Epimetheus, ramble away man. Somehow I can listen to your videos without paying attention and still know what you say. You have a unique voice that is excellent for telling stories.
Very much enjoyed this more relaxed style of narration. I just came across your second channel recently so now I’ve got two of your channels to look forward to. Thank you for all the work you put in to create this content. So enjoyable.
Also another question. Why do we call the Roman empire , the Egyptian empire , the Assyrian empire,.. etc such ethnic names, while we call other empires like the Chinese empire, the Caliphate and the Persian ones by their dynasties names, and why do we consider that each of the dynasties of these empires was a completely different state from the other dynasties?
I think dynasties are more often used to differentiate between several different empires in relatively the same geographic location and ethnic group. There were a lot of Iranian empires so they are typically called by their dynasty. The Assyrians, Romans and Egyptians just had the one empire each....although long-lived ones.
This was something I always wanted to learn about, but was just uncertain how to go about requesting information about how borders and maps are made in ancient history.
I think a further aspect to throw in would be whether the region in question has its local military forces or would depend on imperial troops to defend it from invaders...
Arash a prob because it’s for history buffs who wanna really get into all the stuff that are known to be difficult to learn because of the difficult to find good sources
I have a very broad range of interests :) I am not interested in everything...but I am interested in most things. I like a lot of the more heavily covered empires and nations but also the less covered which are often just as or more interesting in some cases.
Indeed is an original content, totally agree with you on the concept of what makes a territory part of an empire. Glad this channel is different, feels relaxed :)
Glad you found it different, and thought it was more relaxed. I am not entirely sure on my concept for this channel yet... but so far I am thinking just a more relaxed unscripted version of the main channel (re-using drawings from previous videos) discussing more ideas about history (more in-depth or abstract scatterbrained in the way I normally talk), rather than focusing on concisely conveying interesting information.
Were there ever agreed-on-borders between ancient empires/nations? As in: did the Romans and Sassanians ever agree on a specific part on a map that says "this is the border"?
Yes there was. There are some surviving Border stones with inscriptions that have survived from early Mesopotamian states. Although borders like mountain ranges and rivers were more commonly used as markers in treaties.
With the Romans and Sassanians I know for a while the Euphrates rivers was used as the the marker for part of their border. in the desert and mountains exact border was probably a little more vague.
@@epimetheus2249 That's very interesting! Many nations still use rivers and mountain ranges today to agree on the borders between them. Thank you so much, Epimetheus.
@@epimetheus2249 It kind of makes sense with rivers. Easy to defend, has a mostly clear path, and under *ideal* circumstances, it will allow both sides to use the resources of the river. But the same can't be said for mountains though, especially when they contain valuable resources and people living there, so how do they figure out the borders in mountainous regions?
I read a primary source when I was at university from the period just before the 2nd crusade. It was interesting to see how interwoven the control was. One town one would belong to the Muslims while the next two towns would be Christian, the roads would be raided by Christian bandits in one area and Muslims in another. There was no border at any point where you could point and say "this is [X] country". It was also interesting to see the lack of "clash of civilisations" we are often told their was. This was a Muslim scholar travelling with a Frankish knight to Jerusalem.
Very interesting. Similar to España were Muslims routinely fought on the Christian side and Christians often fought on the Muslim side up until the end of that conflict and the canonization of that history as a clash of civilization. Same with the early Caliphates and the Byzantines. People have been pretty pragmatic.
How big was the roman empire then? I am thinking of the Germanic region. After the marcomannic German tribes had to give troops and a tribute to rome. There culture and trade was geared towards Rome and their culture became romanised. But on map they are not included because they were not part of the political structures.
Did they give troops to Rome as part of a formal treaty? Honestly, I do not know much about the aftermath of the Marcomannic wars and the specific stipulations of the treaties ending that conflict...But I would assume from what I have read before that it was a created buffer zone, rather than a zone of economic taxation (as it was not a heavily urbanized region and no significant trade route went through Northern Germania, in comparison to traditionally taxed regions at the point in history) If Germania had an organized state, large cities, and formidably lucrative trade routes that Rome taxed then I would include it in its borders (IMO). But if only loosely organized tribes paid tribute then no. One thing I should have made more mention in this video (did not write it out was just talking off the top of my head) is the difference between largely urbanized and tribal region). Anyways thanks for the interesting comment....and yes people do argue over Roman borders at different points in their history...but is great fun....and, in the end, it is a semantical discussion
Near future...maybe (depends what you think is near). I have a long list of things I want to do and do not plan too far into the future. Was not planning this video at all till I started making it.
Nice, just saw your other post. Subbed Edit: gonna watch this later. While we are on the subject ive had a few discussions like this about the roman imperial border with friends and online.
Regarding the conquest of India Ghandi wrote that India let itself be conquered, sold itself into slavery. Theres numerous accounts of Indian princes selling the right to collect tolls or taxes in their territory in return for political and military backing. A few generations of this sort of behaviour and the East India Company become so wealthy and powerful that it became able to start pitting rajas against one another, acting as king-maker and confronting kings directly.
I think first to understand if a region is part of an empire you have to identify what defines an empire. First, I think you defined it correctly as there's a ruling class that centralizes its power over its territories. Moreover, the central govt. receives taxes from their territories. I think what also defines an empire is expansion be it land or sea. Trading or mining resources can be involved, I don't think it's always warriors and kings but merchants and profit because you can get rich from that. Also, there's taxing and racketeering for lack of better definition. You demand payment from the central. If they don't pay you punish the region. It can be violent as well as democratic. My question would be what is an empire. All thoughts and arguments are welcomed.
Love the new channel! I believe language, especially in modern times helps to constitute an empire. Take Nazi Germany, they used language as a reason for conquest to unite German speaking people into an Empire of Reich.
Interesting point, I remember my little bro, that is very into WW2, going to a tank museum and a lot of the older German tanks had manuals in more archaic forms of German before the NSDAP went and standardized the language.
Isn't a state with one language almost the opposite of an empire though? Personally, the definition I always heard for empire was a state controlling multiple ethno-linguistic groups, so the Reich before the annexation of Czechoslovakia was just a nation-state - in my uneducated opinion anyway.
@@epimetheus2249 The standardization of the German language permitted the National Socialists to incorporate all forms spoken, giving them a better position to annex territory where low German was spoke.
By that logic US could be still considered as part of the British Empire which makes absolutely no sense. Plus, it was mostly the opposite with most historical empires.
Can Chinese tributary states be considered part of the "Chinese Empire". These other kingdoms and countries usually operated completely independently- but recognised the Emperor to have the "Mandate of Heaven", and to be hierarchically superior
I believe that they are technically independent, so long as they are ruled by their own rulers but pay tribute I would consider them nominally independent.
I would say depends on the type of tribute and scheduled regularity. If the central state rallied on the tribute as part of the regular income, for the state to function then yes. If not there is a very large grey area were I would love to grab a gin and tonic and discuss for several hours :D
@@epimetheus2249 but what about rome then and its autonomous peoples? There are several german tribes who were basicly only part of the roman military. Paid no taxes, but would send a substantial number of their men to fight for rome.
@@epimetheus2249 Hmm, to my knowledge China did not really NEED the tribute to survive, it was more a symbolic thing. China only traded with kingdoms that would pay tribute and recognise the Emperor as the Son of Heaven, but, China was so big and powerful it could probably mostly survive fine without the trade and tribute... So according to your definition these place would probably not be included then- but would still certainly be a topic worth discussing over gin and tonic for many an hour ahahah
Taxes and tribute are also very different. Look at the Seleucid mauryan war. Mauryans paid them 500 war elephants but the claim that tribute equates control is false.
I don't think the gift of 500 war elephants after the peace treaty and marriage is considered "tribute" in a traditional sense by anyone. Tribute is typically paid to a greater power to avoid have wealth forcibly extracted.
To my knowledge that is similar to when the Romans paid the Bulgars, Sassanids or even the Dacians on several occasions where it was more a tribute to buy time and avoid war. Taxes I believe are a more regular institution, were commerce is taxed...and a tributary state typically allows the greater power to move troops through their territory and station there if desired. Rather than a lump sum bribe, that is paid to keep an army out of your territory. But as I mentioned in the video there are a lot of unique scenarios that create a Grey area.
Seleucids were actually very centralized. Besides Arachosia and Armenia the Seleucids Kings exercised considerable control over Anatolia, Persia, Susa, Babylon, and Syria. Especially under Seleukos I and Antiochus IV Epiphanes as demonstrated in the book of Maccabees. Only during the third Syrian war and wars of Antiochus III did decentralized vassals and Rebels gain more power
I would disagree with the statement that the "Seleucids were actually very centralized" They did not exercise uniform law codes in the empire. The Satraps retained a huge level of autonomy that was enjoyed by Achaemenid satraps. Different people in different areas of the empire were ruled quite differently.
They were more centralized than the later Parthians. But IMO they were not centralized compared to modern states, the ancient Chinese, Sassanians and Romans.
Epimetheus, ramble away man. Somehow I can listen to your videos without paying attention and still know what you say. You have a unique voice that is excellent for telling stories.
Thanks Fahim!
Very much enjoyed this more relaxed style of narration. I just came across your second channel recently so now I’ve got two of your channels to look forward to. Thank you for all the work you put in to create this content. So enjoyable.
Also another question. Why do we call the Roman empire , the Egyptian empire , the Assyrian empire,.. etc such ethnic names, while we call other empires like the Chinese empire, the Caliphate and the Persian ones by their dynasties names, and why do we consider that each of the dynasties of these empires was a completely different state from the other dynasties?
I think dynasties are more often used to differentiate between several different empires in relatively the same geographic location and ethnic group. There were a lot of Iranian empires so they are typically called by their dynasty. The Assyrians, Romans and Egyptians just had the one empire each....although long-lived ones.
@@epimetheus2249 thanks for the information
@Herdan interesting ... But how did the people of that time call the two empires? I don't think they called "Kushite empire" and "Sassanid empire"
This was something I always wanted to learn about, but was just uncertain how to go about requesting information about how borders and maps are made in ancient history.
I think a further aspect to throw in would be whether the region in question has its local military forces or would depend on imperial troops to defend it from invaders...
I noticed you make more videos about less talked about empires/countries. Curiosity asks why? (Btw thanks for making videos on iran)
Well, there is a market for good historical stories, and there are a lot overlooked. This is my theory, but I think he just loves these histories
Arash a prob because it’s for history buffs who wanna really get into all the stuff that are known to be difficult to learn because of the difficult to find good sources
I have a very broad range of interests :)
I am not interested in everything...but I am interested in most things.
I like a lot of the more heavily covered empires and nations but also the less covered which are often just as or more interesting in some cases.
Indeed is an original content, totally agree with you on the concept of what makes a territory part of an empire. Glad this channel is different, feels relaxed :)
Glad you found it different, and thought it was more relaxed. I am not entirely sure on my concept for this channel yet... but so far I am thinking just a more relaxed unscripted version of the main channel (re-using drawings from previous videos) discussing more ideas about history (more in-depth or abstract scatterbrained in the way I normally talk), rather than focusing on concisely conveying interesting information.
Were there ever agreed-on-borders between ancient empires/nations? As in: did the Romans and Sassanians ever agree on a specific part on a map that says "this is the border"?
Yes there was. There are some surviving Border stones with inscriptions that have survived from early Mesopotamian states. Although borders like mountain ranges and rivers were more commonly used as markers in treaties.
With the Romans and Sassanians I know for a while the Euphrates rivers was used as the the marker for part of their border. in the desert and mountains exact border was probably a little more vague.
@@epimetheus2249 That's very interesting! Many nations still use rivers and mountain ranges today to agree on the borders between them. Thank you so much, Epimetheus.
@@epimetheus2249 It kind of makes sense with rivers. Easy to defend, has a mostly clear path, and under *ideal* circumstances, it will allow both sides to use the resources of the river.
But the same can't be said for mountains though, especially when they contain valuable resources and people living there, so how do they figure out the borders in mountainous regions?
I read a primary source when I was at university from the period just before the 2nd crusade. It was interesting to see how interwoven the control was. One town one would belong to the Muslims while the next two towns would be Christian, the roads would be raided by Christian bandits in one area and Muslims in another. There was no border at any point where you could point and say "this is [X] country". It was also interesting to see the lack of "clash of civilisations" we are often told their was. This was a Muslim scholar travelling with a Frankish knight to Jerusalem.
Very interesting. Similar to España were Muslims routinely fought on the Christian side and Christians often fought on the Muslim side up until the end of that conflict and the canonization of that history as a clash of civilization. Same with the early Caliphates and the Byzantines. People have been pretty pragmatic.
@@epimetheus2249 History is basically the battles of Elites, using the people as grist. Then again, those who do, will conquer those who don't.
715th suscriber :) this channel is gonna be amazing!
:D i hope it wil be
Thanks Alex!
I had no idea you had a second channel, not that I'm complaining
How big was the roman empire then? I am thinking of the Germanic region. After the marcomannic German tribes had to give troops and a tribute to rome. There culture and trade was geared towards Rome and their culture became romanised. But on map they are not included because they were not part of the political structures.
Did they give troops to Rome as part of a formal treaty? Honestly, I do not know much about the aftermath of the Marcomannic wars and the specific stipulations of the treaties ending that conflict...But I would assume from what I have read before that it was a created buffer zone, rather than a zone of economic taxation (as it was not a heavily urbanized region and no significant trade route went through Northern Germania, in comparison to traditionally taxed regions at the point in history)
If Germania had an organized state, large cities, and formidably lucrative trade routes that Rome taxed then I would include it in its borders (IMO). But if only loosely organized tribes paid tribute then no. One thing I should have made more mention in this video (did not write it out was just talking off the top of my head) is the difference between largely urbanized and tribal region). Anyways thanks for the interesting comment....and yes people do argue over Roman borders at different points in their history...but is great fun....and, in the end, it is a semantical discussion
Are you planning to do a video about precolumbian america in the near future?
Near future...maybe (depends what you think is near). I have a long list of things I want to do and do not plan too far into the future. Was not planning this video at all till I started making it.
3:26 lol that cough came out of nowhere 😄
Well I think...cough
Sounded more like a Seth Rogen type laugh ;)
Nice, just saw your other post. Subbed
Edit: gonna watch this later. While we are on the subject ive had a few discussions like this about the roman imperial border with friends and online.
...is a fun discussion...lots of grey area
@@epimetheus2249 idd
yeah, taxes which includes levied troops and corvee laborers.
Regarding the conquest of India Ghandi wrote that India let itself be conquered, sold itself into slavery. Theres numerous accounts of Indian princes selling the right to collect tolls or taxes in their territory in return for political and military backing. A few generations of this sort of behaviour and the East India Company become so wealthy and powerful that it became able to start pitting rajas against one another, acting as king-maker and confronting kings directly.
Are you planning to do a video about Armenia ;
Wtf! I just found this channel! Why don’t you upload on this channel after this first one epimethius??
I think first to understand if a region is part of an empire you have to identify what defines an empire. First, I think you defined it correctly as there's a ruling class that centralizes its power over its territories. Moreover, the central govt. receives taxes from their territories. I think what also defines an empire is expansion be it land or sea. Trading or mining resources can be involved, I don't think it's always warriors and kings but merchants and profit because you can get rich from that. Also, there's taxing and racketeering for lack of better definition. You demand payment from the central. If they don't pay you punish the region. It can be violent as well as democratic. My question would be what is an empire. All thoughts and arguments are welcomed.
Awesome job man.
Thanks WIlliam
Thanks for the content
Your welcome :)
Very interesting
Love the new channel! I believe language, especially in modern times helps to constitute an empire. Take Nazi Germany, they used language as a reason for conquest to unite German speaking people into an Empire of Reich.
Interesting point, I remember my little bro, that is very into WW2, going to a tank museum and a lot of the older German tanks had manuals in more archaic forms of German before the NSDAP went and standardized the language.
Isn't a state with one language almost the opposite of an empire though? Personally, the definition I always heard for empire was a state controlling multiple ethno-linguistic groups, so the Reich before the annexation of Czechoslovakia was just a nation-state - in my uneducated opinion anyway.
@@epimetheus2249 The standardization of the German language permitted the National Socialists to incorporate all forms spoken, giving them a better position to annex territory where low German was spoke.
@@markpock1139 You aren't wrong. I was mearly making the point of empire in modern times and that of the German empire.
By that logic US could be still considered as part of the British Empire which makes absolutely no sense. Plus, it was mostly the opposite with most historical empires.
Can Chinese tributary states be considered part of the "Chinese Empire".
These other kingdoms and countries usually operated completely independently- but recognised the Emperor to have the "Mandate of Heaven", and to be hierarchically superior
I believe that they are technically independent, so long as they are ruled by their own rulers but pay tribute I would consider them nominally independent.
I would say depends on the type of tribute and scheduled regularity. If the central state rallied on the tribute as part of the regular income, for the state to function then yes. If not there is a very large grey area were I would love to grab a gin and tonic and discuss for several hours :D
@@epimetheus2249 but what about rome then and its autonomous peoples? There are several german tribes who were basicly only part of the roman military. Paid no taxes, but would send a substantial number of their men to fight for rome.
@@epimetheus2249 Hmm, to my knowledge China did not really NEED the tribute to survive, it was more a symbolic thing. China only traded with kingdoms that would pay tribute and recognise the Emperor as the Son of Heaven, but, China was so big and powerful it could probably mostly survive fine without the trade and tribute... So according to your definition these place would probably not be included then- but would still certainly be a topic worth discussing over gin and tonic for many an hour ahahah
The Mausoleum was Mausolus' tomb. He didn't build it himself, his wife let it be build for him.
Taxes and tribute are also very different. Look at the Seleucid mauryan war. Mauryans paid them 500 war elephants but the claim that tribute equates control is false.
I agree taxes and tribute are very different.
Taxes equates a far greater level of control, especailly taxes on commerce.
I don't think the gift of 500 war elephants after the peace treaty and marriage is considered "tribute" in a traditional sense by anyone. Tribute is typically paid to a greater power to avoid have wealth forcibly extracted.
Then should south india(tamils)should include on mouyan empire or not?
The Byzantiums paid taxes to the Abbasid Caliphate . Does that mean that Byzantine was a part of the Caliphate??!
To my knowledge that is similar to when the Romans paid the Bulgars, Sassanids or even the Dacians on several occasions where it was more a tribute to buy time and avoid war. Taxes I believe are a more regular institution, were commerce is taxed...and a tributary state typically allows the greater power to move troops through their territory and station there if desired. Rather than a lump sum bribe, that is paid to keep an army out of your territory. But as I mentioned in the video there are a lot of unique scenarios that create a Grey area.
@@epimetheus2249 I understood now. Thank you
!? I would think not then the Umayyad Caliphate would be a Byzantine vassal.
So what about Ottoman Hungary?
Theyre islamic
@@j2k14 No, I was talking about the Kingdom of Hungary under Ottoman rule, when Jan Zapolya managed Transylvania and the north
Is it just me or is the audio level really fluctuating?
:O Hopefully it is just you
Check out my main channel...does it sound just as Fluctuatey
Seleucids were actually very centralized. Besides Arachosia and Armenia the Seleucids Kings exercised considerable control over Anatolia, Persia, Susa, Babylon, and Syria. Especially under Seleukos I and Antiochus IV Epiphanes as demonstrated in the book of Maccabees. Only during the third Syrian war and wars of Antiochus III did decentralized vassals and Rebels gain more power
I would disagree with the statement that the "Seleucids were actually very centralized" They did not exercise uniform law codes in the empire. The Satraps retained a huge level of autonomy that was enjoyed by Achaemenid satraps. Different people in different areas of the empire were ruled quite differently.
They were more centralized than the later Parthians. But IMO they were not centralized compared to modern states, the ancient Chinese, Sassanians and Romans.
Anatolia
Not subbing to this channel until it reaches 419
Edit: I missed my chance to become sub #420
What a tragedy!
Are you also smoking to his videos?
Please use a different map Africa isn’t tiny
No South Sudan. Smfh
if only he can talk
Empires are overrated to be honest
Cultural influence is most important for a empire i think. Even more than how nice you treat the conquered peoples.
Nah just too many kingdoms are declared an Empire when their not.
Very interesting
very interesting