Youtube comments of Fire of Learning (@Fireoflearning).
-
4800
-
1. Song names are Yankee Doodle and The Battle Hymn of The Republic
2. In summary, 8 presidents have died while in office, those shown here. Of them, 4 were assassinated, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy. The youngest to die was also the youngest to be elected, (not counting Theodore Roosevelt who assumed the presidency after the assassination of McKinley) John F. Kennedy, at the age of 46. As you may have noticed, the most common ways that presidents have died are cerebral hemorrhage, and heart disease. There are 5 living presidents to date, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden.
3. Note - Jackson was born on the 15th of March, not 5th.
4. President Jimmy Carter passed away on December 29th, 2024, at the age of 100.
4600
-
1500
-
1000
-
802
-
670
-
630
-
614
-
614
-
609
-
606
-
515
-
2 points about Constantine XI Palaiologos (Rome's/Byzantium's last Emperor):
1. Did he actually die in battle? Probably, yes. According to two primary sources (Michael Kritobulus and Georgios Sphrantzes in particular), he resisted offers to surrender, saying that he and his men had chosen to die of their own free will, and was last seen tearing off his imperial regalia right before the end, so as to look like a common soldier. It's possible that he committed suicide or fled, but the fact that the Turks were unable to find his body, and that he was never heard from again, to me suggests that the greatest likelihood is that he fell in battle dressed as a common soldier much as the sources say. This would be a natural assumption even if the sources didn't claim it because the body was never found.
2. Did he actually give the speech often attributed to him? Very likely not. In fact, the speech is said to have been written down by Sphranztes later on, but even that is not exactly true. Another important primary source was an Italian Bishop present in the city at the time, Leonard of Chios, who may (probably) have exaggerated and embellished some things. Long story short, Constantine XI may have given a speech before the city fell. If so, he would've probably talked about the things I said in the video he did, but it's impossible to say for sure. I doubt, that in a chaotic, stressful, and terrifying situation, it would've been so well composed, and I doubt even more that someone would be meticulously writing it down verbatim, but it may be along the lines of things he actually said. They likely took the truth about what happened to their graves. Still important, and fun, to speculate, though.
469
-
467
-
466
-
440
-
417
-
373
-
354
-
352
-
349
-
335
-
325
-
320
-
319
-
312
-
272
-
268
-
255
-
243
-
242
-
238
-
238
-
235
-
218
-
216
-
191
-
185
-
163
-
156
-
156
-
139
-
122
-
111
-
110
-
106
-
105
-
105
-
100
-
99
-
94
-
88
-
82
-
79
-
78
-
76
-
75
-
74
-
71
-
71
-
69
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
60
-
57
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
50
-
49
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
39
-
39
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
@chrislyons5556 @adambrydges1040
Hello!
The reason I edited it out is that the connections between Samhain and Halloween are much more speculative than I initially realized.
The idea of a connection seems to be extrapolated from the idea that Christmas was just invented to Christianize various Pagan winter holidays of Europe (Specifically The Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, but people often throw Saturnalia, and Yule).
The blunt truth is that certain types of Protestants took this idea and ran with it for miles because it discredits the denominations that they don't agree with, mainly the Catholic Church, to the point of asserting that every single holiday and every single tradition within each holiday is Pagan, and that nothing has been invented in the past 1500 years at all. There is such certainty that this is what happened that, when asked about where a holiday came from, it is sufficient to just find a contemporary Pagan festival and assume that there is a connection regardless of evidence. For various reasons, these ideas took over historical discussions about the topic.
Unfortunately, there is not much evidence that Christmas was invented to replace these holidays. It's possible that it incorporated certain Pagan traditions along the way, but it seems Christmas has a mostly independent, Christian origin. I am not saying Protestants are wrong about their religion, but their view on this particular historical issue is lacking in evidence. If you look into this subject further, many of the arguments for this being the case are religious in nature, and come from religiously-oriented groups and figures, not historians.
These sources will explain why, in their view, Halloween is unbiblical, and consider that sufficient evidence to say that it has Pagan origins. There is total silence with regard to primary historical sources, which are absolutely necessary for an objective and empirical conversation about any historical topic. That is a huge red flag.
In summary, while it's possible that this is actually what happened, there's no clear evidence that Halloween was invented to replace Samhain. Christian Europe left very few sources about the early development of the Allhallowtide, the Irish Pagan Celts did not leave any written records about anything, let alone Samhain. People were only certain that there was a connection between Halloween and Samhain because of Christmas's connections to Pagan holidays, but then it turns out that Christmas has very tenuous connections to Paganism. As a result, there's very little we can say for certain, but it is doubtful that the answer is a simple, black-and-white "Everything is Pagan".
So anyway, I decided I should reduce this video to what I could say for certain and provide evidence for, then come back in a few years and possibly remake the documentary with a much more cautious and evidence-based approach to its earliest origins.
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
The modern Austrian state did not exist, but the Archduchy of Austria did. It can be confusing, but the Archduchy of Austria was a part of the Holy Roman Empire, the most important and powerful member of the Holy Roman Empire, but also distinct from it. They held domains, like Hungary, which were not a part of the Empire. The Austrian (edit: Habsburg) domains, distinct from the Holy Roman Empire, were what was highlighted.
While they were usually the same person, in fact, the Austrian Archduchess and Holy Roman Emperor were actually not the same person at this time. Maria Theresa was the Austrian Archduchess, her son Joseph was the Holy Roman Emperor.
I know of no historians who have an issue with this terminology, it is not anachronistic as the area was referred to as Austria in this time period.
Regarding the French, I am not sure what you mean by saying they did not go full in and were not formal participants. I would look into the Comte de Grasse and battle of Yorktown, where there were more French soldiers present than American.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Well, I kind of hinted at it, I should've went more into it. "Good" Latin was spoken mostly by the upper class/educated. Most Romans, even in Italy, spoke a vulgar, improper Latin. Kind of similar to today, the Queen vs. a common Englishman's English. When the Empire fell, that vulgar Latin was free to morph into Italian over the course of centuries. Latin is to Italian what Old English is to Modern English.
Edit: In the Middle Ages, I imagine the common Italian lost any feeling of connectionn to Rome. Roman monuments were sometimes stripped for building materials, for example. Literacy dropped signifcantly, like 95-99% illiteracy, and most people outside of the Church, even (early mid ages) kings and nobles, never learned how to read, and so Latin writing was irrelevant to them. Language shift, if they really noticed it happening, probably wasnt a huge deal to them. Rome was a thing of the past, correcting grammar mistakes as they popped up was a lost cause.
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
It's a very interesting historical concept, but most of the time, the places that called themselves the Third Rome were stretching it quite a bit, mostly using it as a way to say "We're the heart of glory and civilization" as opposed to actually carrying on Roman civilization. Something like the HRE or Vatican definitely carried on important pieces of the Empire, but I don't regard them as continuations or replications of the Roman Empire. Maybe the Papal States/Vatican can be seen as a more direct successor, but definitely not fully.
After 1453, Moscow realistically claimed to be the seat of the Orthodox Church, but I don't think Russia had much more claim to being the new Roman Empire than that. The Ottomans may have conquered Eastern Rome and set up shop in Constantinople, but I don't personally think that that qualifies them to be the new Romans much more than the Ostrogoths were, and I don't know of many outside their cultures that view it that way.
In terms of the Empires under people like Napoleon or Mussolini, their Empires were definitely not the reincarnations of Rome, Rome was mostly just a symbol at that point.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I see where you're coming from, but I don't quite agree.
There's no objective way to determine when Western Rome "fell", it's a matter of consensus by historians. The fall was a gradual process. Many things we associate with Western Roman society collapsed and disappeared before the 5th century, and many things outlived even the date you favor. So, it's difficult to divide "Rome" from "Not Rome." By some (unpopular) interpretations, even, Rome fell when The Austrian Kaiser dissolved the Holy Roman Empire during the Napoleonic Wars.
Your interpretation that it fell when the Lombards invaded and the Papacy stopped recognizing the authority of the Eastern Emperor, and that Odoacer and the Ostrogoths were fundamentally Roman rulers, makes sense and is perfectly respectable, but it's only one interpretation, and it isn't the one I personally agree with.
I don't agree that the Empire was never actually divided. The dual emperorship of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus was different from the literal administrative and territorial division started by Diocletian. By the end, the East and West were basically operating as separate countries, which is part of why Byzantium was able to keep going. Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus just had separate roles in governing the same empire.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The television show is asburd. Its primary purpose is to keep people watching, not just to document the study. From an academic standpoint, that would be regarded as a major conflict of interest and casts doubt over an already complicated subject. It's full of odd, unnecessary characters, interpersonal drama, sensationalism, great time is devoted to every mild oddity or unidentifiable object they encounter. And ultimately, at the end of it, they haven't produced much that could be useful to science either.
I do think Fugal is an honest and respectable person though with genuine intentions, so if a cut were made of the genuinely interesting things, I would probably watch or read more about that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hello, Mr. Fugal. Thank you for taking the time to watch and respond to this video.
I tried to emphasize in the video that I do believe your efforts are honest and important, I hope that you did not get the impression I was suggesting otherwise. I cannot say I believe in the phenomenon, but unlike most fellow skeptics, I do not necessarily disbelieve either, and I'm open about my belief that you're doing the right thing by continuing investigation.
My criticism was mostly oriented towards the nature of the docuseries. Much as I love a good story, I am very data-oriented when it comes to this sort of topic and was somewhat offput by the data being mixed in with the drama of a TV show.
However, I do understand that a television series has to be this way to appeal to a large audience, and that this does not necessarily mean it is dishonest, or that there is nothing to it. I admit that I may have been too dismissive of your work.
I made plans not long after releasing this video to cover your era and the preceding AAWSAP era in much greater detail in a part 2 (and possibly part 3.) (I was so focused on every detail of the Sherman's experience that I would've reserved the rest for a part 2 even had I fully watched the show.)
I will remove my judgements about the show from this video (as well as the assumption that you profit from it) and hold off on them until after watching it and reviewing the associated evidence,
As for your offer to send more data and information, I'd be happy to take whatever you believe is worth emphasizing to the public.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1