Kraut | Imperial Legacies: From the Tomb of Alexander | History Teacher Reacts
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.พ. 2025
- Kraut uses the story of Alexander the Great to talk about Imperialism. Mr. Terry is a high school history teacher that respondes to Kraut's interpretation of imperialism and his analysis of Alexander the Great. Expect some disagreements!
Original Video: • Imperial Legacies | Fr...
Links:
Gaming channel: / mrterrygaming
Discord - / discord
Twitter: / mrterryhistory
Twitch: / mrterryhistory
Tik Tok: / mrterryhistory
Instagram: / mrterryhistory
Facebook - / mr-terry-history-10913...
TeeSpring - mr-terry-histo...
Patreon - / mrterry
Streamlabs - streamlabs.com...
PayPal - paypal.me/mrte...
For all business inquiries: contact@tablerockmanagement.com
What do you think of Kraut's take on imperialism and Alexander the Great?
Idk i haven't watched the video yet.
Haha i secured the first reich- i mean like!!!
I will rule the world!!
(btw im from the us so don't think this is a Hitler reference)
WWIII has begun
I personally agree more with your definition of empire, but that is because it is the educational definition. You are a educator and teacher, Kraut is not. In order to educate people you often need short and precise definitions, Kraut does not do this. He analyzes with as much detail as possible in very long analysis videos. It is 100 % fair to critecize his "word salads", but you also need to understand the target audience, mainly university students or those of other higher educations. Kraut is one of the few who have an extensive list of sources for those who want to know why he came to his conclusions. Everyone I've shown his videos to at the university i'm atending have praised his research process, but they have also critized some of his conclusions. That is just normal scholarly behavior.
I think that Mr Terry's definition of empire is problematic when it comes to scale. Using the definition of every major city, both historically and currently, would be an empire.
I would argue instead that empire is a system of political governance that forms a stratification of value of residents based on their membership of, or proximity to, an in group in opposition to an other group or groups. An empire is a national political entity that uses this form of political governance.
Rome was an empire both in the era of the republic and the emperors because it valued citizens of Rome more highly than citizens of the provinces. The British Empire was an empire because it valued citizens of Great Britain more than citizens of the colonies. Arguably, the US is an empire currently, given that the residents of the US territories have fewer rights than the citizens of states.
Derp is 100% correct
Kraut: *Presents common view of Imperialism*
Terry: "Nope, that's wrong"
Kraut: "This is wrong because _"
Terry: 😐
Lol ikr, it seems like they agree on most points or just nitpick minor historical details. Saying the video is garbage is one hell of on example of clickbait
Yeah, I found this extremely obnoxious. I understand that he has to make things transformative, but god damn was this reaction a bit annoying to sit through.
it seems to me that he pretty much agreed with everything Kraut said, even when he disagreed with the whole Alexander egyptian thing, that was kraut portraying Alexander's politics, not what Kraut thinks was actually happening
Krauts background is on sociology which is what makes his examination of historical trends interesting even if some times he glosses over some of the more minute details of history
So that's why he's wrong so much, he's operating on a troon of the sciences.
He seems to be more focused on the metaphysical aspects of Empire rather than the more functional ones. It's more political philosophy really.
Agreed.
Maybe it's because you're passionate and view it from a teaching perspective, but it did seem like a you were a bit quick to dismiss certain statements, even though they were mere introductory thoughts or hypotheses about what people could think an empire defines. I don't think his personal definition is perfect and is missing some kind of implementation of people, but there is some truth to it, which I imagine or hope he wants to expand upon it in future videos. At least I don't know of an empire that at a certain point stopped trying to expand its influence and limited itself to what it already conquered.
As for Alexander, he absolutely was more of a conqueror than an emperor, but his lasting impression on different cultures and future emperors was new to me and are pretty interesting to think about.
Dues enter country at a certain point stopped trying to expand its influence and limited itself to what it already conquered?
I remember I once had a discussion in the common section of a vlogging through history video about the Zulus. They would often change between the Zulu kingdom and the Zulu Empire, I begged the question of "what constitutes an empire." In the end, we came to the conclusion that the usage of the word is mostly semantics, but agreed with the textbook definition of an Empire.
Well, when you think about it, both terms fit.
Empire refers to the land outside of the homeland while the homeland is the kingdom from which the empire is ruled, but the kingdom is still part of the empire.
So, whether I say "the Zulu kingdom did" or the "Zulu empire did" doesn't really matter since the kingdom is leading the empire.
"Walmart updated their guidelines" or "Wal-Mart's CEOs update their guidelines" doesn't change anything in that context.
It's not always so. Not to say you're wrong, was just to share some thoughts 💭
@@TH-cam_is_Trash but the home land can always expand to include more people and land, a place can be front line in the past can become the home land in the the future if that happen then is it stop became an emprire
The Turkish century is also a very good series from Kraut where he explains the origins of the current people who live in Anatolia
His Mexico series is even more underrated.
@@memecliparchives2254 Agreed
From Alexander came Ptolemy, and from Ptolemy came history's most famous family tree. Oops. Did I say "family tree?" I meant, "Family Pretzel."
Well, more like a family straight line for ~300 years until Cleopatra had Caesarion
*Habs family pretzel bows*
In all fairness the Ptolemy's were just continuing the pharonic tradition of have a family stump.
Dude, I love your videos, Mr Terry, but please let the man explain his points before you interrupt him and miss them completely...
@@DeReAntiqua I'm not defending Kraut's actions in the past. -I'm not a fanboy of his.
I'm criticising Mr Terry's way of making these videos because I genuinely believe he could make better and more nuanced reaction videos if he just listened a bit more. There's plenty to criticise or just reflect on in Kraut's arguments, but if you don't actually understand them to begin with then that's a moot point.
@@bobvance8017 I guess we’ll never know
@@bobvance8017 when he was younger, he made anti-sjw videos in the commentary community but as they (the community) went down the right wing rabbit hole, he espoused himself from that community after some drama occurred. As far as I'm aware, there wasn't anything terrible but just cringe. Which we all do when we're younger.
@LosRjosh he was apparently super Islamophobic at the time as well.
@@losrjosh3176 anti-sjw? Sounds great to me
If an empire is ruling over a diversity of subject peoples, then literally every country ever is an empire.
"Yesterdays Tactics on Modern Media" is a good video of his about Italian fascism
Alexander also went around renaming every city he conquered Alexandria, which I think is hilarious.
The Siege of the Sogdian Rock is badass beyond words. While his main army held the attention of the soldiers occupying the mountain top fortress, a small group of volunteers climbed the cliffs behind it. When those that made it to the top, dropped into the fortress, it shocked the defenders into surrendering.
Bessus was the guy who killed Darius. Bessus proclaimed himself Artaxerxes IV, but he was captured quickly and turned over to Alexander who cut his ears and nose cut off., From there Bessus' fate gets hazy. One source says Alexander handed him over to Darius's brother to crucify in the same spot Darius was murdered; another source says he was tortured and decapitated, and yet another says he was tied between two trees held down by ropes. When the ropes were released, the trees snapped back upright, tearing Bessus in half. That last one is my favorite. I can just imagine the mess raining down on everyone watching the execution. Whatever his fate, it wasn't pleasant.
He literally doesn't hear that the practice started with Cyrus the greats tomb, because he acted so dismissive and didn't pause much, or in time to hear.
Most countries rule over a diversity of subjects. You don't become an empire when you get large influxes of immigration from diverse peoples. And conversely, some empires in history did NOT have diverse subjects unless you REALLY stretch the word "diverse" to its limits. It may be the scholarly definition, but I would say that definition has little reach outside of scholarly use.
It wasn't in the opening monologue, but the definition the world seems to use most consistently, frustrating as it may be, is a government ruled by an emperor. It's frustrating because this inverts our expectation that the emperor is defined as one who rules an empire, but in practice it's the emperor who decides it's an empire. We see in legal documents with Napoleon, he retained his title as "Emperor" even in exile, despite not being allowed to rule the empire he created, meaning people were willing to treat the title as separate from an empire (he was separately sovereign of the principality of Elba, it was not a mini-empire). We also saw the Holy Roman Empire created out of Pope Leo III decreeing that Charlemagne was an emperor. It's often joked it was "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire" but it was decreed by the Pope, declared an authority on behalf of Rome as a successor state to it, and was ruled by one who was given the title of emperor. In many other cases, the title of "emperor" was simply asserted by a monarch and their territory declared an empire even though the exact same sort of conquest resulted in "kingdoms" elsewhere. This "because I say I'm emperor" definition is the closest to a consistent definition we can apply retroactively to the way it's been used historically.
When I was being taught history, "empire" was defined as a political entity composed of other political entities held by means of conquest. And that honestly "feels empirey" for lack of better phrasing. When people accuse a country of being an "empire" for the sake of political commentary like many do the US, it's not because those people think it's horrible that diverse peoples live in that country or because they think the President secretly calls himself an "emperor", it's because the country exerts control over another political entity through force without integrating that entity into it. This is more what the modern definition by common usage is.
Wouldn't medieval Hungary,France,England,Kievan Rus' and Castil(ia) be considered empires by that definition?
@@alexandrub8786 I mentioned multiple definitions. Which one is "that definition"?
@@Merennulli the last one. The one with "a political entity composed with other political entities held by means of conquest".
@@alexandrub8786 Ah. Yes, very much so in that case. If we saw a country doing today what those were doing then, we'd call them "imperialist". Of course, with those, they incorporated the conquered parts they managed to keep into their country in one form or another. With the partial exception of England, of course.
England notoriously was a de facto Empire by the viewpoint of even its contemporaries, but for political reasons didn't declare itself one until much later when it was decided Victoria needed to be an Empress to not be seen as lesser than certain European royals. So she was made Empress of India...but merely Queen of the rest of her pretty blatant empire because politics.
That gets back to the second definition I mentioned - something ruled by an emperor. Historically it's been more of a "because I say so" title that had little relation to the nature of the "empire".
Of course, the flip side of that is being officially recognized by others after "the emperor says so". That's why "Emperor Norton I of the United States" didn't make the US into an empire (if you don't know that one, by the way, look it up, he's a very interesting historical figure).
An Emperor is a King whose people lord over other peoples, who are often fewer in number, but not always.
If Saddam was a king, Iraq would've been an Empire.
You need to rewind the video when you talk over it. You're missing several parts of what's being said, because you're busy saying that you disagree. It happens multiple times that you think Kraut is saying something, while he's actually presenting an argument being made by someone else (e.g. Alexander).
You might want to stop pausing every few seconds and let him finish what he's saying. An affirmative statement like "Alexander isn't a Greek conqueror, he's here as a liberator of Egypt" is clearly in this context meant to present what the political message was, not Kraut's actual viewpoint. Pausing to say "yeah he was" doesn't contribute anything, it just muddles the message.
PORTRAYED HIMSELF TO BE. HE SAID THAT. HE DIDNT CLAIM THAT ALEXANDER WAS OR WASNT ANYTHING. HE STATED THAT HE PORTRAYED HIMSELF AS BEING. HOOOOLLY
@@DeReAntiqua taken and I do admit that this was a bit of a Karen response. Im chill now and I actually really do enjoy Mr Terrys content
Couldn't you say that by leaving conquered terittories' existing institutions under your state, you build the framework for those territories to become protectorates, which would make the process of annexing them into your own empire easier? If so, then what Alexander did was Imperialistic regardless of whether he died too soon or not.
Also: let Kraut finish his point before commenting on them. He might just answer your points in the next line or two.
Crusader Kings 2 seems to implicitly use your definition, and it's where I picked up that one too, seems consistent with everything that is traditionally called an empire
Or at least the similar, "a ruler over kings"
I realize it is most likely not a purposeful misrepresentation. However, please let Kraut finish his sentence before you cut him off. I recommend watching the entire video once before reacting to it as that way, you know what the he’s going to say and there stops being so many confusions resulting from krauts more philosophical ramblings.
Your diversity hangup is worth challenging. Cyrus famously avoided cultural assimilation. Additionally, ataturk invoked a totally new type of cultural assimilation, with mixed results, in rejection of empire.
And you mentioned the thing about religious conversion, there are examples of voluntary conversions, but that opens up room for further nuance (e.g. maybe the ruler(s)/elite convert and then impose their new religion on the subjecs... Rome might be an example of every position in this discussion, as Christians practiced their imported faith at risk of persecution by the state, but then pretty soon you've got Constantine)
The kings and generals channel always have realy good video's, especially on roman history. Would be great to see your take :)
the cover of this video is a little bit misleading
Definitely, clickbait worthy as they agree on most points and just some minor historical details
Don't think Mr Terry really cares much for Alexander the Great lol.
I figure that the most broadly defined and basic definition of an empire is an impressive organization. A child may call their sandbox their empire, and by the inclusive definition this would count the sandbox as an empire in the kid's eyes but not in an adult's view. Someone may call Canada an empire because they find their landmass or healthcare system impressive, but a Canadian wouldn't because this seems unimpressive to them. By this logic, a true empire would have to be seen universally as impressive.
PS this applies to business empires too, hence the broadness of the term organization.
I would argue that the definition of "empire" as "ruling over diverse peoples/several ethnic groups" is insufficient, as states that are composed of diverse people and ethnic groups such as the US, Canada, modern Russia, etc are not what we would typically call 'empires'. 'Empire' and 'imperialism' are inherently tied together, I think, and Kraut's preferred definition I think is apt for imperialism. It is possible for multiple ethnic groups to cooperate together in a single state without imperialistic acts and, thus, the formation of an empire.
Also, gotta be honest, I think you missed the point of much of what Kraut said. You disagree with him several times and go on to say more-or-less the same thing Kraut is saying that you just said was wrong. You seem a bit too eager to dispute what he says and then miss what he actually says.
Idk dude the cossack settlement of Siberia,the "Manifest Destiny" of US over Indian and Mexican lands and the "Canadian"/british counterpart to that was up north look imperialistic to me.
Kraut fans constantly arguing people that point out his BS are 'missing his point' lol
Persians didn't overthrow the Greeks. They were conquered by the Parthians.
An empire is that guy at baseball games that decides if that was a faul or a strike
you should react to A Critique of Realism by Kraut as well
I am generally using the definition of empire as: "A state/polity that is exerting more influence than what is consider regular for the most of states/polities of the specific region" or just "exceptionally influential state for the region" and is always relative.
Athenian empire was an empire in the context of the Aegean Sea... but for the Medditerrean, not so much.
Roman Empire was an empire all the way through - globally only rather small number of states reached that degree of influence.
Of course if the empire is the only country that exists, it is still an empire, but that's well... not that useful distinction.
If you go into the cultural diversity argument, many south american countries and the US could fall into the definition of being an Empire.
The US has been a empire for a long time. Brazil was also called a empire back when they had a emperor.
@@kinggundragon3728 yet these aren't the only multicultural ones, countries like Paraguay, Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, they all could be considered empires because of the other native ethinicities that they rule over.
@@titanschannel585 True though i think in truth the reason all of the south American nation are the way they are is because most of them used to be part of the Spanish empire. Each could be consider a successor state.
Don't forget Switzerland. It has three major ethnic groups: germans, french and italians.
Also cointries with lax immigration laws or ex-colonies that were made to be diverse for a strategy of "divide and conquer".
I actually would like if you reacted to controversial history videos, or even videos that are flat out wrong, so you could explain where the error is.
Kraut- India Pakistan a continuing story
5:55 Those were british troops who burned the summer palace actually.
I know he'll want represented Alexander as is a liberator and won't mix culture between Greek and another subject but the general they never did that like Ptolemy a forest the Greek culture and language into the Egyptian subject and look down about Egyptian and the sale of seleucid
3:40 and Mr Terry is applying americanisms. I love you man, but you’re way off.
You should react to some mandala effect videos. Some of them are even history mandala effects. It is a little different but the premise of your channel see to be your reactions as a history teacher so it could be fun to do occasionally add some of those in.
Interesting stuff!
Sir. You need to work on thumb nails. They do not indicate you videos as reaction and catch attention. 😊
Also please increase the volume of the video you are watching and please please please don’t talk over the video. Please pause and talk. 😊
Kraut has some good videos on social dynamics, but beyond those he's nowhere near as smart as he thinks. I stopped taking his history comprehension seriously when he argued the crusades couldn't have been profitable because they took place in a desert. This was somehow a checkmate against Karl Marx.
He's very silly.
tbf the crusades were not done for profit, he is correct about that
Crusades were done for religious reasons
@@bighillraft Wrong. The Popes didn't call the Crusades for profit, that much is true, but the Popes weren't the ones fighting them. That was done by people like:
-The second sons of noble families looking for land, which they got
-Debtors promised debt forgiveness by the Papacy if they joined
-Mercenaries paid for by the Papacy or Italian merchant republics
-"Professional" crusaders who knew this was an opportunity to make money
-Political rivals of the existing status quo
etc.
That's not to say there wasn't religious motivation involved, but to take the opposite position that there couldn't possibly be material motive is such bad historical comprehension it's laughable. The Crusades were hugely profitable and took place in one of the richest trade routes in the world at the time. It's naive to think it was all done for the sake of religion.
If you don't believe me, why did the "Crusaders" sack Christian cities? Why did the Templars have a massive banking system set up? Why did the Venetians and Genoese establish so many trading posts? Why were castles vital for strategic defense, like Krak des Chevaliers, bought and sold? Why were the "holy lands" carved up into separate states and began harvesting taxes and resources? Life isn't a Kingdom of Heaven movie scene.
@@bb9a See my reply to bighillcraft above.
Mauryan empire is established after Alexander dies.
Wonder seleucid the place by the parthian Empire and they replaced by sasanian Empire the Sasanians they see themself restorer of the Achaemenid Empire that remove anything about the Greek culture in Persia
I love Mr Terry… but he’s wrong on more things than Kraut.
Like what?
Canadian Empire? Ummm we're a decomcary and it's not about land size at all.
did you watch the video
If democracies couldn't be empires, then the british empire wasn't an empire.
Kraut has a low opinion of streamer and reaction content.... at least he did in a drunk convo with a creator that goes by Vaush... and also, if your content inpiers country ball version of Sid Myers Civilization.... what ever, my dude.
Kraut has a history of having extreme opinions about islam. Writing "I hope they k!ll as many muslims as possible" or insulting them to the worst. While his public figure got more moderate and changed the topics to a more history based side, he never apologized for his extreme views.
Oh he has alot of history of extremism, not only that :P
Years ago he also said: URSS should have literally killed all German kids and children soldiers are totally okay.
The list is long, Kraut is a lolcow.
Oh my god! Thats horrible
I wrote a comment about that too!
(Dont worry, I gave credit to you)
@@Dimrim1 i only learned about kraut from his turkey videos. After i found out what type of person he is, I avoid him the best i can.
He's the guy who thought that trout could get pregnant.
@@DeReAntiqua Evidence??
@@KyleLeeFox Source: he made it the fuck up 💀💀💀
Kraut is one of the best leftists on TH-cam though.