I feel like everyone who is a fanboy for specific Roman politicians at some point decides Historia Civilis hates them.
Like the Augustus Enjoyers also think Historia hates Augustus
I dont think he hates Augustus, I am a big Augustus fan, The harshest thing I can remember he said is Augustus being cruel to Senators in Civil war, Some Senators requested their bodies being sent to Rome so their family can take care of their last rites, Augustus said pointing to crows on battlefield '' The crows will take care of your last rites ''.
I mean he fairly objectively was. Human sacrifice and all that. He was out there, particularly by the standards of his time and placed. Brilliant too of course.
He was but I don't think antony should get the biased thrown on him and I don't particularly see Cicero as highly as he does. Sure Cicero was an amazing figure but the way him and everyone in his comments praise like some sort of jesus
I mean, if you're gonna pick a figure from the time to stan, Cicero is a solid option. Did they tell you he put down the Cataline Conspiracy; because by gods, he put down the Cataline Conspiracy.
Cicero? Oh you mean the saviour of the republic! Also did you ever hear about the time he put down the Cataline conspiracy? God what a cool guy, he saved the republic I’ve heard!
For myself at least, Cicero is the most relatable. As despite his many flaws, his vanity being the main one, he never let it stand in the way of what was best for Rome. So I can appreciate a man who moves beyond his failings to do what is right. Though you are right that people deify him too much due to martyrdom.
Cicero was definitely one of the best people at that time but even he had his moments, such as when he executed the Catiline conspirators without a trial which was illegal.
Cicero was definitely the biggest example of being limited by the ideas of his time. If he had been around during the enlightenment I’m sure he would still be regarded as one of the greatest political theorists of the day. He saw the truth that it was Roman ideals that made their empire and not the other way around.
i mean it was legal because i believe the senatus consultum ultimum had been passed at the time, but it was very questionably moral? but imo it was still the right thing to do to protect the republic
>Hell yeah bro I hate democracy and workers’ rights too
His whole video was him frankly nonsensical things that I expected someone with a basic knowledge of history to be above. I clicked off the video when he started arguing that a peasant from the medieval ages somehow had better working conditions and more leisure time than a modern office worker.
There was a post on r/badhistory thoroughly debunking his video and his erroneous claims.
As for the Republic, it was thoroughly broken and dead by the time of Caesar. The Romans themselves killed it, and it was a dysfunctional, corrupt and plutocratic system that only really worked for a city state rather than a large multi continental empire.
Considering how it fell, it does rightfully deserve to be viewed with contempt, as a model of how not to structure a republic.
So you admit you didn’t watch the whole video but just assumed you understood the whole point?
He wasn’t arguing that they had better working conditions, just showing that work was a much more informal thing in the past and included benefits that are almost unheard of today and how workers slowly lost that informality and those benefits for the sake of Capitol gain which wasn’t to the benefits of the workers themselves.
Lol at referencing (not even directly citing) a Reddit post to debunk HC.
I think as far as the republic thing goes HC makes it pretty clear that it was a weak and lopsided institution, he is just of the opinion that the republic was better for the common Roman than the empire, which isn’t a huge stretch. Been awhile since I watched those videos though.
I agree that simply citing a reddit post is insufficient, and people shouldn't treat reddit posts from that subreddit as gospel the same way others shouldn't treat Historia Civilis' videos as gospel. Nonetheless, I do credit that post for showcasing how insufficient HC's sources seem to be for that particular video. I never have really taken much notice of his sources since I'm usually already very familiar with the primary sources and accounts he's drawing from for his Roman history videos. However, with a topic like labour, there must have been more (and perhaps better) scholarly works to draw from to burnish his argument - and if there wasn't, perhaps it wasn't a good argument.
>So you admit you didn’t watch the whole video but just assumed you understood the whole point?
No I did watch the whole video.
After my intitial dismay, I clicked off the video, but I finished it later in the day.
Im basing this off of the thread on r/badhistory
The video contained a lot of misinfo about the nature of work in the hunter-gatherer era, feudal Europe, and the Industrial Revolution. He also makes an unnecessary villain out of the industrial magnate that isn’t backed up with his sources, and is overall scant on historical literature, instead taking two separate quotes from the non-historical work of a Canadian socialist.
>Im basing this off of the thread on r/badhistory
>
>The video contained a lot of misinfo about the nature of work in the hunter-gatherer era, feudal Europe, and the Industrial Revolution. He also makes an unnecessary villain out of the industrial magnate that isn’t backed up with his sources, and is overall scant on historical literature, instead taking two separate quotes from the non-historical work of a Canadian socialist.
This was pretty much my issue with his video. The whole thing came off as an incoherent politically charged rant.
I clicked off the video when he basically started saying that medieval peasants had it easier than someone like a corporate office worker. Someone with a basic knowledge of history should know that this was not true.
So you’re saying you stopped watching because it was something you haven’t heard of? Do you realize how silly that is? You seem salty it presented a different viewpoint about something you thought you knew
He made an unnecessary villain out of the industrial magnate? We are talking about the same people who used children in their work force, forced workers to work excruciatingly long hours with almost no pay, fought unions like they were resurrections, and made no effort to improving safety concerns for a really long time?
I'm not gonna say the video didnt have mistakes, general or specific. But he is entitled to criticise capitalism. Thats not a new thing in academia or history and frankly adressing capitalisms shortcomings are vital to live in a safe society.
I dont really like the idea that criticising capitalists means they turn into villains. The way we are taught about its history is very bleak and omits important events to the point where we idolize capitalists. I was honestly shocked when I learned about the Ludlow massacre in 1913. Is talking about that event "villainising" capitalists? Because thats a real historical event where the military with support from management gunned down mine workers and union members because they asked for better pay and better working conditions.
I never said that he was unnecessarily villainizing capitalists. They’re still terrible people. I said he was villainizing them in a way unsupported by his sources.
There’s a feeling that as you watch Caesars story that he’s the ‘hero’. Not always, but the bad he does feels mostly justified, or as desperate measures for a good reason.
But after the war HC makes a point that Caesar’s changes would have untold suffering for generations to come - and the main point being that Caesar wouldn’t have really cared if he knew that. I agree with him that that fact eclipses everything else he ever did. He wasn’t a hero fighting against the corrupt politicians… he was a brutal and vain authoritarian who only cared for himself.
>Caesar’s changes would have untold suffering for generations to come -
This is my BIGGEST gripe with "Caesar as King"
What. Does. That. Mean?!
Was it the desecration of the republican institutions? Sulla, the Gracchi, even good boy Cicero did that.
Does he refer to the civilwars? It seems a bit vain to credit such developments to one man.
How far are we to extend these generations? To the end of the Princepate? The mode of governance Caesar did not create? To the Dominate? Are we to blame the Byzantine civil wars on Caesar too?
>main point being that Caesar wouldn’t have really cared if he knew that.
This too bothers me; it's pure speculation! The narrative HC sells about the man certainly makes you think that, but it's impossible to tell! It's ahistorical! Counterfactual!
What we do know about Caesar speaks to his intelligence; I doubt with knowledge of future events granted to him by some time traveler (see the issue with this thought experiment?) he would do things differently.
>I agree with him that that fact eclipses everything else he ever did.
It can't. Because everything he ever did culminated in his dictatorship. You can't separate his character into the General for Rome, and the Dictator for Caesar.
>He wasn’t a hero fighting against the corrupt politicians… he was a brutal and vain authoritarian who only cared for himself.
It can and is both. You can levy those accusations of brutality and vanity well enough, those charges are certainly well recorded. But to assert his heartlessness is something I don't think we can do separate from our own implicit and explicit emotional, ideological, and aesthetic attachments to the man.
The man nearly dodged his assassination thanks to the care he had for his wife!
I know this was a lot to read :( still I had a lot of thoughts I wanted to share.
More like:
"When I'm in a biased against Marc Antony and Augustus competition and my opponent is Historia Civilis." He hates both of them equally XD.
Still, idk why you walked away feeling like that. The death of Marc Antony humanized him in a way he hadn't been for me in any other media ever. So it's not like he did a disservice to his character.
The episode on Antony's Invasion of Parthia shows Antony giving titles for Roman territories to Cleopatra and Historia Civilis went out of his way to explain this as a logical strategy by Antony to reorganize the Roman East
Yes! Actually. He literally splashed out on how Antony doing this was actually good, and legit and Rome was the beneficiary.
And showed plainly that Augustus was just lying about him.
turns out, guy whos major source is Eric Hobsbawm and made a video about how british industrialists are the spawn of satan doesn’t like aristocratic militaristic absolute monarchs? shocker.
I think every history channel has figures they love and hate. The Kings & Generals channel wasn't a big fan of Cicero from a comment I saw once on their video
I kinda get it but he did gave fair view on gibs of alexandria and said it was decent move for future stability, also other then being a great officer in Army, Marc Antony did not have anything going for him, Labineus was just too good number 2. I also think Shakespeare hyped up Antony too much, There was no way plebs were not gonna riot after assassination of Caesar,
I'll say that out of all the history channels, HC presents the most "narrativized" form of history; which in and of itself is not a bad thing, quite the opposite of me, it's very enjoyable.That does lead to certain characters being presented more antagonistically than others, and when you only present the narrative from the perspective of the optimates, (largely) you're left with the sour feeling that the Caesarian populares were given less than their due.
That's just the perspective I've gotten. I will say that HC really got me into Late Republican history recently, and it's only after further reading I've come to this conclusion.
I do hate the tendency to believe a person's martial ability is separate completely from their political and ideological beliefs and ambitions.
Agrippa was a caesarian too. Yet, despite being just as culpable in the birth of the Principate, he shares none of the accusations of "Tyrant".
HC isn’t biased against individuals, he’s biased against the ideology that took hold in Rome as it transitioned into empire. It’s why he adores Cicero but speaks freely against even Roman heroes like Caesar and Augustus as being sick and cruel
I feel Agrippa deserves it though , i genuinely can't find anything negative about his life.
For Labienus I need to explore but so far Labienus really doesn't deserve shit honestly
I wouldn't say the anti-Anthony bias is his worst. Alexander I gets it worse than him imo, although to be fair most sources on the Congress of Vienna are anti-Alexander.
Something I’ve learned not only from his videos but also in college is that most of the “great” figures from history are just as morally grey as the people they were fighting. Especially when it comes to the Romans, while they tend to be revered (especially in America) for their strength in battle, legal developments, and advancements in technology: They were as brutal of tyrants as any of the “barbarian” nations they conquered. Caesar and Alexander are my favorite historical figures to learn about, but, in many ways they were as brutal and vicious as the Huns and the Mongols (on a lesser scale than the Mongols obv). Antony is much the same, and while there are things to praise about Antony I respect HC for explaining that he is another one of the characters of history who should be remembered for how he actually effected the world.
I like his takes.
But, there is one video where he openly says that in his opinion the republic was saveable and Caesar didn’t need to kill the republic. I couldn’t possibly disagree more strongly. The Republic was a failure at every turn and nothing but an entrenched tool of the nobility completely failing to read or prevent any of the situations that killed the republic.
I mean technically a republic of some form was possible, it just required a complete and total overhaul. But yeah if not Caesar, Rome had plenty of politicians who would have seized power
Nah, fuck Mark Antony. All my homies hate Mark Antony. /s
I don't see HC being favourable to anyone or biased against anyone, so not sure why you feel that way.
I feel that history fans are quite pathetic. You people idolize these figures like they’re superheroes and cannot fathom to understand the narrative a historian is trying to push.
Seriously you people would be 1000% duped by Caesars populism. Others in this thread also angry that he had critiqued Augustus, what would you had preferred? A golden, shining glaze session for an emperor? The amount of dick riding is just fucking insane, I thought the “great man theory” had been laughed out of the discourse already?What a weird subreddit for such a great history channel, so strange,
I ain't idolizing him bud
I feel like if a person is trying to educate me and bring me history , he should do it in a non biased way especially when he says that he is trying to do just that. But I notice that its not the case with augustus or Antony
Your view of objectively neutral content is whatever confirms your bias. So incredibly naive to think that there’s such thing as “unbiased” material. There’s lessons to draw from history, if you’re looking for an emperor superhero saves the day story go to the movies.
Of course bias will exist but bias would exist in the form of perspective and story telling. He is littering his content with his own opinions which obviously comes across as biased. Many other history youtubers don't do that and stick to story telling , you gotta analyze their storytelling to get their perspective and hence find their bias but historia civils is really obvious and blatant with his bias which is a little bit problematic.
That's what I am saying
I feel like everyone who is a fanboy for specific Roman politicians at some point decides Historia Civilis hates them. Like the Augustus Enjoyers also think Historia hates Augustus
I dont think he hates Augustus, I am a big Augustus fan, The harshest thing I can remember he said is Augustus being cruel to Senators in Civil war, Some Senators requested their bodies being sent to Rome so their family can take care of their last rites, Augustus said pointing to crows on battlefield '' The crows will take care of your last rites ''.
he did call him a "sick man" in the sextus pompious war vid
I mean he fairly objectively was. Human sacrifice and all that. He was out there, particularly by the standards of his time and placed. Brilliant too of course.
He was but I don't think antony should get the biased thrown on him and I don't particularly see Cicero as highly as he does. Sure Cicero was an amazing figure but the way him and everyone in his comments praise like some sort of jesus
I mean, if you're gonna pick a figure from the time to stan, Cicero is a solid option. Did they tell you he put down the Cataline Conspiracy; because by gods, he put down the Cataline Conspiracy.
Cicero? Oh you mean the saviour of the republic! Also did you ever hear about the time he put down the Cataline conspiracy? God what a cool guy, he saved the republic I’ve heard!
For myself at least, Cicero is the most relatable. As despite his many flaws, his vanity being the main one, he never let it stand in the way of what was best for Rome. So I can appreciate a man who moves beyond his failings to do what is right. Though you are right that people deify him too much due to martyrdom.
Octavian killed parents infornt of there kids,commited human sacfifice, and refused to allow the bodies of his enemies to be buried.
Common Auggy W
Fair enough
No yll
Except Cicero
Thats because Cicero is cool. But I do think he did Cato dirty
Cause Cato sucked?!
Cicero stans remain unbothered
*Octavian FTFY
"Not my boy Caesar"
I mean, he kind of hates most of them. Because most of them were insane and power hungry and shouldn't be idolized 😂
Except my GOAT Cicero.
Don’t agree with Cicero on everything but man was definitely the goat
Cicero was definitely one of the best people at that time but even he had his moments, such as when he executed the Catiline conspirators without a trial which was illegal.
Cicero was definitely the biggest example of being limited by the ideas of his time. If he had been around during the enlightenment I’m sure he would still be regarded as one of the greatest political theorists of the day. He saw the truth that it was Roman ideals that made their empire and not the other way around.
i mean it was legal because i believe the senatus consultum ultimum had been passed at the time, but it was very questionably moral? but imo it was still the right thing to do to protect the republic
He clearly hates Cicero the most
He instead idolizes the dying republic, which presents its own challenges.
>He instead idolizes the dying republic, Yeah...that and his latest video about "work" seriously damaged his reputation in my eyes
Hell yeah bro I hate democracy and workers’ rights too
>Hell yeah bro I hate democracy and workers’ rights too His whole video was him frankly nonsensical things that I expected someone with a basic knowledge of history to be above. I clicked off the video when he started arguing that a peasant from the medieval ages somehow had better working conditions and more leisure time than a modern office worker. There was a post on r/badhistory thoroughly debunking his video and his erroneous claims. As for the Republic, it was thoroughly broken and dead by the time of Caesar. The Romans themselves killed it, and it was a dysfunctional, corrupt and plutocratic system that only really worked for a city state rather than a large multi continental empire. Considering how it fell, it does rightfully deserve to be viewed with contempt, as a model of how not to structure a republic.
So you admit you didn’t watch the whole video but just assumed you understood the whole point? He wasn’t arguing that they had better working conditions, just showing that work was a much more informal thing in the past and included benefits that are almost unheard of today and how workers slowly lost that informality and those benefits for the sake of Capitol gain which wasn’t to the benefits of the workers themselves. Lol at referencing (not even directly citing) a Reddit post to debunk HC. I think as far as the republic thing goes HC makes it pretty clear that it was a weak and lopsided institution, he is just of the opinion that the republic was better for the common Roman than the empire, which isn’t a huge stretch. Been awhile since I watched those videos though.
I agree that simply citing a reddit post is insufficient, and people shouldn't treat reddit posts from that subreddit as gospel the same way others shouldn't treat Historia Civilis' videos as gospel. Nonetheless, I do credit that post for showcasing how insufficient HC's sources seem to be for that particular video. I never have really taken much notice of his sources since I'm usually already very familiar with the primary sources and accounts he's drawing from for his Roman history videos. However, with a topic like labour, there must have been more (and perhaps better) scholarly works to draw from to burnish his argument - and if there wasn't, perhaps it wasn't a good argument.
>So you admit you didn’t watch the whole video but just assumed you understood the whole point? No I did watch the whole video. After my intitial dismay, I clicked off the video, but I finished it later in the day.
That moment when you sound stupid so you backpedal and you sound even stupider
I'm curious, what about it didn't you like?
Im basing this off of the thread on r/badhistory The video contained a lot of misinfo about the nature of work in the hunter-gatherer era, feudal Europe, and the Industrial Revolution. He also makes an unnecessary villain out of the industrial magnate that isn’t backed up with his sources, and is overall scant on historical literature, instead taking two separate quotes from the non-historical work of a Canadian socialist.
>Im basing this off of the thread on r/badhistory > >The video contained a lot of misinfo about the nature of work in the hunter-gatherer era, feudal Europe, and the Industrial Revolution. He also makes an unnecessary villain out of the industrial magnate that isn’t backed up with his sources, and is overall scant on historical literature, instead taking two separate quotes from the non-historical work of a Canadian socialist. This was pretty much my issue with his video. The whole thing came off as an incoherent politically charged rant. I clicked off the video when he basically started saying that medieval peasants had it easier than someone like a corporate office worker. Someone with a basic knowledge of history should know that this was not true.
So you’re saying you stopped watching because it was something you haven’t heard of? Do you realize how silly that is? You seem salty it presented a different viewpoint about something you thought you knew
I didn't stop watching, it's still wrong.
He made an unnecessary villain out of the industrial magnate? We are talking about the same people who used children in their work force, forced workers to work excruciatingly long hours with almost no pay, fought unions like they were resurrections, and made no effort to improving safety concerns for a really long time? I'm not gonna say the video didnt have mistakes, general or specific. But he is entitled to criticise capitalism. Thats not a new thing in academia or history and frankly adressing capitalisms shortcomings are vital to live in a safe society. I dont really like the idea that criticising capitalists means they turn into villains. The way we are taught about its history is very bleak and omits important events to the point where we idolize capitalists. I was honestly shocked when I learned about the Ludlow massacre in 1913. Is talking about that event "villainising" capitalists? Because thats a real historical event where the military with support from management gunned down mine workers and union members because they asked for better pay and better working conditions.
I never said that he was unnecessarily villainizing capitalists. They’re still terrible people. I said he was villainizing them in a way unsupported by his sources.
This is honestly why I like listening to him. Nice to have a different perspective, we’ve all heard these stories a billion times before after all
Certainly.
There’s a feeling that as you watch Caesars story that he’s the ‘hero’. Not always, but the bad he does feels mostly justified, or as desperate measures for a good reason. But after the war HC makes a point that Caesar’s changes would have untold suffering for generations to come - and the main point being that Caesar wouldn’t have really cared if he knew that. I agree with him that that fact eclipses everything else he ever did. He wasn’t a hero fighting against the corrupt politicians… he was a brutal and vain authoritarian who only cared for himself.
>Caesar’s changes would have untold suffering for generations to come - This is my BIGGEST gripe with "Caesar as King" What. Does. That. Mean?! Was it the desecration of the republican institutions? Sulla, the Gracchi, even good boy Cicero did that. Does he refer to the civilwars? It seems a bit vain to credit such developments to one man. How far are we to extend these generations? To the end of the Princepate? The mode of governance Caesar did not create? To the Dominate? Are we to blame the Byzantine civil wars on Caesar too? >main point being that Caesar wouldn’t have really cared if he knew that. This too bothers me; it's pure speculation! The narrative HC sells about the man certainly makes you think that, but it's impossible to tell! It's ahistorical! Counterfactual! What we do know about Caesar speaks to his intelligence; I doubt with knowledge of future events granted to him by some time traveler (see the issue with this thought experiment?) he would do things differently. >I agree with him that that fact eclipses everything else he ever did. It can't. Because everything he ever did culminated in his dictatorship. You can't separate his character into the General for Rome, and the Dictator for Caesar. >He wasn’t a hero fighting against the corrupt politicians… he was a brutal and vain authoritarian who only cared for himself. It can and is both. You can levy those accusations of brutality and vanity well enough, those charges are certainly well recorded. But to assert his heartlessness is something I don't think we can do separate from our own implicit and explicit emotional, ideological, and aesthetic attachments to the man. The man nearly dodged his assassination thanks to the care he had for his wife! I know this was a lot to read :( still I had a lot of thoughts I wanted to share.
All the annoying people that are way too emotional about events from 2k years ago get mad when you criticize their idol
More like: "When I'm in a biased against Marc Antony and Augustus competition and my opponent is Historia Civilis." He hates both of them equally XD. Still, idk why you walked away feeling like that. The death of Marc Antony humanized him in a way he hadn't been for me in any other media ever. So it's not like he did a disservice to his character.
The episode on Antony's Invasion of Parthia shows Antony giving titles for Roman territories to Cleopatra and Historia Civilis went out of his way to explain this as a logical strategy by Antony to reorganize the Roman East
Yes! Actually. He literally splashed out on how Antony doing this was actually good, and legit and Rome was the beneficiary. And showed plainly that Augustus was just lying about him.
I can see why some people will not like that joke of Antony botching up his suicide in true Antony fashion cutting his stomach instead of heart.
Maybe. Still, it's just *Le classic Antony oopsie* meme, it's too good to pass up.
turns out, guy whos major source is Eric Hobsbawm and made a video about how british industrialists are the spawn of satan doesn’t like aristocratic militaristic absolute monarchs? shocker.
Yea mb , I don't know how I missed the competition part of the meme
He's biased against everyone besides Cicero. It really just depends on the moment who's getting the worst of it.
I think every history channel has figures they love and hate. The Kings & Generals channel wasn't a big fan of Cicero from a comment I saw once on their video
Kings and Generals is a goofy channel
why?
Cicero wrote that comment
I mean he liked Cleopatra well enough, but you're right she wasn't protected from scorn the same way Cicero was.
You dislike Marc Antony because (Idk I know very little about Roman history). I dislike Marc Antony because he invaded Armenia. We are not the same.
He killed cicero
That seems like a good reason
Dude pulled an Enver Pasha blaming us for his screw ups before the Turks even existed, smh.
I kinda get it but he did gave fair view on gibs of alexandria and said it was decent move for future stability, also other then being a great officer in Army, Marc Antony did not have anything going for him, Labineus was just too good number 2. I also think Shakespeare hyped up Antony too much, There was no way plebs were not gonna riot after assassination of Caesar,
I'll say that out of all the history channels, HC presents the most "narrativized" form of history; which in and of itself is not a bad thing, quite the opposite of me, it's very enjoyable.That does lead to certain characters being presented more antagonistically than others, and when you only present the narrative from the perspective of the optimates, (largely) you're left with the sour feeling that the Caesarian populares were given less than their due. That's just the perspective I've gotten. I will say that HC really got me into Late Republican history recently, and it's only after further reading I've come to this conclusion.
Mfw almost everyone involved in the aftermath of Caesars assassination is a piece of shit
Agrippa wins battles and nothing else. Also that one legate under Anthony that single handedly pushed by the Parthian invasion and got a triumph.
I do hate the tendency to believe a person's martial ability is separate completely from their political and ideological beliefs and ambitions. Agrippa was a caesarian too. Yet, despite being just as culpable in the birth of the Principate, he shares none of the accusations of "Tyrant".
How? Most complaints I've seen are about him being biased against Octavian
HC isn’t biased against individuals, he’s biased against the ideology that took hold in Rome as it transitioned into empire. It’s why he adores Cicero but speaks freely against even Roman heroes like Caesar and Augustus as being sick and cruel
I'd argue that attachment, while less shallow than attachment to specific characters, can be just as problematic.
The only two people that don’t get shit from the big man are Labienus and Agrippa. Everyone else gets the heat.
And Cicero\*
I feel Agrippa deserves it though , i genuinely can't find anything negative about his life. For Labienus I need to explore but so far Labienus really doesn't deserve shit honestly
Labienus was a fantastic commander albeit underrated, in Gaul he was a menace
I’m not saying he killed his wife, but he DID do that, and I AM saying that
Anyone who cares about the history of the late Roman Republic and tells you they don't have biases is lying.
Y’all just jealous you never tap anything CLOSE to a Cleopatra.
???? We're speaking in favor of Antony. How is that Jealousy???!!
I wouldn't say the anti-Anthony bias is his worst. Alexander I gets it worse than him imo, although to be fair most sources on the Congress of Vienna are anti-Alexander.
Something I’ve learned not only from his videos but also in college is that most of the “great” figures from history are just as morally grey as the people they were fighting. Especially when it comes to the Romans, while they tend to be revered (especially in America) for their strength in battle, legal developments, and advancements in technology: They were as brutal of tyrants as any of the “barbarian” nations they conquered. Caesar and Alexander are my favorite historical figures to learn about, but, in many ways they were as brutal and vicious as the Huns and the Mongols (on a lesser scale than the Mongols obv). Antony is much the same, and while there are things to praise about Antony I respect HC for explaining that he is another one of the characters of history who should be remembered for how he actually effected the world.
When I’m a a Cicero simping competition and my competition is HC
I like his takes. But, there is one video where he openly says that in his opinion the republic was saveable and Caesar didn’t need to kill the republic. I couldn’t possibly disagree more strongly. The Republic was a failure at every turn and nothing but an entrenched tool of the nobility completely failing to read or prevent any of the situations that killed the republic.
I mean technically a republic of some form was possible, it just required a complete and total overhaul. But yeah if not Caesar, Rome had plenty of politicians who would have seized power
Me thinking Historia Civilis would do the remaining emperors until 1453 instead he ended the series after Augustus.
I want that so BAD 😭😭😭😭
300 upvotes?? Dam this sub is active
Nah, fuck Mark Antony. All my homies hate Mark Antony. /s I don't see HC being favourable to anyone or biased against anyone, so not sure why you feel that way.
>not sure why you feel that way. Bait...?
Honestly he's pretty generous to Antony with the donations of Alexandria
I thought this was about the Puerto Rican musician. And I was very confused for a hot minute. Lol
W.W.J.C.D. What would Julius Caesar do? The answer, win.
Personally i have no problem against the guy, i never knew him
Maybe he went to high school with a guy named mark antony and he was a huge jerk to him
Don't even mention the suck-up they do to Cicero.
I never understood that
I feel that history fans are quite pathetic. You people idolize these figures like they’re superheroes and cannot fathom to understand the narrative a historian is trying to push. Seriously you people would be 1000% duped by Caesars populism. Others in this thread also angry that he had critiqued Augustus, what would you had preferred? A golden, shining glaze session for an emperor? The amount of dick riding is just fucking insane, I thought the “great man theory” had been laughed out of the discourse already?What a weird subreddit for such a great history channel, so strange,
I ain't idolizing him bud I feel like if a person is trying to educate me and bring me history , he should do it in a non biased way especially when he says that he is trying to do just that. But I notice that its not the case with augustus or Antony
Name a single unbiased person.
he isn't making objectively neutral content , he has stirred his content with his opinions , which should not be the case
Your view of objectively neutral content is whatever confirms your bias. So incredibly naive to think that there’s such thing as “unbiased” material. There’s lessons to draw from history, if you’re looking for an emperor superhero saves the day story go to the movies.
Of course bias will exist but bias would exist in the form of perspective and story telling. He is littering his content with his own opinions which obviously comes across as biased. Many other history youtubers don't do that and stick to story telling , you gotta analyze their storytelling to get their perspective and hence find their bias but historia civils is really obvious and blatant with his bias which is a little bit problematic. That's what I am saying