Hearted Youtube comments on Premodernist (@premodernist_history) channel.

  1. 10000
  2. 8600
  3. 7700
  4. 7500
  5. 5700
  6. 4900
  7. 3500
  8. 3300
  9. 3100
  10. 2400
  11. 2300
  12. 2200
  13. 2100
  14. 2000
  15. 2000
  16. 1900
  17. 1900
  18. 1900
  19. 1800
  20. 1600
  21. 1400
  22. 1400
  23. 1200
  24. 1200
  25. 1200
  26. 1100
  27. 1100
  28. 1100
  29. 1100
  30. 992
  31. 945
  32. 919
  33. 901
  34. 866
  35. 846
  36. 844
  37. 843
  38. 815
  39. 777
  40. 766
  41. 699
  42. 665
  43. 663
  44. 650
  45. Points from the video • The Library of Alexandria was 1 of 2 Libraries 📕📗 • The Library 2 was A Library at The Museum of Alexandria nearby.📗 4:43 Modern articles name people who lived in the Early Ptolemaic period. • Zenodotus, Callimachus, Apollonius, Eratosthenes, Aristophanes, 4th Century BC 300 BC - 200 BC 3rd Century BC 200 - 100 BC • Aristarchus lived into 150 BC approximately 5:15 Decline - Extremely little records of the library itself - limited information 6:00 Egypt was prosperous in the 3rd century under Ptolemy II and Ptolemy III 7:40 The Legendary Library was not the only library in existence 8:13 Library of Pergamum, Asia Minor, existed and some Greek talents went there. 9:00 Papyrus documents were found in a dry condition, but Alexandria Greece is a humid place. 10:42 Julius Ceasar set fire to the land, and that fire 🔥 may have burnt some of the Library of Alexandria’s Books. 📕 11:21 Plutarch and Gellius both say Julius Ceaser burned down the entire Library of Alexandria📕 12:22 They saw the Library of Alexandria as a declined Library as something of the past. 13:38 Strabo notes that Alexandria’s Library was large in the 4th Century. 15:00 The Library was in decline before Julius Ceaser came along and set fire 🔥 to it. 16:06 Serapeum Library had the largest library in the city, but it was not The Legendary Library of Alexandria. 19:18 Serapeum Temple Structure. Maybe the Christians sacked this Serapeum Library. 20:50 Musli 21:07 1. The Library’s ending did not cause a dark age 2. 1 library destroyed does not cause the catalysmic loss in hunan inowledge 3. Complex Causes, this has several different factors
    637
  46. 637
  47. 636
  48. 635
  49. 628
  50. 623
  51. 590
  52. 586
  53. 574
  54. Very good video, but just to add/contextualize a few things: 1) The naming convention is not really 4+1 but 3+2, the Kunya was also not required. People of note (i.e. the kind of people listed in Biographical Dictionaries) would almost always have one (or be ascribed one later), but among general people it was more common to not have one unless you were a relatively influential person. 2) The Kunya did not necessarily refer to one's child, it was often times idiomatic or invented. For instance Abu Bakr did not have a child named Bakr nor did Salah al-Din have a child named al-muzzafar. 3) The Nisbah was used in a rather complex way and often didn't give direct information about what groups a person was associated with. So for instance a common cause of confusion is that Nisbah's could be inherited as in the case of al-Khwarezmi (who was probably born in Baghdad but his parents were from Khwarezm) or in the case of the 16th century historian Ahmad bin Yusuf al-Qaramani - who's father was from Karaman in Turkey but he was born and lived in Damascus. 4) 9:45 I think the equivalent in english to the Laqab is epithet. Anyways Laqabs were typically associated with specific titles or ranks (Amir, Sultan, Malik, Imam, Shaykh etc..), so each rank had its own associated laqabs that one could adopt (If you read Arabic you can look at al-Qalqashandi's massive scribal manual Subh al-A'asha which has entire volumes dedicated to listing out these titles). Also from the 10th century onwards (until the end of the Abbasid Caliphate) it was common for the Caliph to bestow rulers he recognized as Sultans with a Laqab. This is where Salah al-Din gets his titular Laqab from for instance. 5) One last thing I should mention which I always found interesting is that if someone's nasab was Ibn Abdallah /Ibnat Abdallah, and that person was not an Arab, it typically (but not always) indicated that that person was a convert to Islam and not that said person's father was named Abdallah.
    559
  55. 552
  56. 538
  57. 524
  58. 520
  59. 514
  60. 499
  61. 496
  62. 492
  63. 492
  64. 478
  65. 438
  66. 417
  67. 411
  68. 394
  69. 390
  70. 373
  71. 371
  72. 371
  73. 367
  74. 363
  75. 358
  76. 357
  77. 352
  78. 344
  79. 334
  80. 333
  81. 323
  82. 313
  83. 299
  84. 297
  85. 292
  86. 280
  87. 276
  88. 275
  89. 270
  90. 266
  91. 260
  92. 249
  93. 244
  94. 229
  95. 221
  96. 221
  97. 220
  98. 205
  99. 202
  100. 200
  101. 194
  102. 189
  103. 188
  104. 172
  105. 171
  106. 167
  107. 167
  108. 155
  109. 154
  110. 153
  111. 152
  112. 146
  113. 144
  114. 144
  115. Excellent content! I am so pleased to see that YouTube algorithm can still pull out such gems from its depths for me! Loved your presentation, especially that it touches on interpretation of history and projection of our understandings of today to past. As a person who was born and raised in Turkey, holding half Turkish half Kurdish ethnicity, and currently living in Greece for many years; - I feel very happy, first and foremost, to see the humility that takes place in the comments section. Not gonna lie, wanted to fish for some aggressive comments (or even a fight) to make my day, but find out that people can actually conduct themselves in an articulate manner. Feeling even happier :) - As Speros Vyronis argues, that there should be distinction between how we perceive "the end of an empire" with "the end of a civilization". Empires, with their dynasties, ruling classes, religious/political affairs may end up or overthrown in due time either by a successor entity (or even a nation-state, perhaps even a revolution) or by a challenging power. Civilizations on the other hand, do live on much longer with tradition, ceremonies, culture, ruling practices and public affairs, independently from the successor entity. In relation to your presentation, it is helpful to keep in mind what Ostrogorsky analyzes - that Eastern Roman Empire (which was not called Byzantine Empire back then, as you mention in your presentation) even in its declining years had tried to keep the monopoly of the title "King of Romans" (Βασιλευς Ρωμαιωη) as a form of power, declaring the ruling dynasty as "protector of Christians and Christendom". Many rival empires had the ambition to claim or challenge that title, and until the arrival of Charlamagne's Frankish Empire (Which he claimed the title of "Kaizer", derivation of "Ceaser", and crowned by the Roman Catholic Church) the sole monopoly of this title was kept with the Byzantine Kings. As such, Ottoman Empire was also carrying this ambition; to have that title not only for political legitimacy of its future rule, but also to showcase that it is the torchbearer of the "Roman Civilization", not "another random tribe". (Sources: (i) Speros Vryonis, "Byzantine Civilization, A World Civilization"; Byzantium: A World Civilization, Angeliki E. Lalou and Henry Macguire, Dumbarton Oaks Collection - (ii) Ostrogorsky, G., "Die Byzantische Staatenhierarchie", Seminarium Kondakovianion, 8.1936 / An English translation could be found by searching the author's name and "Byzantine Emperator and Hierarchical World Order") - It is also worth to mention that the discourse of nationalist views and ideologies in both Turkey and Greece have shaped around the relationship that both nation-states formed with their current history and the history of the Byzantine Empire. I am not a nationalist myself at all, and after many years I am able to understand that Greek Nationalism's identification with "the glory of Byzantine Empire" and Turkish Nationalism's identification with "the glory of the Ottoman Empire, which crushed Byzantine Empire" have been deliberately nitpicked certain parts of history only and have been established to create the myth of a nation and "an imaginary community", since it does not carry the historical realities of that era (considering how the Ottoman Sultan wanted to claim the "Kaizer-i Rum" title, especially). This deliberate and false interpretation of history has been also very detrimental between the relationship of the peoples of these respective countries (along with many other, more recent historical realities and atrocities, of course). Thus, I feel quite happy that with a humble video such as yours did not trigger a series of irrelevant discussions and outbursts (which can even end up with racial slurs), but rather as a platform where everybody placed their own experience growing up in their respective country and how this video relates to their understanding of today. My faith in small but quality YouTube channels have been restored! So thank you above all for that :) To all the fellow people of the shared geography of the Aegean Sea and the Levant; very nice to see us that we can engage in this gracious manner with each other, especially in this tense environment between the Turkish and the Greek State. I call Greece home as much as call Turkey home, and enjoy a humble life treading between the two. And I always feel very glad to realize that we, as citizens of Turkey and Greece, (but much largely, of the world) have much more in common to celebrate and have much more to learn together! Γεια σας σε ολους και σε ολλες! Cümleten herkese selamlar!
    141
  116. 135
  117. 134
  118. 133
  119. 131
  120. 121
  121. 120
  122. 117
  123. 116
  124. 116
  125. 109
  126. 105
  127. 104
  128. 102
  129. 102
  130. 101
  131. 99
  132. 95
  133. 95
  134. 93
  135. 93
  136. 92
  137. 89
  138. 86
  139. 85
  140. 84
  141. 82
  142. 77
  143. I define myself as Turkish. I speak Turkish, I think Turkish. but I remember feeling very comfortable culturally when I was in Greece. same food, same manners, same music. In fact, it would be useful for me to make this clear. I do not feel the same comfort when I go to the eastern region and Kurdish cities in my own country. Food changes, music changes, behavior patterns change. my village is a mountain village of Konya. Stones from the historical ruins of the ancient Roman period were used in our mosque in the inner region of Konya, Turkey, and in the village where my ancestors lived for hundreds of years. Stones with a cross on them, with Hellenic writing. we may be descendants of Islamized Romans, or perhaps descendants of nomadic Turks who came from Khorasan on horseback. not important for me. For example, the symbol of my city is the double-headed eagle and it was also the symbol of Byzantium. My father is blond, blue-eyed, and white-skinned, and my mother is dark-skinned with brown eyes and wheat-skinned. I have a mix of both colors. I am a mixed person, just like Turkey, which was once called the "Greek Land". In essence, we are familiar with the idea in the video, I have to say that the Karaman Orthodox who left my city with the 1922 "population exchange" were Turkish-speaking Christians. There were Turkified Romans as well as Christianized Turks. there were even Turkopols who lived in this geography long before the Ottoman Empire and fought in the crusader army. As a Turk, I am happy to live in this geography, to have this food culture, this music, this way of life. I would also like to thank the Romans who contributed to this.
    76
  144. 76
  145. 72
  146. 70
  147. 68
  148. 66
  149. 65
  150. 65
  151. 64
  152. I really like your thinking and the way you frame the issue. This might be another factor. Growing up in Michigan we ran around a lot on old Native American trails. They're exactly what anyone would think they are. narrow, no foliage in the track. And humans walking on them, imagine thousands of years of soft moccasins, don't wear them down very much. Hard soled shoes? Maybe a little be more. Pigs have trotters, like hooves - very hard. If you've ever followed a trail on Santa Catalina Island off southern California you'll find these absolutely typical trails, like in any National Park or the Native trails. You'll figure out they were made and used by pigs because low hanging branches cross the trail making them difficult for humans. So foot traffic - low impact. Hiking the Wessex Trail in Dorsetshire, England, a >1000 year old path. It's generally much wider and sunken. Sunken means you are walking and to the side instead of an embankment of a slope, the pathway is cut down a meter. I figured out the difference near Nettlecombe Tout. There was a farm where I saw two teenagers on huge horses, at least as big as a Clydesdale. The trail near by that they rode on? Churned up like it had been harrowed. The thing is a wheeled cart would never have been practical on the Native American trails, most National Park trails (or the pig trails) but they'd have worked just fine in that horse trodden and eroded English trail. When I was a kid I was really good with a wheel barrow (hundreds of pounds of sloshing wet concrete, skinny 12 year old running it on a 2 x12 bridge over a trench?), and we made all kinds of devices. The only wheeled device we ever used, or thought to use on a trail - was a bicycle. Of course I eventually got a mountain bike. This makes me think another area of inquiry might be in China. They invented more types of wheel barrow than anyone else. Did they ever use them on their narrow trails?
    64
  153. 64
  154. 63
  155. 63
  156. 63
  157. 60
  158. 58
  159. 57
  160. 57
  161. 56
  162. 55
  163. 51
  164. 51
  165. 51
  166. 50
  167. 50
  168. 49
  169. 49
  170. 49
  171. 49
  172. 49
  173. 49
  174. 48
  175. 47
  176. 46
  177. 46
  178. 46
  179. 43
  180. 43
  181. 43
  182. 42
  183. 41
  184. 40
  185. 40
  186. 40
  187. 40
  188. 39
  189. 39
  190. 39
  191. 38
  192. 38
  193. 37
  194. 37
  195. 37
  196. 37
  197. 37
  198. 36
  199. 36
  200. 36
  201. 36
  202. 35
  203. 35
  204. 35
  205. 35
  206. 35
  207. 34
  208. 34
  209. 34
  210. 34
  211. 33
  212. 33
  213. 32
  214. 32
  215. 32
  216. 31
  217. 31
  218. 31
  219. 31
  220. 31
  221. 31
  222. 30
  223. 30
  224. 29
  225. 29
  226. 28
  227. 28
  228. 28
  229. 27
  230. 27
  231. 27
  232. 27
  233. 27
  234. 27
  235. 26
  236. 25
  237. 25
  238. 25
  239. 25
  240. 24
  241. 24
  242. 24
  243. 24
  244. 23
  245. 23
  246. 23
  247. 23
  248. 22
  249. 22
  250. 22
  251. 21
  252. 21
  253. 21
  254. 21
  255. 21
  256. 21
  257. 21
  258. 20
  259. 20
  260. 19
  261. 19
  262. 19
  263. 19
  264. 19
  265. 19
  266. 19
  267. 19
  268. 18
  269. 18
  270. 18
  271. 18
  272. 18
  273. 17
  274. 17
  275. 17
  276. 17
  277. 17
  278. 17
  279. 17
  280. I'm from Trabzon. I was raised as a Turk. Everyone in my family speaks Turkish. I had a DNA test and realized that I do not have a Turkish genetic heritage. I looked at my family tree. There are records up to the 1800s. At the top of the list, I saw 2 people who I thought were Greek. The rest of the names were Arabic. Over time, we became Muslims and became Turkish. It can be said that we are Muslim Romans. They were taxed more than Christians. My ancestors may have converted to Islam to pay less taxes. Everyone in my family has forgotten their ethnic identity. I thought we migrated from Central Asia , but the truth was not. In a video on youtube, uncle from Trabzon was speaking Greek, of course, he also spoke Turkish, but he was saying that he was not Greek because he was afraid of being marginalized. The Christian Greeks in Trabzon were immigrated to Greece. The Muslim ones mostly became Turkish. Although few, there are Muslims who speak Greek in Trabzon. The old name of my village was Greek . Its name was translated into Turkish in 1968. Although they are Muslim in some places in Trabzon, it is possible to see pieces of Christian culture. Kalandar is an example. My grandmother knows the Greek names for vegetables, but she doesn't even know that these words are Greek. When I told my grandfather about this DNA test, he was very angry. they deny their former ethnic identity. The biggest reason for this is because of the conflict between Turkey and Greece. As an ethnic Turk .I send greetings to our Greek brothers from here.I hope we live in peace. 🇹🇷🇬🇷
    17
  281. 16
  282. 16
  283. 16
  284. 15
  285. 15
  286. 15
  287. 15
  288. 15
  289. 15
  290. 15
  291. 15
  292. 15
  293. 15
  294. 15
  295. 14
  296. 14
  297. 14
  298. 14
  299. 14
  300. 14
  301. 13
  302. 13
  303. 13
  304. 13
  305. 13
  306. 13
  307. I like your sourcing / refs. at the end--it gives a viewer the chance to review and ensure the credibility of the history presented. I think it's perhaps more relevant and important than ever for Americans to understand why there was no presidential campaigning in the way we experience it back at the beginning. The first reason was that, back then, they thought that public character did matter for this office, and particularly because most of the time the position was going to be more representational of the country than it was going to be a functional, daily role in government. Today our news media, and therefore most who listen to them, assign responsibility for just about everything that happens in the country, even inflation, to the actions or inactions of whoever is president, but at that time--and long afterwards--presidents might not even be in Washington and readily available for many months at a time. The position simply wasn't envisioned as being that important to the country's day-to-day life as state government was, or even the Congress to some extent as they held the federal purse strings. In the typical rhetoric of the Framers, the president was supposed to be a position of humble strength and statesmanship--not someone who would ever be self-aggrandizing, even in campaign speeches, etc., as that would be unseemly, inappropriate, and a demonstration of poor character and immaturity in someone who was supposed to be fit to fill that office. Today, unless it gets to be over-the-top even compared to the stars of sports and entertainment, Americans tend to reward that kind of self-view and the behaviors that go with it. By the election of 1800, though, this was put to an early test in a knock-down, drag-through-the-mud affair with candidates accused of absolutely anything that any commentator on the other side could think of that might stick, and hopefully cost them some votes, much more akin to the conduct during campaigns that we see now.
    12
  308. 12
  309. 12
  310. 12
  311. 12
  312. 12
  313. 12
  314. 12
  315. 12
  316. 12
  317. 12
  318. 12
  319. 12
  320. 11
  321. 11
  322. 11
  323. 11
  324. 11
  325. 11
  326. 11
  327. 11
  328. 11
  329. 11
  330. 11
  331. 11
  332. 11
  333. 10
  334. 10
  335. 10
  336. 10
  337. 10
  338. 10
  339. 10
  340. 10
  341. 10
  342. 10
  343. 10
  344. 10
  345. 10
  346. 10
  347. 9
  348. 9
  349. 9
  350. 9
  351. 9
  352. 9
  353. 9
  354. 9
  355. 9
  356. 9
  357. 9
  358. 9
  359. 9
  360. 9
  361. 9
  362. 9
  363. 9
  364. 8
  365. 8
  366. 8
  367. 8
  368. 8
  369. 8
  370. 8
  371. 8
  372. 8
  373. 8
  374. 8
  375. 8
  376. 8
  377. 8
  378. 8
  379. 8
  380. 8
  381. 8
  382. 8
  383. 8
  384. 8
  385. 8
  386. 8
  387. 8
  388. 8
  389. 8
  390. 8
  391. 7
  392. 7
  393. 7
  394. 7
  395. 7
  396. 7
  397. 7
  398. 7
  399. 7
  400. 7
  401. 7
  402. 7
  403. 7
  404. 7
  405. 7
  406. 7
  407. 7
  408. 7
  409. 7
  410. 7
  411. 7
  412. 7
  413. 7
  414. 7
  415. 7
  416. 7
  417. 7
  418. 7
  419. 7
  420. 7
  421. This is genuinely very fascinating. As an Australian whose whole thing is explaining the Australian political system it was great to be able to learn more about the US, but also the historical perspective too. I knew that there was a gap between independence and the first President and I'd never understood what was happening there or why - and it sounds kinda like the Federal Council of Australasia, which was the Australian colonies (before they were states) trying to work together to form a pro-federal government. It lacked its own revenue, had limited scope, and relied on the executive authority of the colony Parliaments, and joining meetings was entirely optional so some colonies just never joined. It's not a perfect parallel but the idea of a federal system being worked on by different legislatures pre-federation is something multiple countries have tried before. Henry Parkes, the "Father of Federation" in Australia mentioned the US in his famous Tenterfield Oration, saying that "surely what the Americans have done by war, Australians can bring about in peace." Apparently the US's population in the 1700s was comparable to Australia's in 1890 and that was a parallel Parkes was trying to draw, while still maintaining our relationship with the British. As for the voting system: I must admit my bias but I do think that Australia's preferential voting system is much better than the US's system (though I have read that some places in the US use it - known also as instant runoff voting or ranked-choice voting). Basically, you either number all the candidates or a minimum partial selection, and that means if your favourite candidate doesn't win then your opinion is still able to shape the outcome. So for the House of Representatives if a candidate gets more than 50% of the voters' first preference (#1 vote) then they win outright. If no single candidate gets more than 50% outright, then the least popular is eliminated, and their preferences re-distributed to the other candidates, and then repeat this process until someone has over 50%. It's not unusual to have 6+ candidates running for a single seat in the House, so the possibility of no one getting 50% outright is quite likely. This means there's chances for minor parties and independents win in situations where a first past post system would just elect a major party candidate with only 30% of the vote. It finds a more mathematically average way of finding the most popular candidate that ranks highest with the most people, without falling into the trap of an unpopular candidate in a first past post system winning because the vote was split too many ways on the competition. Our Senate also uses preferences, but normally elects 6 Senators per state so the maths for quotas gets a bit more complicated. The preferences are still part of it, and Australia's diversity in political parties mean this is where a lot of minor parties get representation to create a very mixed upper house. Great video. I'm going to check out more and see what fascinating things there are to learn about the US and history.
    7
  422. 7
  423. 7
  424. 7
  425. 7
  426. 7
  427. 6
  428. 6
  429. 6
  430. 6
  431. 6
  432. 6
  433. 6
  434. 6
  435. 6
  436. 6
  437. 6
  438. 6
  439. 6
  440. 6
  441. 6
  442. 6
  443. 6
  444. 6
  445. 6
  446. 6
  447. 6
  448. 6
  449. 6
  450. 6
  451. 6
  452. The most interesting part of the video was Danishmendid coin for me. I didn't know that. I'm personally coming from Karamanids, my great great ancestors were Karamanids, (also that's the exact beylik of where Ataturk's ancestry comes from, because after Ottomans finally has beaten Karamanids, they exiled the half of the Karamanids to the Balkans to increase the Turkish population there, and this was also a tactic for them to not deal with Karamanids again. We're all Turks in the end but surely there are different dynasties or tribes, subgroups in a nutshell. But what took my attention is, I thought the only beylik who used Greek alphabet was Karamanids. So in this video I learned also Danishmendids were doing that. As a person who don't like much islamic effect on Turkish culture, and seeing arabic alphabet usage with Turkish language (I also studied some history and Ottoman Turkish in university - and using Turkish language w Arabic alphabet is just wretched, although they took three letters from Persian alphabet to fill the gaps but was not working) was always something frustrating for me. So today we use Latin alphabet but all the today's European alphabets' root is Greek alphabet including Latin and Cyrillic etc. So it's much more compatible w Turkish language. I mean Turks returned what they did after 600 years, to Greek alphabet technically. We had Gokturk alphabet in pre-islamic period but that's runic. I'm just amazed now with that Danishmendid coin. It gave me lots of ideas and thoughts all of a sudden. Thanks for sharing. Just another info as a fun fact; there's an idiom in Turkish language like "the game of Karaman, appears later on" (original. Karaman'ın koyunu, sonra çıkar oyunu) - and if you think about now Ottoman Empire is over and Turkey was founded by a man who comes from Karamanids. Relatable.
    6
  453. 5
  454. 5
  455. 5
  456. 5
  457. 5
  458. 5
  459. 5
  460. 5
  461. 5
  462. 5
  463. 5
  464. 5
  465. 5
  466. 5
  467. 5
  468. 5
  469. 5
  470. 5
  471. 5
  472. 5
  473. 5
  474. 5
  475. I'm 35 years old Turkish guy, and I did my high school education in Turkey, in between 1st and 11th grade. Then I went to Germany for university, that part is not related with here anyway. We never learned anything like we are the continuum of Roman empire or Byzantine or whatever you want to call it IN HIGH SCHOOL. However we learned that we are a nation that closes middle ages and start a new Era. So the reason of that is pretty simple. Nationalism waves effected obviously a newly found republic. After ruling over 80 different nations over 600 years, we needed a new ID, an ID that we can be proud of. Therefore history classes were taught very epic way. Turks can't be destroyed, but only from inside. Turks starts with Huns then the Göktürks then Seljuks then Ottomans together with other small Turkic dynasties (such as Aydinogullari Karamanogullari, etc etc). So, Turkish youth doesn't need to know that Ottomans tried to be continuum of Romans because why should Ottomans need that since Turks have a glorious history, right? :) Obviously, you don't get to learn in high school that Nationalism is not an ID for middle ages, it's too much detail for 8th grade (14-15 years old) student. However, in University you do get to learn obviously more in detail. Obviously Ottomans were rising but, still it was a new dynasty. In order to increase your legitimacy, defining yourself as succeeding dynasty would not only have diplomatical positive effects but also stability wise positive effects. Therefore Sultan Mehmet also became the guaranteerer of Fener Rum Patriarchal Church, etc etc. So yes, High school curriculum was like that and I highly doubt that it changes any time soon. Maybe 20 - 30 years later, hopefully...
    5
  476. 5
  477. 5
  478. 5
  479. 5
  480. 5
  481. 5
  482. 5
  483. 5
  484. 5
  485. 5
  486. 5
  487. 5
  488. 5
  489. 5
  490. 5
  491. 5
  492. 5
  493. 5
  494. 5
  495. 5
  496. 5
  497. 5
  498. 5
  499. 5
  500. 5
  501. 4
  502. 4
  503. 4
  504. 4
  505. 4
  506. 4
  507. 4
  508. 4
  509. 4
  510. 4
  511. 4
  512. 4
  513. 4
  514. There are some very good comments here. Language was definitely a factor in separation of the different christian groups, and ethnicity was too. But for Muslims it was much more blurred and does not explain why they aren't Roman. The number of actual central asians in the Ottoman Empire was not very much, especially before the Russians started driving refugees in. The number of actual Arabs was less. And the distinction between a Arab and a Turk when both were taught Arabic and Turkish as part of their education wasn't clear. The bulk of Muslims in the Ottoman Empire were converts from the ethnic group in the area they lived. Crete was 50% muslim, and those of them who ended up in Libya and Lebanon still speak Greek (those that went to Anatolia got Turkified). There are still muslim macedonians, Albanians, and Bosnians in large numbers. Due to the devshirme, the Ottoman ruling class had almost no central asian blood. By definition they were all Europeans. "Turk" is nothing but a multicultural melting pot based on religion, that only exclusively adopted the Turkish language to define it in the 19th century, and only by coercion (hence the whole Kurdish issue). The Arab world is less effected by nationalism and it may be easier to see what was. Ethnically a real Arabs is the descendants of Adnan and Qahtan. This is reflected in the policies of the GCC, which don't really count other Arabs as Arabs. Syrians, Egyptians etc, are really Cannanites, Israelites, Phillistines and Egyptians. People who first merged together into the Roman identity under Christianity and then converted to Islam. They couldn't stay as Romans due to the link between Rome and Christianity. But they aren't really Arabs either, even to this day.
    4
  515. 4
  516. 4
  517. 4
  518. 4
  519. 4
  520. 4
  521. 4
  522. 4
  523. 4
  524. 4
  525. 4
  526. 4
  527. 4
  528. 4
  529. 4
  530. 4
  531. 4
  532. 4
  533. 4
  534. 4
  535. 4
  536. 4
  537. 4
  538. 4
  539. 4
  540. 4
  541. 4
  542. 4
  543. 4
  544. 4
  545. 4
  546. 4
  547. 4
  548. 4
  549. 4
  550. 4
  551. 4
  552. 4
  553. 4
  554. 4
  555. 4
  556. 4
  557. 4
  558. 4
  559. 4
  560. 4
  561. 4
  562. 4
  563. 4
  564. 4
  565. 4
  566. 4
  567. 4
  568. 4
  569. 4
  570. 4
  571. 4
  572. 4
  573. 4
  574. 4
  575. 3
  576. 3
  577. 3
  578. 3
  579. 3
  580. 3
  581. 3
  582. 3
  583. 3
  584. 3
  585. 3
  586. 3
  587. 3
  588. 3
  589. From a different area that I know something about: in Japan there is also a lot of "weird" things about names. First thing is that they put the surname first (as everybody in East Asia) second is that in some contexts given names are used where an American would use a surname. For example somebody studying works of the early 20th century (as the Japanese would say "Taisho", after the name of the imperial era at the time) writer Miyazawa Kenji would describe themselves, half jokingly maybe, as Kenji-gakusha, a Kenjiologist, not a Miyazawaologist. Same with Natsume Soseki or Murakami Haruki. I always found this too familiar of a way to speak about a writer :D Another is the tradition of changing names with Samurais. One of course changed their name if they took buddhist vows but also for any other reason. So the person known to history as Tokugawa Ieyasu was born Matsudaira Takechiyo and had several other names during his lifetime. Relatedly, several centuries before the time of this person, the Heian era aristocrats of course had names, several of them in fact, but typically when talking to each other they used their titles instead. This makes reading things like the Tale of Genji in original especially demanding (apart from being written in a thousand years old version of Japanese that is barely understandable even if you know the modern language perfectly) because I distinctly remember there being one character that changed their job in the middle of the book and their name changes too but the reader is supposed to infer that they are the same person! Talking about Genji, this extends to the writer too: she is known to us as Murasaki Shikibu but that isn't her name. Murasaki is a nickname based supposedly on the character of Wakamurasaki ("young gromwell", a flower) from the book (or maybe it was the other way around?) and Shikibu is the title (job) of her father, minister of ceremonies or something like that. Her name was probably Fujiwara no Takako but we are not sure. Most other female Heian writers are like that - Murasaki's rival Sei Shonagon's name comes from her surname Kiyohara (the Sei part, that character is read Sei or Kiyo) and Shonagon is the title of her father, lesser councilor of the state. Mitsuchina no Haha, an author of a famous journal called Kagero Nikki is called after his son as "Mitsuchina's Mother". It kinda seems that their personal names were considered quite intimate by people at that time, something not to share with strangers. Oh, and talking about fantasy books: I feel like they used to have more of this "exotic naming styles" flavour but that kinda went out of style with the sword and sorcery subgenre being replaced by more "serious" styles of writing in the genre. We after all have Elric of Melniboné and Gerald of Rivia :D
    3
  590. 3
  591. 3
  592. 3
  593. 3
  594. 3
  595. 3
  596. 3
  597. 3
  598. 3
  599. 3
  600. 3
  601. 3
  602. 3
  603. 3
  604. 3
  605. 3
  606. 3
  607. 3
  608. 3
  609. 3
  610. 3
  611. 3
  612. 3
  613. 3
  614. 3
  615. 3
  616. 3
  617. 3
  618. 3
  619. 3
  620. 3
  621. 3
  622. 3
  623. 3
  624. 3
  625. 3
  626. 3
  627. 3
  628. 3
  629. 3
  630. 3
  631. 3
  632. 3
  633. 3
  634. 3
  635. 3
  636. 3
  637. 3
  638. 3
  639. 3
  640. 3
  641. 3
  642. 3
  643. 3
  644. 3
  645. 3
  646. 3
  647. 3
  648. 3
  649. 3
  650. 3
  651. 3
  652. 3
  653. 3
  654. 3
  655. 3
  656. 3
  657. 3
  658. 3
  659. 3
  660. 3
  661. 3
  662. 3
  663. 3
  664. 3
  665. 3
  666. 3
  667. 3
  668. 3
  669. 3
  670. 3
  671. 3
  672. 3
  673. 3
  674. 3
  675. 3
  676. 3
  677. 3
  678. 3
  679. 3
  680. Roman institutions continued past 476. Odoacer was considered subordinated to the Eastern Roman Emperor despite having deposed Romulus Augustulus Caesar on August 24, 476 A.D. this subordination was the same in ceremony. legality and in application as that of Romulus Augustulus. Odoacer, however, was of Germanic blood. However, a number of North African Roman Emperors such as Caracalla and Septimus Severes, a Thracian Roman Emperor Maxentius Thrax, and other non-Italians had severed as Emperors through much of its history. Theodosius rebuilt much of Roman institutions and buildings and usurped Odoacer but was subordinate to the Eastern Roman Emperor. Justinian falsely charged Theodoric with non-subjugation to him and invaded Italy to establish his own power, even as late as the early seventh century the Eastern Emperor directly ruled the city of Rome and its enclaves, several other small areas in Italy and officially ruled the Germanic Lombard commander of the rest of Italy (but weakly). A portion of the political entity of the Roman empire remained after 1453 until 1479. The Holy Roman Empire of 800 was revived in a new but different incarnation under Otto I in 952. This was later correctly described by Descartes as neither Holy, Roman, or an empire) but rather a loose confederation of over 1000 polities). I therefore do not count the Holy Roman Empire that was dissolved after the defeat of Austria by Napoleon who forced the Holy Roman Emperor to step down and denounce his own divine right to rule given him by a Papal legate, so that Napolean whose rule was legitimized when a Pope handed him a crown which he then placed on his head in 1804 would be the only Holy emperor in Europe.
    3
  681. 3
  682. 3
  683. 3
  684. 3
  685. 3
  686. 3
  687. 3
  688. 3
  689. 3
  690. 3
  691. 3
  692. 3
  693. 3
  694. 3
  695. 3
  696. 3
  697. 3
  698. 3
  699. 3
  700. 3
  701. 3
  702. 3
  703. 3
  704. 3
  705. 3
  706. 3
  707. 3
  708. 3
  709. 3
  710. 3
  711. 3
  712. 3
  713. 3
  714. 3
  715. 3
  716. 3
  717. 3
  718. 3
  719. 3
  720. 3
  721. 3
  722. 3
  723. 3
  724. 3
  725. 3
  726. 3
  727. 3
  728. 3
  729. 3
  730. 3
  731. 3
  732. 3
  733. 3
  734. 3
  735. 3
  736. 3
  737. 3
  738. 3
  739. 3
  740. 3
  741. 3
  742. 3
  743. 3
  744. 2
  745. 2
  746. 2
  747. 2
  748. 2
  749. 2
  750. 2
  751. 2
  752. 2
  753. 2
  754. 2
  755. 2
  756. 2
  757. 2
  758. 2
  759. 2
  760. 2
  761. 2
  762. 2
  763. 2
  764. 2
  765. 2
  766. 2
  767. 2
  768. 2
  769. 2
  770. 2
  771. 2
  772. 2
  773. 2
  774. 2
  775. 2
  776. 2
  777. 2
  778. 2
  779. 2
  780. 2
  781. 2
  782. 2
  783. 2
  784. 2
  785. 2
  786. 2
  787. 2
  788. 2
  789. 2
  790. 2
  791. 2
  792. 2
  793. 2
  794. 2
  795. 2
  796. 2
  797. 2
  798. 2
  799. 2
  800. 2
  801. 2
  802. 2
  803. 2
  804. 2
  805. 2
  806. 2
  807. 2
  808. 2
  809. 2
  810. 2
  811. 2
  812. 2
  813. 2
  814. 2
  815. 2
  816. 2
  817. 2
  818. 2
  819. 2
  820. 2
  821. 2
  822. 2
  823. 2
  824. 2
  825. 2
  826. 2
  827. 2
  828. 2
  829. 2
  830. 2
  831. 2
  832. 2
  833. 2
  834. 2
  835. 2
  836. 2
  837. 2
  838. 2
  839. 2
  840. 2
  841. 2
  842. 2
  843. 2
  844. 2
  845. 2
  846. 2
  847. 2
  848. 2
  849. 2
  850. 2
  851. 2
  852. 2
  853. 2
  854. 2
  855. 2
  856. 2
  857. 2
  858. 2
  859. 2
  860. 2
  861. 2
  862. 2
  863. 2
  864. 2
  865. 2
  866. 2
  867. 2
  868. 2
  869. 2
  870. 2
  871. 2
  872. 2
  873. 2
  874. 2
  875. 2
  876. 2
  877. 2
  878. 2
  879. 2
  880. 2
  881. 2
  882. 2
  883. 2
  884. 2
  885. 2
  886. 2
  887. 2
  888. 2
  889. 2
  890. 2
  891. 2
  892. 2
  893. 2
  894. 2
  895. 2
  896. 2
  897. 2
  898. 2
  899. 2
  900. 2
  901. 2
  902. 2
  903. 2
  904. 2
  905. 2
  906. 2
  907. 2
  908. 2
  909. 2
  910. 2
  911. 2
  912. 2
  913. 2
  914. 2
  915. 2
  916. 2
  917. 2
  918. 2
  919. 2
  920. 2
  921. 2
  922. 2
  923. 2
  924. 2
  925. 2
  926. 2
  927. 2
  928. 2
  929. 2
  930. 2
  931. 2
  932. 2
  933. 2
  934. 2
  935. 2
  936. 2
  937. 2
  938. 2
  939. 2
  940. 2
  941. 2
  942. 2
  943. 2
  944. 2
  945. 2
  946. 2
  947. 2
  948. 2
  949. 2
  950. 2
  951. 2
  952. 2
  953. 2
  954. 2
  955. 2
  956. 2
  957. 2
  958. 2
  959. 2
  960. 2
  961. 2
  962. 2
  963. 2
  964. 2
  965. 2
  966. 2
  967. 2
  968. 2
  969. Excellent video! One important thing of note is that the 10,000BC-present day timeline is EXTREMELY recent. Our own genus homo sapiens has been around for 200,000 years. Our genetic ancestors and family have been around for many millions of years. About 3 million years ago the Stone Age started and we find stone tools and tool use from then up until present day. There have been periods of close extinction. There have been many, many periods of ice age and global warming. Huge changes to flora and fauna and environment. All that to say, I like to consider the best micro view of our timeline as starting 200k years ago once we really crystallized into our own species Homo sapiens, and so you would better consider the year as being 202,023 rather than 2023 or 12,023. You might think this video does a good job showing how quickly our population exploded, but it is putting it in the most modest timeline possible, I suppose for ease of digestion, but imo it is really important to keep this in the context of 200,000 years at the very least. Otherwise you are telling such a short history it might mislead you to not consider the bulk of the history, the bulk of the substance, the bulk of the evolution, the bulk of the learning, the bulk of the factors that lead us here. To imagine that the same thing was pretty much going on for 3 million year until 10,000BC would be a completely confused view, and one which he is not espousing, but I can see a lot of people being confused here and not really understanding the context.
    2
  970. 2
  971. 2
  972. 2
  973. 2
  974. 2
  975. 2
  976. 2
  977. 2
  978. 2
  979. 2
  980. 2
  981. 2
  982. 2
  983. 2
  984. 2
  985. 2
  986. 2
  987. 2
  988. 2
  989. 2
  990. 2
  991. 2
  992. 2
  993. 2
  994. 2
  995. 2
  996. 2
  997. 2
  998. 2
  999. 2
  1000. 2
  1001. 2
  1002. 2
  1003. 2
  1004. 2
  1005. 2
  1006. 2
  1007. 2
  1008. 2
  1009. 2
  1010. 2
  1011. 2
  1012. 2
  1013. 2
  1014. 2
  1015. 2
  1016. 2
  1017. 2
  1018. 2
  1019. 2
  1020. 2
  1021. 2
  1022. 2
  1023. 2
  1024. 2
  1025. 2
  1026. 2
  1027. 2
  1028. 2
  1029. 2
  1030. 2
  1031. 2
  1032. 2
  1033. 2
  1034. 2
  1035. 2
  1036. 2
  1037. 2
  1038. 2
  1039. 2
  1040. 2
  1041. 2
  1042. 2
  1043. 2
  1044. 2
  1045. 2
  1046. 2
  1047. 2
  1048. 2
  1049. 2
  1050. 2
  1051. 2
  1052. 2
  1053. 2
  1054. 2
  1055. 2
  1056. 1
  1057. 1
  1058. 1
  1059. 1
  1060. 1
  1061. 1
  1062. 1
  1063. 1
  1064. 1
  1065. 1
  1066. 1
  1067. 1
  1068. 1
  1069. 1
  1070. 1
  1071. 1
  1072. 1
  1073. 1
  1074. 1
  1075. 1
  1076. 1
  1077. 1
  1078. 1
  1079. 1
  1080. 1
  1081. 1
  1082. 1
  1083. 1
  1084. 1
  1085. 1
  1086. 1
  1087. 1
  1088. 1
  1089. 1
  1090. 1
  1091. 1
  1092. 1
  1093. 1
  1094. 1
  1095. 1
  1096. 1
  1097. 1
  1098. 1
  1099. 1
  1100. 1
  1101. 1
  1102. 1
  1103. 1
  1104. 1
  1105. 1
  1106. 1
  1107. 1
  1108. 1
  1109. 1
  1110. 1
  1111. 1
  1112. 1
  1113. 1
  1114. 1
  1115. 1
  1116. 1
  1117. 1
  1118. 1
  1119. 1
  1120. 1
  1121. 1
  1122. 1
  1123. 1
  1124. 1
  1125. 1
  1126. 1
  1127. 1
  1128. 1
  1129. 1
  1130. 1
  1131. 1
  1132. 1
  1133. 1
  1134. 1
  1135. 1
  1136. 1
  1137. 1
  1138. 1
  1139. 1
  1140. 1
  1141. 1
  1142. 1
  1143. 1
  1144. 1
  1145. 1
  1146. 1
  1147. 1
  1148. 1
  1149. 1
  1150. 1
  1151. 1
  1152. 1
  1153. 1
  1154. 1
  1155. 1
  1156. 1
  1157. 1