simulation of really basic ideas and concepts found within history. I love it sure, but that's because I love history first, not Civ first. Heck I even prefer listening to historical documentaries while I'm playing.
still edging , bro never provides sources and compare 2 or more /site sources and just edges on his believes , he also thinks regional cultures can be used to predict world future history. he doesnt even make 'alternate' historys anymore he thinks he can predict them lmfao , dude a geek @@remimk
@@hamboneusmc9971 dunno what logic has to do with it. You can logic-pretzel yourself to pretend "total anarchy is liberty", as well as towards "survivalist capitalism is liberty". Insofar, liberal is a label like any other, and applied differently in different countries. Like, US "liberals" are the few people on the left, who say that the state should not have the right to control your bodies, but provide you with the necessities to live, instead of being drowned in debt slavery. Meanwhile, "liberals" in the Europe of my childhood were the rightwingers that demanded the state should scale back: "The government shouldn't screw you over - the free market should do that." Wiah is neither of those liberals, he follows theories where the enlightened centrist leadership knows whats best for the whole society, and so you have to follow those orders, or society will go down. He has that whole deterministic spiel about laws of history.
As someone who has studied Imperial Chinese history, whatifalthist’s claim that no significant changes occured after 200 bce is bogus. Dynasties rising and falling , without gaining control of “China proper” again up until the Sui Dynasty. Buddhism and Daoism competing for political influence until both are outshined by Neo-Confucianism starting from the Song Dynasty. The inventions of the Song Dynasty, like the compass. The Mongol Dynasty and its impact on the subsequent dynasties political structure and its adoption of paper money. Also, what does he mean by “set in its mold”. It’s true that China applied legalist policies in the Qin(200s BCE) but the dynasty right after becomes far more Confucianist, at least in its ideals. Also China has had a set identity since the Shang Dynasty. It’s ironic that I can easily take apart his argument, since im from the same country as him, and not many people would expect me to have this much knowledge on Chinese history 😂. Anyway, good video 👍
tbf I hate the fact that is how the Chinese teach their own history. As someone who had to sit through most of Chinese history it was a dreadful experience.
39:55 Homosexuality as it exists today was not a thing in ancient Rome. Pederasty and sexual humiliation were. Homophobia as in the view that homosexuality is a moral and psychological disorder was well attested in plenty of ancient nonChristian writings. Plato and Aristotle certainly thought so. Judaism, Buddhism, Confucianism and Stoicism thought so. From Stoics I remember: -Epictetus Enchiridion 33 calls one to stay pure before marriage and limit sexual acts within it to lawful ones. -Marcus Aurelius in Meditations 1.16, 3.16, 5.10, 6.34 clearly vehemently disapproves of homosexual acts. I know of but can't remember others, Zeno has some fragments against it. Epictetus also warns against the pursuit of young boys (and women). I read a succinct natural law statement against extramarital sex, hetero- or homosexual, from Musonius. Source is Hierocles the Stoic: Elements of Ethics, Fragments, and Excerpts, page 133.
Buddhism did not _necessitate_ that homosexuality was bad (it only gave some vague rules about "sexual misconduct" which were/are very much open to interpretation; though for monks, _all_ sexuality was prohibited), nor did Confucianism at least initially. However, it's also important to note that the concept of homosexuality as we understand it - a same-sex mirror of heterosexuality, so that you have homosexual marriages and homosexual families and whatever - is indeed not a historically endurant concept, because that's a rather specific way of treating sexual relations. But cultures definitely drew their boundaries around sexuality in many ways, and they would have either included or excluded things we might have called as homosexual today, but not in the same way as now, e.g. some things (like you mentioned regarding pederasty) would have been acceptable while others (marrying homosexually) might not have been. Or think of sexuality like a map, today we draw 2 regions, homosexual and heterosexual, today we try to consider (but fight over) both as acceptable under condition of consent; other cultures drew other regions with other statuses of permissibility, but the same acts would not have uniformly been labeled permissible or impermissible as according to our contemporary rules of either left or right politics. China is another good example; in the "classic" period around the late Zhou dynasty and a bit after, homosexual _sexual relations_ were actually not a problem, but there were still no homosexual _marriages_ somehow mirroring the conventional family (which also wasn't a "nuclear family" either; the ideal family was 3 generations under one roof and this ideal is still practiced by some Chinese today, though the effects of the one-child policy kind of fucked it up.). However around the 1200s more Christian-alike homosexuality rules had appeared/caked, if I remember right (this was the so-called "Neo-Confucian" period). Moreover, it's kind of irrelevant to politics today. Many societies viewed slavery as moral. We sure don't do that today - at least idealistically.
Small Gripe: the Eastern Roman Empire never referred to itself as the Byzantine Empire. That term was invented much later, even after the conquest of the Empire by the Ottomans. It never stopped being the Roman Empire, it simply was Rome.
It's just a term we use to refer to a specific governance during a certain time period. Due to the nature of how Rome evolved it would make it hard to distinguish clearly between its offshoots. In my personal experience it's an often repeated and pedantically motivated correction that is fairly mute in actual value
@@sterlinghazelton2080 we just decided to call it Byzantine for the fact that how the greek called the region of where Constantinople was founded to distinguish it whit the Western Roman Empire that pretty much it if we want to go deeper they called themselves "Basileia ton Romaion" for The Empire of The Romans and in Truth the Empire was never really divided it something that came later it was Two administrative Entity into the same Empire whit two Imperator but still one Entity
i liked some of whatifalthists videos. then he really started to annoy with his unbelievably idiotic and borderline fascist ideas. it's like jordan peterson all over again
@@thomassteele2118 if whatifalthist compared apples and oranges, he'd be like "they're both fruits. they grow on trees. they're basically the same thing!"
What's Fascism? I don't mean to be rude or playing dumb, I am curious about your personal definition on what makes something Fascist, because I don't know what you mean exactly when you say that.
Fascism is a strong man ideology. The idea is that the strong deserve their position, people within a superior culture treat each other well while trying to force out "undesirables" that "make our glorious country weak." It's a flavor of nationalism that is friendly towards corporations and is deeply conservative and anti-socialist. If you're anything but what people imagine a die hard patriot who isnt the spitting image of the people in terms of ethnicity, sexual orientation, beliefs in a glorious past/legacy whose role today is to safeguard *insert country*-ness, then you are seen as an outsider degenerate traitor. The reasons for conservatives in America being compared to Nazis is: -anti queer -anti sex (unless it's something God would be ok with) - anti academic - anti-socialist - pro corporations - pro nationalist - against social programs but very heavy into military spending and war waging - pro "our civilization is peak and based, while others are degenerate and cringe." - anti-women - willing to burn books to preserve their worldview - pro "people have to die for our nation, and it's worth sacrificing them for it. Not us, though, that's a job for poor people."
I mean with that logic, everyone can become rome. Argentina for example: We started as a spanish kingdom (Viceroyalty), then we became a republic, we've had at least 5 civil wars at the same time we expanded our borders against "barbaric" and "civilized" (brazil, paraguay) neighbors. We've had 6 dictatorships. The only thing we miss is an emperor, but knowing my country is just a matter of time jajaja
Mostly a good video, but Washington DC was sacked by the British Army, not the Canadian Militia. There may have been a few Canadians present, but it was mostly Redcoats from the British Isles
I could be wrong. I think you're thinking about the British at New Orleans. I think those involved in the Chesapeake Campaign were garrisoning Bermuda and other islands.
@@robbygood3458 I meant that the Redcoats involved in the Burning of Washington were mostly recruited from among the British Isles. I'm not sure where the units were stationed before the Campaign
The main problem with Whatifalthist and his ilk constantly citing Spengler as a source is that he evidently has not read Spengler himself and demonstrates a very weak understanding of his ideas. For example, the "2500 year cycle" which Rudyard attributes to Spengler is simply never mentioned in the Decline. Spengler suggests that cultures tend to follow a similar trajectory of development lasting typically around 1000 years but with no fixed length, liable to be cut short at any time and capable of persisting indefinitely (although "spiritually" empty), and he does not place the beginning of western civilisation at 700 AD arbitrarily, in fact, he does not say that it begins then at all; he marks the beginning around 900 AD, and the reason why he does that is because that is the first evidence of architecture of the Romanesque style, from which proceeds the Gothic style of architecture. He interprets these architectural styles as proceeding from an ontology, aesthetic preference, and cosmology which was different to that which proceeded from the different climactic conditions of the Greek islands as opposed to the north European forests. Think of the state of nature as the infancy of a culture. When we are infants, we don't understand how the world works, and we are traumatised by the unique circumstances of our upbringing. Just like people, different cultures have different traumas, informed by different geographic and climactic conditions. Because every culture contends with different traumas, when they become sedentary, they approach the challenges of sedentary society with different assumptions and priorities. They begin by using mythological explanations for things, and eventually move on to theology, philosophy, mathematics and science, which, once developed, typically serves only to justify the prejudices which already existed in the culture. Spengler is primarily interested in art, mathematics, philosophy, and theology, and only takes side-glances at politics during the Decline. His political opinions and recommendations are articulated in his essays. Also, Spengler does not believe that the West is better than any other civilisation, or that it is uniquely deserving of preservation. He spends a lot of the time in the Decline talking about how constructs such as "Reason" and "Logic" are nonsense which the West invented to justify things which it has always intuitively believed. The idea of an infinite universe and cosmic pluralism are both nonsense which are in reality impossible to prove or disprove. There is as much proof of aliens as there is of God; neither are real, and both are coping mechanisms for the reality of a totally empty universe and a totally meaningless existence. We do not think these things because our "perfectly rational western science" has PROVEN them as of the 20th century; astronomers like Giordano Bruno were ASSERTING them as early as the 1600s, on the basis of a series of abstractions which only makes sense if you were born into the biases of a west-european ontology. It really is such a shame that the 20th century's most interesting and original thinker has been appropriated and poisoned time and again by the eternal incel.
Man and Technics is a good start. It is a very short essay (less than a hundred pages - even less - depends on the edition) based around SOME (but far from all (or all the main) points made by the Decline of the West (which has two very large volumes - each more than 500-600 pages (even more - can't remember exactly)). Apart from that - there are a few other important books as well - the Early Days of World-History and the Hour of Decision.@@mamipower23
An important problem with a "cyclic theory of civilization" is that it necessitates ordering the civilizations of different times on a line. But this has one big problem - _there are/were often multiple contemporary civilizations!_ And that means that to make a progression whether linear or cyclic (say the classic European idea of Mesopotamia -> Egypt -> Greece -> Rome -> Medieval Europe -> Renaissance -> Modern Europe), is to necessarily exclude or elide some from it, and the choice of what to include or exclude is heavily open to arbitration. Moreover, the fate of _cultures_ more generally, which is a better concept than "civilizations"; "civilization" is a mode of living, not a separate thing from a culture, characterized by urbanism; are many - a "fall" can be one, but often there are also separations/diversification, mergers, conquest/subjugation, and so forth. It'd be *much* better to say history is *organic* ... it is, after all, the product of organic, spontaneous, biological organisms (humans). Ironically if you watch human activity in many cases from space, it interestingly follows the same patterns that many other organisms do, such as molds growing on a petri dish (whether you wanna consider that unflattering or not), making fractals that grow out. Nonlinearity, chaos, fractals, "organicness" are really the best ways to describe things I think.
The idea that Rome became more liberal towards women because of the conquest of Greece (as whatif althist claims) is kind of preposterous if you knew anything about Greek culture at the time. Greek culture was deeply misogynistic with most of the Greek poleis treating women like the Taliban does today. It was one of the areas where Romans boasted of their superiority over the Greeks.
Even more outrageous to us Italians considering the role of the women in Roman society was very important and she was just like in the modern Italian society “the one who was behind the husband and children” not as submitted to them as much as organising and scheming or directing the family where she wanted. The most common death for an emperor was due to the Matrone not their soldiers. All this to say: women were always treated better under Rome then under Greece
always strange to me that its depicted as rome when carthage makes more sense, carthage was a colony that grew to overshadow the colonisers, it was a heavily naval focused state an oligarchy and their rivalry with rome can be much better shown in americas rivalry with the USSR which had a group (soviet) of people who were meant to make decisions on the peoples behalf (the senate) with the head of the senate being comparable to the heads of the USSR, Roman is even split up into provinces more akin to SSR. this isnt perfect but is a good example of why i dont take "the USA is the new rome" idea seriously because you can compare it to any nation historical or otherwise
Because to compare America with Carthage is just as much bullshit as it is to compare it with Rome. Carthage fought primarily with mercenaries, America does not, for example. America is its own thing, end of story. Quit with the dumb comparisons.
@@baneofbanesmost of the American army in both ww1 and ww2 were immigrants or the less integrated being hired to fight the Italians got invaded by italo-Americans so yeah kinda checks out
@@Boretheory yah that’s not even close to being true dude. The American military in Both world wars was made up of draftees, so yes including of immigrants, but the majority of American soldiers were Americans who’s families had been living there for centuries.
At first i thought maybe Althis was just making conspiratorial but not unreasonable assumptions (basically shower thoughts) but he just straight up went all 1890s pseudohistorical Germany by the half way point. Makes me question what other "beliefs" he might have.
Yes Attribute thoughts he didn't say to him claim he believes ALL the things some german did when he never did. And BOOM caught him. Ha now I'll claim he's a Nazi. BOOM now the comments section circle jerk will praise me because I believe the same thing and we will all call them a bad guy together. Sure you're totally right he's a Nazi tottaly, you cracked the scooby doo mystery, good job, you all are so smart not misatibuting them, you NEVER nit pick them wrong, you totally never made any logical fallacies in your thinking. 100% so smart. Good job.
I always wonder why people like WhatIfAltHist don’t compare the USA to the Huns, Pechenegs, Inca, or other historical grouping of people. It just reads to me like someone knows only one slice of history and compares everything they see around them to that
I also can’t stand his constant circular history views, society and cultures change and does not just remain whatever it was in like the 1500s as he always claims
@@wildviper so glad that people like you and Possible History have made videos to deconstruct his terrible arguments. Also just about everything he says about the military regarding politics is mostly false
I disagree with the notion that today IS so much different than Back then because despite all the Set Dressing of technology and bullshit ließ about enlightment doesnt Change the fact that Humans are the Same
26:39 omfg I love WIAH hilarious quote here. “Both America and Rome stayed religious for centuries longer than the Greeks and the Romans” like mf how is Rome religious for centuries longer than the Roman’s like what????
@@mememachine6022which again wasn’t true as most of said generals were dead thanks to Hitler either forcing them to suicide or fucking their plans up. While Hannibal just fucked himself and had nobody else to blame
There are only 2 genders and lumping all women into individuals sexual fetishes is very telling Why do you want transsexuals to compete against women in any sports or activity? And can you elaborate what problem he has with women? Half of the world population ate woman , but not half the world population are gay or sexual deviants
speak for yourself. i’m assuming you must not have a very high sex drive, since if i weren’t forced to repress mine by society i’d never get anything done (no argument on the first point tho)
He got this idea from a book and it's incredibly circumstancial at best, and often overgeneralizing. I read the book and it's almost him obsessing over it with that book that does have some fair points but I think he takes the wrong ideas from it.
@@wildviper For wealthier individuals maybe (Though gnostic faiths would have been more appealing), but a very defining trait of early Christianity seemed to be the appeal towards the lessers of society and proselytizing to anyone. The mystery aspects only seem to show up as part of a response to persecution unlike the other groups.
I largely agree with the point but the mesoamerican wheeled toy isn’t a great example because they knew of wheels, but couldn’t actually utilise them, as they had no large pulling animals, and they where in largely mountainous and rocky terrain.
There are many similarities between the situation the USA is in and the situation Rome was in at the end of the Republic...but there are also a lot of differences.
its a good day for me when what why how drops a video, an even better one when its an hour long great video, its always annoying when someone acts like history repeats itself exactly
Nice video - all-in-all - many good points have been raised, even though I don't agree with some (namely about Spengler, he is commonly misinterpreted - he is in fact an awesome philosopher of History). Keep up the good work!
I no longer follow WIAH because of that very video which was the straw that broke my camel's back. The guy has done worse and worse videos for years now. Here's glad you did this response, and sad it has much less views. That said, I _also_ find issues with your video, but you make much more thoughtful claims, and I appreciate your view a lot more. Both of you are somewhat wrong about slavery: The US and the west in total ARE very much profiting off of effective slavery, but most of it is happening in the market-capitalized vassals around the globe.
10:26 A better point of comparison with the Mystery Cults would be 17th and 18th century Christian Mystic secret societies such as the Rosicrucians and Freemasons
4:20 i disagree, i do think western society was formed in the 1700's, if only the last quarter with the french revolution and the american revolution, which set europe on a path away from absolute monarchs.
the age of the enlightenment likely is the best answer to when "Western Civilisation" or "Western Society" really began to form with some sense of cohesion.
Thank you for your take on "Whatifalthist". I like his stuff but a critical review is very helpful. The thing is: The cyclical view can be explained as artifact but it depends on the level of resolution and angle you view history at. I have no clue about history but my common sense asks for a causal theory for those alleged cycles. Without a good causal theory besides buzzwords it really remains empty and kind of hard to test as well. Anyways, I'm only at minute 16 of your vid. I will finish it asap, like your style.
@@hogndog2339 I like his stuff as he made me more aware that we live in an exceptional period (and so did our parents) that is by no means the end point of history as all the old rules still apply. It is not so much about his read on history or his guessing at the future. The way he talks about the present makes a lot of sense to me and resolves many contradictions that lurked at the edge of my mind since my very early years. He goes very much against the comfortable lies of our time that probably can't be sustained much longer anyways. Fleshing that out would require a walk with a beer in hand at the Danube river in Austria ;-)
@@thomassteele2118 Press (1) to talk about ideas, press (STOP) to throw around labels. Either way you are welcome: (1) might lead to some form of knowledge (STOP) might lead to some entertainment mostly, however, on my part ;-)
One of the problems with people like WIAH is that they far overstate their case. In fact, I feel Rome is a weaker fit than some other potential "parallels" due to its rigid class conception, patron-client system, and politician-generals, which would all be wholly alien to an American context. And any cyclical theory of history is a giant meme, at least the ones I've seen. Sure, some are better than others (Turchin's cliodynamics at least has a veneer of plausibility and point despite being quite terrible, whereas fourth turning theory is hilariously stupid), but this remains true. Your point about change and continuity really speaks to me. WIAH acts like all Western philosophy took place between 1700 and 1800 and nothing happened before or since. But how could a serious discussion of Western philosophy ignore figures like Aquinas, Marx, Mill, Rawls, or Foucault, all of whom are very important parts of the Western tradition? And couldn't we also include medieval Islamic figures like Ibn Rushd and Ibn Sina in the Western tradition as well as the Islamic one? Should the Western and Islamic traditions even be considered separate? Such are problems with a "civilizational" view of history and philosophy, it can "feel" right, but be indefinable and fleeting. Also one point about polytheism being syncretic and monotheism being exclusionary: this is generally true, but there are some monotheistic belief systems that could be considered syncretic (Baha'ism comes to mind) and most polytheistic religions have a limit to their syncretism (the Romans detested the Druids on religious grounds, for example)
Whatifalthist reeks of Oswald Spengler’s reactionary historiography and theory of civilizational collapse. All these Althis channels seem to flirt with alt right reactionary politics
“He’s racist” Why are you obsessed with what others think about race? Is there only one race? If so how could anyone be “racist” if there is only 1 race? Are you part of the lone wolves also?
First off, love the video, thumbs up... unfortunately I have to be that guy... you know the one. Ok, here we go *deep inhale* 'Admiral MacArthur' 🤔... uhh, what? Again apologies for being 'that guy' and all, but he wasn't in the Navy... he was in the Army... which makes him a General, not an Admiral. *whispers softly* I'm sorry 😶🌫
Oh, there were several flaws in this video, nobody should be sorry to point those out (fact checks are good in my opinion). It was still well-intended and many times better than the OP video which made me stop watching the other channel.
I do find the constant comparisons of the US to rome funny. Like why not compare other empires. Like as many of pointed out the differences are also very stark Like hell why not compare them Chinese empires like the Han. Early chinese civilisation expanded due neighbouring native tribes being technologically inferior with lower populations. Just like the USA, the Han started off relatively disinterested in aggressive military action except to pacify its borders and had a very decentralised system of government, but eventually the central government grew more powerful, bureaucratic and militaristic similar to the US. Hell its main competitor spanned the Eurasian steppe lol. While the Han succeeded and expanded the cultural reach of its political predecessor (the UK and the Qin) Obviously Han china is VERY different from the USA but I am just trying to show that its pretty easy to compare the US to any empire if you feel like it and actually know something about those empires. But obviously those who make the comparisons are only doing it for political point scoring and not any real historical or modern evaluation.
I like his “understanding civilizations” as well as other of his series, besides that, he’s gone mad with his cyclical view of history when it comes to his contemporary videos
Wean yourself off of him is my suggestion. His "understanding civilizations" series is _clearly not_ understanding the civs in question. Just read the comments below the videos where the natives criticize his biased views of their culture. What-if-alt-history was great to watch right until he stopped dealing with alternate histories.
We are a nation founded by colonisers ruled by a greedy oligarchy, our power is based on our strong navy and economic might. We are not rome. We are Karthage.
Lots of empires have attempted the "new rome" gimmick, and i feel like it makes sense, but mostly as a concept and not actually literally. But it does require some imagination plasticity
It's a time-tested strategy to create an illusion of legitimacy around the state. Many ancient Greek rulers claimed descent from the Gods and such and such. When Constantinople in 1453 fell, then some decades/centuries later the Tsardom of Russia started saying "I'm a kind of Roman myself" and no one took them seriously, because it was quite frankly just a ruler's wet dream.
I've listened to almost three fourths of this, and I'm trying to find a gentle and supportive way to suggest that it's possible that both of you examine the history of the United States a little bit more carefully. There are many competent historians who have produced content for a lay audience. We also have access to many documents, correspondences, and personal writings of those welding power throughout our history. I could write a dissertation on how disingenuous you're both being regarding every claim being made about the conduct of the founding fathers, the actions of the U.S. in global politics after WWII, and the importance of Christianity in ending slavery. I will only point out that there were very devout Christians using their holy book to justify or condemn slavery. As to the claim that the U.S. did less damage to itself than Rome had, by ending it so "quickly," it could be argued that, the manner in which the U.S. practiced slavery didn't require as much time to do crippling damage to the foundations of a civilization. I'm not just referring to the absolute brutality; the citizens of the U.S. were the first in human history to claim that those they were oppressing weren't people. The treatment of those living in places claimed as territories aren't nearly as horrifying as the treatment of those who elected the wrong government. Google any country that suffered a coup, or civil war in the mid twentieth century, and after that countries name type CIA, if there are no interesting results, delete the CIA, and type Henry Kissinger. I don't have time to do anymore, but seriously, do some research. Btw they didn't need to fight the native people so many times to get California, because they didn't need California.
I like your comment. Though I still think California is one of the more pivotal states to the US empire. 1 out of 10 Americans live in California, and has one of the highest GDPs of any state. Though I can point to its natural boons that make it such a power house, you could point to other countries and make remarks about their natural resources and geography, but because of their government, they cannot make the most out of their situation. I would say California was lucky enough to be such a power house, but it would still need to have a good enough system to make use of its resources.
Your interpretation of what Spengler believed is... off. Spengler acknowledged that the West pulled from the Classics, and did so frequently (he spent an entire chapter on how that manifested in art). His point is that the spiritual content of the west attempted to mirror the art, but could only practice a rehearsal of it. This misinterpretation early into the video is disappointing, because Spengler makes meaningful points that are worthy of more consideration than what you gave it. I don't agree with whatifalthist either, I think he misinterprets Spengler just as profusely, even more so. Trying to tie in similarities between Rome and the West beyond the simple broad spiritual decay and intellectualization of culture is only going to result in what you rightly pointed out as inconsistencies.
His point about the “heroic age” is even more ridiculous to me when you remember that he doesn’t even get the fucking time periods those stories were written in correct. Sure, King Arthur was extremely popular during a certain period of time, but his *origins* date back to pre-Roman Wales. Not… Vaguely medieval times.
Personally I think whatifalthist has continuation and cycles backwards. Cycle theory is good for wider historical treads such as the rise and fall of authoritarianism. But to understand the exact forms of authoritarianism and how extreme they may be you need to see cause and effect and the continues development and change of civilization. He seems to think cycle theory is how you track the development of history while continuation theory is simply how to identify eras of the cycles of history.
Amazing video! The editing, voice over, and research is awesome and I agree with your core points. One thing I would like to see though is a link to your sources, especially in videos like these when you are debunking another video.
The three speeds of WhatIfAltHist 1. Right but yeah well no duh 2. Quite a stretch but at least he admits it 3. Batshit crazy WASP prescriptivist psychobabble
Your history was good, but your dismissal of contemporary "woke" agendas as merely run-of-the-mill "liberalism" misses key points. When most people say "woke" they are referring to the authoritarian left - NOT liberalism. Most critics of "woke" agendas are prominent liberals, conservatives are mostly anti-woke contrarians and anti-Marxist.
As a former Liberal, this distinction helps me by defining “Authoritarian Left.” But also as a former Liberal (now Independent), it’s increasingly hard to find examples of “organic Liberalism” free from authoritarianism that are actually functional in government. I’m gay and the woke/trans agenda has utterly hijacked and corrupted the Gay Rights Movement and is now mutilating children, most of whom are gay. This goes so far beyond the religious attempts at conversion therapy by conservatives in the past and constitutes an organized crime against humanity. Most of the mainstream Left parrots and supports these things without question. I see mostly authoritarianism, not a fringe group. I think many Liberal people are more level-headed, but the Liberalism acting in government seems generically authoritarian at this point. Voting for Biden, Harris, Obama, Clinton or many of those in Congress means getting a whole lot of other unsavory politics and consequences at this point. Gabbard in 2016 was a breath of fresh air, but she was despised and had no chance.
If there is any "authoritarian left" in the US, I first want to learn under which rock it hides so well. (Okay, China maintains US embassies and illegal police stations for its thought police; but they only police Chinese citizens in the States - so aside from that?)
Most who use woke today like whatisalthist are talking about anything that they do not like. In his case it would be anything that goes against tradition, the perverts and degenerates who sex out of marriage or homosexual sex along with transgender people.
We're more like Carthage, actually. Rome became a commercial empire eventually but Carthage was their father in that respect. America has always been a state that prioritizes commerce. Rome was more about civic and personal virtue as a cultural ethos. In the US we're all very lax about participation. Which is also quite Carthaginian lol. Having said that, our 19th century expansionism was nauseatingly Romanesque. But the most important factor is we don't have aristocrats who decide our foreign policy. Our industry is much, much more the driving factor there. Our legalism exists to serve that and not our entitled families. The existence of things like stock markets really alters that dynamic on a societal scale. 'Arrow must go up' is important, 'hero patrician family disgraced' is absolutely unimportant lol.
Overall, I liked the video and the criticism was valid in spots. However I didn't believe the point of his video was to say definitively that there is a cycle to history but that our civilization is following a "similar" cycle to history. Perhaps I misunderstand how strongly he believed that particular point but I believe it was more of a "hey look how close these things are to eachother" and less of a history is a cycle. But my other comment would be your waiving of his comments several times on the so called "social justice stuff" you're clearly left leaning and whatifalthist has said that he is right leaning. As a somewhat right person myself it personally felt as if you just waived away half of Americas concerns on their current social environment as if you didn't even see it as remotely valid at all. America has alot of problems and they aren't all from the right. The left has many self harming and societal hurting ideas as well as the right. It really came off as biased and unprofessional. Other than that good points and lines of thought.
I just found his channel a few days ago and have been binge watching his content like crazy. Glad to come across this video so I can make sure to stay unbiased and critical of everything I’m watching.
Treat WhatIfAltHist more as a lolcow/meme channel. It is all bullshit he makes up or based loosely on some authors that have not been taken seriously for a long time now. It can be fun to watch because of how ridiculous it is tho.
@@San_Vito Oh and you are a better one? Tell me how you are a better researcher and the people you follow are all better and don't constantly make all the same mistakes? I'd love to follow you and the people you follow who KNOW THE REAL TRUTH, and are all BETTER RESEARCHERS. Picking apart someone else's work is also not research, it is easy to pick apart anything and everything semantically, and you can convince tons of idiots you're right no matter what the point if you frame it right, and pick apart everything. It's called semantics and the imprecision of language. Some of the criticisms stand but some of it misses the mark, and if you don't pay attention to what the other has said in the past then the criticism would appear valid from the outset. Good example of this is this video picks apart and laughs at whatifalthists talk on the cycle of civilizations, now whatifalt said they APPEAR to follow a GENERAL trend. They made no hard claims it's true all the time or that it applies to every civilization. But the point still stands why has no ruler or dynasty or system of governance been able to last more then a thousand years or so. Save for maybe one being the Egyptians. But oh let me dive back into the past call someone a NAZI (or at least my lemming {yes I know lemmings don't do that for real but the Metaphor is still there, but if you were to pick apart what I say is semantics, You know the metaphor I know the metaphor, I know that you know and you know that I know, but you could pick it apart and say actually lemmings don't follow each other stupidly, haha look at you you're stupid anyone who listens to you is stupid, and just persuade onlookers to your side with semantic F**kery} and the audience will be so heavily alluded to it they will think ooooohhhh bad man, me no listen to bad man) wither they were or not to discredit EVERY thing they say. which is a logical phalacy I'm not even saying I follow or agree with the guy, but points should be attacked on their individual merits and picked apart that way not with just adhominum attacks. But to an onlooker it all seems smart. OOooH person in past bad man whatifalt listens to bad man, other part of theory stupid, they stupid, meanwhile if the other person was speaking in GENERALITIES and said I'M SPEAKING IN BROD GENERALITIES. Ah but this guy eather A didn't pay atention to the many disclaimers whatifalt makes in his video's, and I don't like or agree with everything he says and some time he goes WAY off the mark. but having someone pick apart what they say, disingenuously and lie by omition and misleading their audiance I take issue when anyone does it. and not like whatifalt is guiltless either. But this video is almost comical how bad this misleads at times. and I can't speak for whatifalt, or know what they think but I do take issue when this video twists what he says for views and to lead people around blindly. when failing to mention at times when whatifalt makes disclaimers. This video claims or alludes that he said this as hard fact and had a spesific date and time frame and OOoH that time frame is wrong. yeah well if whatifalt never agreed with that hard time frame? you all will dance around thinking oh we just showed this other guy is stupid. when really you look stupid because you didn't listen to the disclamer and notice the when he said he was speak in generalities. And yes some of those are wrong but some of them are right. but you misrepresent something they say right and make it sound like everything they said was wrong. Shows either you are A wrong made a mistake, B not paying attention C intentionally misleading D acting in bad faith with bad motives.
46:32 it's also easy to forget that places like Canada, Australia, Japan and probably even the UK as well as many others could easily fall into this category, as they essentially are large, somewhat independent branches of the American empire
The early Christianity comment "Mithraism -> Sol Invictus -> Christianity" is extremely flawed. There has never been a connection made between Mithraism relating to Christianity. Christianity arguably predates Mithraism in Rome as well. Sol Invictus is not even considered to by "a thing" by most historians. "Invictus" is broadly a title that was applied to many things quite commonly. In some rare cases it was applied to the sun and some early historians interpreted as a real worshiped deity, but modern analysis finds a massive lack of evidence of this. Even those that believe it was some actual cult concede that it was as likely to be born out of Christianity as the opposite.
I'm not saying Christianity was directly birthed from those religious movements. I'm saying that Roman culture was primed for monotheistic faiths like Christianity by those faiths that preceded its spread in Greece/Italy, which appear to have been growing more monotheistic
Let's also not forget that Rome failed to have an adequate method for imperial succession, often inciting succession struggles, endemic violence, and chronic civil wars.
Its interesting to see you know? There are two ways of creating wealth/power. 1. Creating it, aka founding nations and fighting external threats. 2. Inheriting it, aka internal struggles to inherit what is created from the first group. There's probably a few more like developing technology and other such things.
Maybe I'm being nitpicky but althist said "European Union against the Soviets", but the EU is a trading block, it has had trade deal with Russia. Maybe he means NATO?
Wow that's a lot of misunderstanding of sociology, anthropology, classicism, medievalist, economy, technology and history all in his video. I feel like Kermit the Frog: " You know, it's amazing. You are 100% wrong. I mean, nothing you've said has been right. " He is baffling
While I agree it isn’t purely cyclical, I have to disagree that history is linear continuation solely as well. There are so many examples of history repeating or rhyming that to say otherwise is actually just ignorant. For example, you have a monarch or leader whose people aren’t content with their rule. A grand conflict arises to send that nation over the edge, a new radical party arises to overthrow the previous government violently, promises to fix everything, only to be just as or more brutal than the previous regime. French Revolution and Robespierre, Russian Revolution and Lenin, Nazi Party and Hitler. Again, not to say it’s 1-to-1, not at all. But there’s a reason why we look to our past to predict what could happen, there’s a reason why past behaviour is the best measurement of future behaviour.
Thank you. I pointed this out too. His is just altright video trying to portray america as the whateverisinhismind at all cost. Man why do these people never learn from history Also your video needs like others debunking him, 👍🏽
Most of the "woke" crowd doesn't really want to abolish the capitalist system. Most of them just want Social democratic programs, which require both Capitalism and the State to function. Things that Marxism seeks to abolish. (My source are the actual writings of Marx and Engels, which are available as free audiobooks on the Internet)
i too have read books from these particular dead men. I have also spoken with many a detestable person who claim that race realism combined with social programs is a viable political ideology. read The Road to Wigan Pier
even tought i am totally antifascist, as a native italian as my father took part in gladio operation, an american still thinking it liberated, is not that far form a tankie that say easten europe was liberated from the red army, yes both have defeated fascists and nazis, the people of both countries regardeless of the ideology in that act where liberators, but what happened next makes the country liberated just under a new regime and not liberated.
You know you are seeing a faux-intellectual when he presupposes a bunch of things, doesn't explain where he comes from and clearly steers the discussion to align with something he already believes in, ignoring contradicting evidence.
The only similarity to rome i thought of is that both rome and the usa didnt create a single entity. Like how han china sortof began the concept of a chinese nation
The Mamertine atrocity started the first Punic war in the same way the assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand started ww1. you could say it was the Austrian declaration of war, but really it was the assassination that sparked it. Same goes for the Mamertines.
@@LuKing2 It did not have to start a war, but the heir who had been groomed for rule and soon to take the throne had been killed and there wasn't time to properly groom the next in line because their leader was getting to old to finish the job. This assassination's crippled the Austrian government. It was going to have massive repercussions for decades to come and would alter the course of history for the entire nation. The long term survivability of the empire had been put in peril. If they did not attack, it would have weakened the power of the state even more leading to uprisings and possibly looking weak to rival powers leading leading to invasion in years to come. Even though we live in different times and deciding not to go to war would be praised and gain support from many nations, I still doubt many of us would chose not to fight if we thought we could win and had been wronged in such a catastrophic and personal way.
@@kylerowley8248this is a little wrong, you are forgetting how Austria actively seeked conflict and how Seria was actually friendly and leniant about the conflict
@@kylerowley8248also, your argument is forgetting how Serbia was put in a point where they had a extremelty unfair treaty imposed on them...and they accepted most of it, Hotzendorf wanted the conflict and pretty made made that treaty so he could justify himself in his attack. Austra openly seeked for a unreasonable conflict
