Rulers and Power | Mary Beard and David Mitchell
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 มี.ค. 2024
- Madness. Murder. Insurrection. Taking us on a wild ride from Julius Caesar to Elizabeth I, Mary Beard and David Mitchell share the histories of Rome and England like you’ve never heard them before.
Cambridge Professor Mary Beard has done more than anyone to bring the world of ancient Rome to life again. Comedian David Mitchell once studied history and won’t let it off the hook for the mess it’s made of everything.
Now they come together to tell the story of our rulers - from the emperors who ruled Britannia under the Roman occupation to the English kings and queens who succeeded them.
With an all-star cast of mad-men, philosophers, narcissists, and thugs, beheadings, assassinations, insurrections, uncivil wars, and at least one total Cnut, this one-of-a-kind video will tell you an awful lot about our past and explain an unfortunate amount about our present.
Turn this into a podcast please Mary, David
I was there!! These are 2 of my favourite living people, & being completely obsessed with comedy and ancient & medieval history, this was the highlight of my life tbh. Love them both so much but I do wish Mary could’ve let David speak a bit more, she’s a giant in the world of Roman history but she was a little patronising to him at times
And David had to just politely keep smiling and laughing politely as he wished the sofa was two or three feet wider
@@markjoscelyne7513 Prove it.
I was just about to tune out for this very reason and yours is the first comment i saw. I'm now sick of her voice because of it.
Exactly. Time them. He claims plenty of time.
I agree, not only do I wish she had let David speak more, but I also wish she had been a little less self-satisfied. I agree with David's opinion 100%. The Roman sculptors DID make differences in features that correspond to the real face of whoever they were sculpting. I think Mary is probably the only person who, on closely looking at them, cannot see any differences. I'm going to buy 'Unruly' now!
British people who love talking about history are super entertaining. It’s funny. It IS! It is also so important and valuable to learn, but it is really funny too. Great stuff.
Is that because of all the self denial and hypocrisy?
@@mamba101 Troll.
David is brilliant. The comedian/historian takes the cake. The longer I listened, the more I wish it was just David talking.
If that's what you want you can get his audiobook, which he narrates.
I agree many times over. This woman bores me so thoroughly that I cannot even enjoy David’s talk, I just want it to be over.
It's weird how many people seem to dislike Beard. She's a brilliant historian and author with fascinating insight. David is a hobbyist; a hilarious, entertaining hobbyist, but this wasn't just a chat about comedy. It was about history, and Mary is one of the most knowledgeable modern-day greco-roman historians. A difference of opinion, I guess.
Incredibly interesting and amusing. I love both Mary and David individually but wouldn't it be good to have them collaborating on a tv or radio show about 'light hearted' history, a sort of more adult horrible histories.
Yeah man, David could write some comedy sketches to pepper it with. I’d watch that!
Wow, what a treat!!! I have missed Mary Beard and wondering what she has been up to. What a brill duo, Mary and David.
David Mitchell has deservedly earned a great reputation as a talented entertainer, comedian and wit, with great historical and political knowledge; an undoubted accomplished person. Mary Beard is even more impressive, imo Both are great. Bluddi loved the anecdote about Paddington author, queen and acting, and I've never heard of Tibeius' antics in a swimming pool, until now
Hannah McGuiness intrigues me - daughter of a famous mother??
this was a wondaful treat. It's been hard to think of the Romen Empire without thinking of Mary Beard and her amazing documentaries. David Mitchell has been a very big part of my TH-cam life these past few years. I'm on page 53 of Unruly and it is everything I'd hope for. Thank you How to Academy Mindset for posting this, 😻
I just rounded off my fourth re-read of it today! It's one of my favorite books ever, absolutely worth reading and re-reading. As an American, it's also great to learn about the history of a country that I was only taught about from the early 1600's to the mid 1940's in school.
+
So how many times a day do you think about Mary Beard? 🤔
We need David Mitchell and Professor Ronald Hutton discussion
I loved Claudius as play by Derek Jacobi. Loved that series.
I wish they would repeat it.
I adore David Mitchell in WILTY and didn't even know he wrote things! I'm so happy I stumbled onto this! My copy of Unruly will be here tomorrow! Can't wait!
Try The Cloud Atlas. It's brilliant.
He also wrote the Business Secrets of The Pharoahs (though under a pseudonym). Published by British London.
@@andrewgrant6516 isn't that by a different David Mitchell?
@@pegm5937sure is
Thank you for bringing us 2 of my favorite, brilliant people!
As soon as they pulled back to that wide shot at 13:05, I learned that Alex Horne ruled the Roman Empire from 117-161 CE.
Bottom left? Ha ha. Totally agree. It is exactly the way he tends to look off to the side.
All hail Little Alex Horne!!
@@JuliaHopewell Vitellius (Top centre) could, at a stretch (pun intended) be Greg Davies??
King Alex the Little
Delightfull , a sheer enjoy..no matter history, this are two of the most articulate historians, besides their bast knowledge, they keep it down to earth are humble and give all of us a wonderful time. Kids would love history with them .
Business Secrets of the Pharaohs is still a possibility in a real life non Peep Show form
What an amazing duo!!!!
these two are having such fun
So enjoyable. Thankyou😊
I enjoyed the moderators giggles as much as the conversation!
47:30 Fascinating observation by David Mitchell, what does "English" mean? Well, the heritage of the Kings and Queens of England is what seems to bind people together as "English." Very interesting!
Two thinkers that are very much up there on my favorites list. Only wish the program director hadn't employed disposable microphones they bought at a drugstore in the check out aisle.
Excellent!
Both of these books are terrific.
This was simply brilliant.
I've read David's book "Unruly" and it's well fun and informational.
I understood what informational meant
Saw David and the title "Rulers". I thought "Mmm, yummy, an anorak talk about millimeters, inches, rulers, and other measurement tools" 😁
It's interesting that ruler and rule has the same root as ruler for cm. It is the same in German and French. The ruler is the one who has a vested interest in reductionism.
@@Ludifant - It comes from "regula" as in "a norm" or "a law". The ruler is the person dictating the norms, and a measuring ruler has divisions with a normalized length. It's not really about "reductionism", it's about _regulation._
Why are they sitting so uncomfortably close?
lol
They've had a drink
Good question. It’s pretty strange. Someone messed up.
But the editing is also super weird so I’m not surprised that they didn’t know what they’re doing. 🤷♂️
@@78625amginE The editing is like that because this a recorded live talk in a large room that had other screens in it, sort of like a modern church. They were doing the "edits" live which were just cuts to other cameras with close or wide shots.
@@bleysmcnutt5500 many live shows are produced this way. For some reason they chose to “fade through black” instead of a more standard “cut” or “quick dissolve”. Since fading to black generally denotes passing time, the result is a bit strange.
Fantastic👏👏👏👏👏
Aww. It's as if David Mitchell is leading the life that Mark Corrigan dreamt of living in an alternate universe.
Thanks. Great.
the elagabalus mention has immediately gotten horrible histories stuck in my head lol
The original “I’m a lady” reference!
Please could you use a 'jump cut' transition between shots rather than fade to black? The fade to black transition tends to signal an ending or to introduce a new subject etc, and it's a little confusing when used during a continuing conversation. Just a suggestion, from a viewer perspective. Hope that's constructive. Very enjoyable discussion.👍
A people must have the leisure to study history in order for political history to matter.
Love the point about the Claudius story because we also have the fact that he was allegedly assainated himself and then painted as incredibly inept and timid (look how he started) so thank the gods he's gone now as well.
This is comedy with substance! Unruly but to the point.
Well, I adore Mary 😊
I admire David's fortitude in withstanding such close proximity to overbearance and patronization.
Perhaps they will ask you to sit next to David next time and you can discuss your best selling book.
If he sat like that next to her, nobody would notice
@@magster6022 I would - although it wouldn't be as noteworthy. I would think, "Here we go again - another insecure, privileged male broadcasting his dominance." It wouldn't reflect well on him, and it doesn't on her, either, even if it is turn-around.
That said, I understand her impulse to push back on the status quo.
Matronisation
Poor old David
Imelda Marcos is still alive, for one thing, and she never denied it. She said she was given them because the Philippines has a lot of light industry, so the midsize shoe manufacturers gave her shoes.
That's not untrue. But she also had a huge number of designer brands that were made in Europe.
Well done well done old boy well played
Great conversation. Mary Beard is very entertaining. They obviously enjoy each others company.
Are you sane? David was uncomfortable and irritated by her constant condescension and pontificating.
I hope you have Asperger's or something other wise you are way off on social relations.
This. All of this, all day, every day. Lock them in a room and refuse them food unless they have interesting conversations.
Like Fritzl
Those Roman heads are extraordinarily human with very distinct personalities.
I would guarantee that if you put them into a computer you could get very modern faces, not dissimilar to today's men of power.
Now I want to hear Mary Beard & a Chinese Dynasty expert !
I am sure the camera man is happy….but both Mary and David look very uncomfortable. Both are lovely and very very bright.
I think separate chairs would have made a difference
Empathy is a superpower!
Without having watched the video (yet), and thus only having seen the thumbnail image, my first thought was, "Jaysus, Victoria sure has aged!"
Unfortunately the sound system was inadequate and I could not make out the bulk of the conversation.
stop whining..
Strange. I'm not even a native speaker and I understood everything.
Maybe try listening with headphones?
Love you Mary I think both are great 😊
I'm watching everything that these two do. Even before any new Warhammer news. Yeah, even that.
I’m surprised that Mary said that Imelda Marcos was dead and her shoes were found after her death and never counted when not only were they were counted and still exist in the Philippines but Imelda is as I’m writing still alive and living as the mother of the current president of the Philippines in Manila
I think I think about Rome so much because they built my city so walking down the street is to be reminded
that sofa was a bit too small
A straight road of conquest 😂 starting off very strong
Mary Beard used to be just a pain. Now she's insufferable.
My apologies to David Mitchell, who deploys de-escalation over and over.
It doesn't work with an egotistical monster like Beard
😱
Mary Beard is like many authors, half a nut job. Weird to find it in a woman,, usually it's an eccentric man. Never discuss stuff with an author.
I thought Mr. Mitchell did well in the face of Olympic standard patronisation. He was treated by Professor Beard as if he was in the sixth form learning for the first time about the emperors of Rome. I am so disappointed that Professor Beard apparently has such a self satisfied and all knowing view of the world and her own importance in defining what is important In the story of mankind. I really don't want to be rude, but I doubt very much that anyone would even have heard of her, or most of us, two millennia hence. Therefore whilst she is entitled and eminently qualified to talk about individuals who determined world affairs so long ago, I hardly think she is realistic in her assertions that her own views on such matters are now the definitive ones.
He's an idiot.
Oh, well! That’s all Ancient History now…
Whilst Mary Beard is undoubtedly incredibly learned, she is definitely not a team player. Or else she is unable to contain her professorial superiority over someone who she knows is not recognised as a bona fide historian. She just didn’t seem to want to let David have his say.
Interesting body language - crossed legs with toe pointing to person sitting somewhat uncomfortably within each other’s personal space
It was only a small settee. Unless they sat on the arms they couldn’t avoid crossing personal space. Davids foot is facing away from Mary not towards her. They would have been better sat on separate chairs facing each other to help in proper communication. They were talking to each other so well.
have you guys heard of 1080p though
I’m here for Mary. DM is a delightful comedian but Mary is the expert.
Except when it comes to art.
@@billythedog-309 - 😉 but which art? I think I remember a program on busts of the Caesars.
Not on medieval Britain.
@@TheSuzberry And? She is arguing that people can only recognise realistic depictions of human beings because we are taught to do so. David Mitchell doesn't believe that and neither do l.
"The expert" on what? She literally admitted that she had no idea which medieval British king had ruled when. This isn't a lecture just on Roman emperors.
I liked this a lot, but it is true what they say: historians repeat themselves.
Well, Upstart Crow certainly has a lot to contribute to Elizabethan history. 😅
Mary talks about the kingship being a sort of spine for England to rally around at ~49:00. There's a deep wisdom to this, from a sociological perspective. After all, that's what we're really talking about: managing loads of people and tons of resources.
First God died (still feeling the ramifications of that), and then the USSR died. We've truly gone "wobbly." Better to have focus. But finding that new focus is like defusing a bomb on an 80s TV show, or playing Operation.
I hope we all get through the coming battle between this axis of as---. At any rate, mercy buckets. :-)
Dear David your won the lottery.
its best when paired with one of the funniest people on the planet to stick to your strengths
Real. Not to be rude, but she seems to be treating him like that because of general arrogance and dismissal of David because he's a comedian and not a 'real' historian. As a deep fan of history, politics, and David's literary work, he is definitely competent as both a historian and a comedian.
@@bleysmcnutt5500 She's pointing out factual errors where she sees them. If it were in a classroom you'd say she was doing her job properly. Because she's doing it to a comedian you like you think it's somehow unfair.
If David is a real historian then he should be prepared for other historians to critique his work, as I'm sure Mary and her peers have had their work critiqued.
Edit: Stupid old cow needs to stop interrupting though 😄
Imelda Marcos is still alive. The shoes were discovered when her husband was overthrown in a popular uprising.
Maybe the iron age ended with the Education Act of 1870 when they had to learn the Kings of England?
I could listen to Stephen Fry speak for hours without realising hours had passed.
I wish Stephen Fry were living next door and were in constant need of a cup of flour for which I would trade a one hour lesson.
Mary Beard there, completely ignoring Queen Elizabeth I, bloody mary, and Queen Victoria and trying to make all powerful women of history sound like saints, while shitting on the men.
Caracalla ~ 'I'm dying for a piss'
27:18 Such subtility as David Mitchel gently applies his superpower: eloquently using somebody's logic against themselves in a kind of mental aikido. He brings up the red hot poker, she takes the bait. I don't think even he realised where he was headed at that point. Just brought up something irksome out of slight irritation. Then see how it plays out as he sees the pattern and starts with: "what I love about your book..." and then proceeds to point out how she didn't follow through on her own point, that he loved so much he couldn't help but notice it.. And she apparantly buys it.. even admitting that's what she should have done.. which is another masterful move. If you admit flaws when attacked, it is rather hard for the other to gain purchase. Their most potent ammunition is pointing out something you are apparently not aware of. But I feel... if David was more of a pitbull, this was the time the underbelly was exposed. I feel he just chose differently. And after that, the interaction is way more civil, collaborative. David bared his teeth in this most covert warning shot in the history of conflict and allowed her to save face and just apply herself to being civil. Finding and forcing the win-win after being pummeled for twenty minutes. Quite remarkable and beautiful battle of two mental kung fu masters.. point to Mitchel here.
Indeed!!!❤
okay
Here to learn about the Business Secrects of the Pharoahs. Very disappointing.
3:28
4:22
I am surprised how much I disagree with Mary Beard on some things. The idea that it's all just subjective about middle ages art being not as good as ancient art is nonsense. David is absolutely correct the depictions of humans in Roman times is far more anatomically accurate than what came later.
Agreed. That's the point I'm at in watching, and it irritated me so much I paused to look at the comments. I thought her glib and not very thoughtful. Also, I listen nearly nightly (for sleep purposes!) to various history audiobooks, and those which cover the reaction of the locals to the departure of the Romans seem to align with David's points about that period.
@39:58 - A lot of america's licence plates are produced by prison labor (the major exception to prohibition on slavery). That could be a feature of an exhibit exploring contemporary views of slave-produced goods.
But, is the british museum really presenting socially conscious questions these days, given that the first one from anyone on the internet is "how much of this stuff is stolen, and displayed against the wishes of the original culture"?
Talking about such distant past, history, is something everyone can do and a few of them will be just less correct than the majority :D
Talking about so unprovable things... we shall take all these as pure speculation for fun.
Nationalism started with Napoleon. It’s a very modern notion.
I'm not sure Beard is as funny as she thinks she is. Also I'm glad Mitchell was having none of her insistence that Western art didn't decline in the dark ages. "You think it did, but really, your perception is wrong" - oh bugger off.
Elegabulus was amazing. He was in charge of the entire known world and all he wanted to do was sell his arse.
Here is a kick in the head ….Today’s living standards surpass many of the Kings and Queens of yore.
But Britains LOST previous knowledge & technology during the time with advanced roman culture and when Rome went Brits had forgotten even how to build & use the pottery wheel - there was a serious dark age happening! Rome had influenced british everyday life, trade & means of production, but not advanced the actual populace to be able to continue the administration, culture & industry - at least that's what I learnt!?
He’s right about art, and it’s easy to see why.
To dedicate one’s life to creating art, there needs to be a lot of societal excess production.
You need the free resources to sponsor an artist. The Roman republic, then empire had that.
Dark ages Britain did not. They had some monks scrawling naïve images of their rulers.
It wasn't really a matter of _ability._ Middle ages art and iconography wasn't _attempting_ to be realistic.
For several reasons, the first of which being the fact that the people making those drawings had never _seen_ the real person. So, rather than try to draw a very realistic face that wouldn't match the real king (or saint, etc.), they owned up to the fact that it was just a drawing, and followed certain visual rules to explain the _role_ of each character in the depiction, at the cost of realism.
Think of it as a medieval Funko Pops fad. They're not trying to look like real humans, they're just trying to be _identifiable characters_ while following some peculiar (but broadly consistent) stylistic rules.
Of course, the fact that that was the prevailing style for a long time meant that artists didn't have much experience with realistic paintings (just like renaissance artists wouldn't have been able to do a cubist or impressionist painting), but even a child would have been able to draw something a _bit_ more realistic than 99% of medieval paintings. But they weren't going for visual realism, they were going for narrative.
Thinking you might want to explore the art of Alta Mira and the Lascaux Caves among others. Pre-agriculturist hominins had culture and an appreciation for each others' minds.
I am always amused by academics who think they know how the people of the past thought, we don’t know that much about what many people think today, and we we do it usually has changed. If you want a good degree don’t write about what your research indicates, regurgitate what your academics think.
Just to say...I barely think about the Roman empire. I really don't think most men do, it's just projection by women (again).
Could two people look any more awkward, sat so closely on a small sofa? Any why not just call it ‘The Mary Beard Show’? Had I been there I’d have queued for David’s book!!!!
Quite. As much as I respect her as an academic, there is a scent of "agenda" which hangs over all of her observations.
We get it: men ran the show for much of history. That doesn't mean that every great achievements they made should be denigrated with such slurs as "macho". She believes that everything would be much nicer and fairer if women were in charge. I can only assume she was out of the country when Thatcher was in Number 10.
@@emdiar6588 - Cleopatra famously resolved everything amicably.
I lost a lot of respect for Beard after watching this. The first part of this was an extended passive-aggressive tantrum by her for being used by a non-historian to lend respectability to his history book. She kept on trying to belittle or embarrass him. His body language was respectful whilst she waved her hands in his face.
completely agree with you. The woman was irritating and patronising.
Poor David Mitchell, he knew he couldn't be antagonistic back to this old woman Mary Beard. If it were a man he'd be more free. Weird situation. Mary was saying interesting stuff sorta.
Yeah, but Scottish history is way more brutal before the Union Of Crowns under James 1st. Before then you had a bunch of headbangers slitting each others necks and killing bairns in the crib. They don't talk too much about the slaughter in Scottish history very much.
Mary Beard is absolutely wonderful ❤
Such bizarre "editing", with the mini fade-ins and fade-outs and the constant change of scale without changing the angle.
It's because it was done live.
we are still in the iron age.
M'kay
Mary Beard seems, if you'll pardon me, unbearable. and only 15 minutes in. I'm only going to continue watching because of Mitchell
It does not get better. She can't shut up.
I never think of rome at all
Mary Beard speaks truth to Power, by her own words. No comment on Israel. No lessons to be learned there
To hear Brits talk of others as ....well damn😂😂😂
Mary seems unable to see that David was making a comment that medieval English artists were incapable of the realism that Greek and Roman sculptors before them were very capable of.
They weren't _incapable._ They weren't even trying (in fact, in some cases they were deliberately trying _not_ to be realistic), just as the people designing Funko Pops aren't trying (and failing) to sculpt realistic humans, they're simply trying to create recognisable _characters_ while following some specific stylistic rules.
@@RFC3514 So basically you are claiming that medieval artists in Europe could paint realistic portraits of actual human beings, but instead chose the medium of caricature, for artistic reasons, for centuries, without leaving a single study behind that can be described as realistic?
Should we throw out all academic writing on the history of European art then? Or perhaps you are claiming that medieval nobility, kings and queens looked like cartoons in real life and they WERE being realistic?
@@emdiar6588 In his book, David talks a lot about how, because most of the drawings come from monks who never laid eyes on the ruler, or had very base descriptions to draw on (as well as being constrained by the fact that they could write well, not draw) the drawings are hilariously poor. I have a theory that this is because it didn't matter, as the minority of literate Britain would only read of their reigns, and the majority of illiterate subsistence farmers would only be effected by their governmental interaction. One can see that when imagery started to matter as more rulers lived their lives in the public eye (The late-Plantagenet and all of the Tudors, particularly Henry VIII) actual portrait artists and those who provided Heraldry work become more and more relevant to build the image of the royals.
@@emdiar6588 - You don't need to "throw out" anything, this is a well known fact for anyone who's studied art history, and it didn't apply just to Europe (ex., nishiki-e art in Japan). In fact, in some societies that is _still_ the case with religious and historical paintings. Trying to imitate nature realistically was / is seen as arrogant and blasphemous.
Do you also think cubists adopted that style because they were _unable_ to make more realistic depictions (or because they had some problem with their eyesight and thought cubist depictions did look realistic)?
Medieval European artists knew perfectly well that their depictions didn't look realistic. And they had plenty of time to make them more realistic, if they wanted to. It doesn't take that much training or effort to make something that looks a bit _more_ realistic than medieval icons and illuminations.
But the fact is they _didn't_ want to, just like nishiki-e artists in Japan weren't (and aren't) trying to depict realistic humans in physically accurate environments.
The fact that so many examples of (non-realistic) medieval art follow the _same_ style should make it clear that these aren't just random people who picked up a pen or a brush for the first time. They're _deliberately_ following a similar style.
The return to a more realistic art style actually coincided with a more humanist / naturalist period, where the church started to lose power over people's lives and their view of the world, and where observing, depicting and understanding nature _as it actually is_ became more acceptable.
And _that_ kind of ended up shackling art in other ways, for a couple of centuries, but that's a whole different issue.
TL;DR: Again, think of Funko Pops. Maybe some (or most) of the people creating them are great at realistic sculpting, maybe some (or most) are not. That doesn't really determine the "realism" of the figures they're creating, because *they're not even **_trying_** to make them realistic.* Even a child could make them look (a bit or a lot) _more_ realistic than that. But that is / was simply _not_ the goal.
@@RFC3514 The cubist also left behind lots of work done before they became cubists, and guess what - they DID know about perspective and scale after all. Where are your pre renaissance examples of perspective?
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. You and Mary vs me and David. You are wrong though.
The presenter delays introducing them formally and then only by first names!
Mary Beard is a national treasure. She must be ninety if she is a day but she certainly is a national treasure.