Further to you opening points, I think it's important to remember that the term 'Liberal' means something different in the US to what it means in the UK and I suspect it's different to France at this time too.
Correct. I'll expand your point and say that there is a bit of a weird split on this one because most European countries still use 'liberal' in the sense that they used in France at this point because third parties, such as socialists, became prominent parts of the political landscape. So it made sense to keep a distinction between those radicals (as opposed to conservatives) who want egalitarianism and those who want more equality, whereas in the United States, other Anglophone states (oddly enough excluding the UK), Turkey, Japan and other places where socialism was cracked down on like anarchism was elsewhere, it only really made sense to talk about a left/right dichotomy between conservatives and liberals.
In the US, this classical definition of liberal is what current Republicans and Democrats claim to be but rarely are. Only those in the center would fit the definition, I think. Sharing power; checks and balances, true compromise. Non-zero sum negotiations. Sigh.
True we can't know the crowd's real motivations, but as a general rule of thumb if you're the leader of a nation, a king, a president, PM, etc and a crowd shows up to see you but they're all dead silent and just glare at you, that's usually not a good sign.
I would have to say that there is no particular bias in this that isn't in his other videos, he has a particular bias that has been consistent throughout all of his videos. Also, love your reaction 🎉
Yup kind of wary of it now. Did not notice it in his other stuff, like Caesar. Then again that bias is appropriate for this 1800s time period. Kind of in character.
@@MarkVrem, look at the three videos surrounding (and including) his assassination of Ceasar video - it's present, even there. Though it is arguably better to have a consistent bias then feigning having no bias.
His last video "the year without summer" was way more bias. The way he talked about Meternick and Canning is way more bias than this video. in this one he is actually more neutral with one or two comments running from that.
I've never viewed his channel as being purely focused on history. I've always viewed it more as a sociopolitical channel that uses history as the platform with which we can see the results of different political ideologies. I don't think theres anything wrong with that since its pretty obvious when he's speaking about actual historical events vs when he's expressing his opinion on why those events happened.
But also, the British establishment's approach to the wider populate's grievances after 1688 (Glorious Revolution) has usually always been effective (a "carrot and stick" approach) if trouble is brewing the establishment often provides concessions that may appear insignificant, but the concessions will keep the majority happy and show they have been listened to, (e.g. Corn laws repealed in 1846 Robert Peel understood that to avoid rioting and instability, you have to keep the majority of the masses happy, and also, I believe he understood how ridiculous keeping the Corn laws in place was by 1846). Furthermore, if the monarch is seen to keep out of government, not voice their personal opinions that might affect the wider populate, then usually the population will leave the monarch alone on the thone, (the only modern day situation I can think of the monarch maybe being toppled was Princess Diana of Wales' death in 1997, when the Royal family didn't appear not to share in the nation's grievances and the Royal family had no choice but to return to London from Balmoral, Scotland, even if they did this just to satisfy the masses).
patterns and cycles man, patterns and cycles. And for those who like to study history, u will see stuff kinda happening again, and it'll freak u out dat it is happening again 🤦♂️🤣😬
Historia Civilis is certainly biased, but I don't think it's any more so than any other historical channel/source. HC's bias stands out more because it is typically leftist/anti-authoritarian, which runs counter to the bias of most historical sources. We are used to history favouring the powerful elite because that is whose accounts survive. The "Great Man Theory" of history, popular in the 19th century, reflects this and still has ripples within the literature to this day. Even in a liberal democracy, we revere dictators and warmongers because of how they are traditionally portrayed in our history textbooks. If history was written by the common person it would probably be a lot more critical of figures that are otherwise lauded. While there are moments where HC could have been more generous, I think the concern around his bias is fairly overblown.
To add to your point, I also think that we need the kind of perspective HC has when we talk about history. To balance out the biases of most historical sources and challenge the common mindset of history enthusiasts.
"how they are traditionally portrayed in our history textbooks." -> I think you're caricaturing the school system (at least in the West). In my country for example (France), Napoleon isn't treated nearly the same way it was 60 years ago, there's nothing "traditional" about how he's portrayed and his multiple flaws in terms of morality are debated. In general, I don't think we would admire the accomplishment of the elites less even if the common people were the primary sources of historians. The thing you're not taking into account, is that the elites don't just write history, they literally make history (even the French Revolution was hijacked by the bourgeois), as harsh and unpleasant as it sounds. They accomplish great things and people just separate that, from "were they good people according to our current sense of morality ?". It's just human nature to love great things, even if one shouldn't forget how violence and selfishness were often a part of that (it's not incompatible). I mean, here in France people know that the money that built Versailles could have avoided hundred of thousands of dead people from famines, yet people admire Versailles no matter what, because it's still a great accomplishment. For me, the way your comment present things, implies a constant moral judgement on history.
Thank you. I wrote a comment that tried to say what you said about the “great men theory” but you worded it better than me. We should not frown at a creator showing bias against autocratic despotism and towards functioning democracy.
The first thing they teach you in any history major worth it’s salt is every source is biased and we all have biases, and there’s no such thing as an “unbiased history”, we just have to be cognizant of it and compare those different biases to make stronger arguments.
Indeed, although that effect usually goes away when you think “who I would be in this, as a common man/woman” and suddenly you start thinking of things such as the Roman Empire, German empire, etc. a whole lot different and you start appreciating living in the western world 😅
Hello there ! I'm from France, and it's so weird seing these 2 videos talking about this period of the history of my country. When I was in school, we didn't really learn about the period going from 1815 to 1870. I have learned so much more reading specific books on the matter and watching those videos.
This here is exactly why I get annoyed with quite a few people claiming he's biased like it's a bad thing. He makes it abundantly clear, he's not trying to manipulate people. And it's not even like it's extreme either, it's biased in that he isn't tolerating incompetent monarchs and aristocracy. That should not be controversial, and makes a lot of the people calling him biased suspect.
Fun fact about this July 1830 Revolution: It brought to the throne King Louis-Philippe I, called Louis-Philippe d’Orléans of the House of Orléans, a junior branch of the Bourbons. Louis-Philippe was the great great great grandson of the brother of Louis XIV. Today, one of the candidates who would be considered if France decided for some reason to restore her monarchy is a descendant of Louis-Philippe. His name is Jean, he’s often referred to as the Count of Paris and he’d be known as Jean IV if he became King. He is a great great great grandson of King Louis-Philippe I.
Because the main branch of the Legitimist branch of the Bourbon dynasty - i.e. the ultraconservative, direct descendants of Charles X - essentially went extinct with the death of Henri, Count of Chambord in 1883, who was the grandson of Charles X. Fun fact, when Emperor Napoleon III was overthrown during the Franco-Prussian War and France became a republic without a monarchy for the third time in its history, royalists in France, who commanded a majority in the French Parliament at the time, seriously tried to over him the throne. However, Henri refused to initially become king unless the French government literally banned the French tricolor, which was highly associated with the French Revolution and the Revolution of 1830 which overthrew his grandfather. Because of this decision, many royalists in Parliament were eventually voted out and France has remained a republic ever since.
I don't get what the big deal is guys. 99% of the video is factual, the rest is easily recognizable as his opinion, usually because he says "in my opinion." Who cares if he calls a stupid autocrat stupid, just recognize the bias and ignore it if you love monarchs so much. We really don't have to make everything about modern politics, we can just enjoy some educational entertainment🤷♂
@@seanm241 you’re 100% correct. It’s so silly to whine about HC’s bias because he isn’t playing the fucking centrist angle with actual 19th century authoritarian monarchists. It’s also not insightful at all, what’s the point in bringing up perceived bias when you immediately say “well everyone has bias”. It’s lazy analysis and commentary. Period.
@@Brysonhundley since you put it like that, this seems to be reflective of the general swing to fascism the western world is currently experiencing. I don't think it's a coincidence that HC's first video after Trump's victory in the election got that outcry about his 'strong bias', considering these people seem comfortable now with openly stating their _true_ political beliefs. Even more so considering his video "Work", as far as I am concerned, pretty much confirmed he's probably a socialist, and even if I'm wrong about that and he's just leaning towards socialism or is more of a social democrat or whatever, well you think those people care about the difference?
@@Dawid23_Gamer the ole’ Overton window is certainly shifting right which shifts all of these moderates alongside them. Without any strong ideological anchor, they always assume validity in aspects of both sides and complain about the rampant bias everywhere because it’s easier to moderate between two perceived “extremes” than to think critically about your worldview. If you’re bitching about bias when someone is railing against a 19th century monarchist, you need to examine why you feel so uncomfortable with it
@Brysonhundley Seriously, at this point I'm just automatically suspicious of commenters calling bias here, because the "bias" is that he isn't going to hold their hand and act like the autocratic king and his cronies aren't incompetent stooges worthy of disdain. It's INCREDIBLY suspicious to call bias over something like that. If that's "biased" to you, that says a lot more about you than HC. Edit: should clarify I am only talking about the people in the comments here, not VTH. Unfortunately what I think happened here is that VTH listened to those people and got a little too critical in compensation for not being so in part 1 (because said claims of bias are manufactured crap and there was no meaningful bias to contest), particularily when he missed the obvious Napoleon joke. I also don't agree that him bringing up that everyone is biased is pointless or lazy, it just isn't a good fit here. He's gone into more detail about it in past videos that are more insightful, he just shorthanded it here and without previous context and the fact that the bias claims are so paper-thin, it comes off strange.
I agree with you fully, I'm of the opinion that HC's bias is minimal and irrelevant, but I'm of a socialist mindset so I probably don't notice the bias as others do
Huge fan of these videos man. keep up the great work please! On the topic of bias, I think it is unavoidable with history. History is inherently subjective, and as a result you can recognize and mitigate bias, but you can't truly eliminate it. That's why I appreciate that you point it out to keep in mind, and where appropriate, add or push back against some claims. It is an all too rare form commentary video around here.
Just to add to the "royalty use the same name over and over" -- Danish Kings have taken turns being called Christian and Frederik for a really long time, hence the current King Frederik X
Just like Prussia/Germany with Wilhelm and Friedrich, and Austria with Josef and Franz. The Netherlands probably wins in that regard though. Like, about half of their kings have the name Willem.
i think that historia civil’s editorializing made the video a LOT more entertaining and the storytelling more engaging. He’s not lying and it makes the video much more fun
1:33 I think the main complaints about Historia Civilis' bias come from his staunchly anti-colonial sentiments in the previous video, which, obviously in the 21st century are perfectly the mainstream, but in a historic context don't really make rational sense when talking about the mindsets of people in the 19th century. For example, I believe he stated that France didn't have a really good reason to establish a colony in Algeria in 1830 and that it was essentially worthless territory. This is actually far from the truth, considering coastal Algeria was so economically and strategically important for France that it was part of France proper until literally 1962 (within very living memory)! In fact, the Mediterranean parts of French Algeria were so valuable that they weren't even officially colonies in the eyes of the French government post-1848 but rather officially considered a formal part of "Metropolian France" that could not be separated from France whatsoever. Millions of French and European citizens even lived in French Algeria similar to Europeans in places like South Africa, which is why the Algerian War for Independence in the 1950s and early 1960s was so bloody and nearly caused the French state to collapse into civil war.
I think a lot of him saying that more reflects public opinion on the home front and all of its issues which can be argued for a big reason in decreasing popularity throughout the next election. Innocence, that’s what the videos about the distinction between the aristocracy and the common man and why they were so heated in this time
@@kaelcrane2076 I strongly assume that there were quite a few who benefitted from the Algerian colony. - Those, however, were not so much on main street, where they payed taxes for an enterprise that stood in direct competition with the domestic market, given that wages in Algeria were lower: Agriculture, textiles, et al.
@ yes it’s also true that when we talk about revolutionary might in France we mostly refer to Paris. There should be more of a distinction made with the politics in Paris and the politics, especially in outer skirts of the country were way different.
Historia Civilis was not staunchly anti-colonial last video (although I of course suspect him to be overall) as he did not talk poorly about all colonies, but rather just about colonizing for prestige. I'd also disagree with your opinion on Algeria and agree with Historia Civilis - there was no clear reason to invade Algeria at the time that would substantially improve conditions in France. Rather, the later genuine importance of Algeria to France was more a result of societal and economic investment after the fact into a proximant and relatively densely populated coastline as opposed to any intrinsic value France had in the area at the time of invasion; the importance of Algeria to France in the late 19th and 20th centuries was a result of the invasion, not the other way around.
I dont think its really personal bias as much as it is a modernity bias. From a recency perspective most people alive would probably say Monarchies and autocratic systems are "bad".
I mean, on a large scale, they always were (imo), or more accurately, they were bad for the common people. It's just that back then, no viable alternative was able to prove itself because taking down these oppressive systems in itself is a pain, and trying to do so will get you an extremely hostile response from the entire world because if you can show to the common person that "Look, this system works far better and our people are happier and more prosperous and wealthier and everything!", that's gonna make the dominoes fall, and that inevitably means the people currently in power lose said power. I was gonna beat around the bush but eh, I'll just be direct: This *is* a direct parallel to the world right now. Capitalism is just as bad as authoritarianism (imo, because in a certain light, they're pretty much the same. From a strictly internal standpoint, what makes the king or the ruling nobility of a country different than the CEO or the stockholders of a company?), it's just that no viable alternative was able to prove itself because establishing actual socialism in the anarchic enviornment of a revolution where might makes right is an incredible pain, and even if you do manage to do it (like Cuba), well guess what, the US is going to do everything in its power to destroy you, because they know that if such a country succeeds and becomes prosperous, the dominoes will start falling. There is more to it now than there was to authoritarian systems back then alongside the fact that Capitalism has an expiration date (once AI develops to a point where it can replace a critical mass of jobs, the only way forward is transitioning to socialism, anything else just makes you inevitably go backwards by different amounts), but the parallel is still there.
Honestly as long as he dosent lie about historic facts or use wonky sources (like his work time video) i don't really care if a youtube creator has bias. It's not an academic work, and many historians also have clear and assumed bias. It sparks a discussion, which is healthy especially on such political and actual topics as this one. Plus, Historia Civilis has always had a bias, it's just more obvious in his recent videos because it's a more recent period of history
In the July Revolution, I did notice some very weird and biased language in the script. Referring to certain characters as "stupid," or dismissing counterrevolutionary monarchism as "the king's goofy conservative ideology." It's a strange way to talk about history, and makes it feel more like he's talking about characters in a play rather than living, breathing people who saw themselves as masters of their own destiny.
@@samfann1768 it does seem to be a growing trend though. Even with his Caesar + Augustus videos, he became increasingly more critical of certain characters (cough Antony cough) whether deserved or not
@@j-wilk4835 Yeah, kinda worrisome tbh. He was never as historically accurate as some channels (e.g. anything to do with Indy Neidell) but he didn't used to be quite this biased.
@@samfann1768Indy also has his biases etc tho They just align more with the most common biases in the anglophone world so people are less perceptive of them You’d be hard pressed to find even a well established and respected historian in academia whom doesn’t have one, it’s just in our nature unfortunately (human nature that is)
Yeah, his "work time" video was so wonky! The patreon comments were even split on that video. My criticism was that the Marxist book he sources for that video has such bias for which historical examples it cherry picks to make its point. HC was highly uncritical of it only pulling from Western history to establish supposed universals of human nature of what is an ideal work schedule.
14:40 Marmont never really fought against the Guerrillas all that much. He was mainly opposing Wellington's army and he was also only there for a year before he is wounded at Salamanca. You are correct though that this this kind of fighting does resemble the fighting at Zaragoza, which was the first real example of urban warfare in how we would understand it in a modern context.
Yes, he had a score of defeats, however the fighting resembles more to Napoleon's ambush of the royalist forces in Paris in 1795, also let me dissent with Zaragoza, there were plenty before,
@@omarbradley6807 I don't think so. I can't think of another example where a major city decided in lieu of fortifications to fight house to house on a large scale, like 10k men or more. I can't think of another time at least in the age of gunpowder that an army chose to fight like that.
I think you're reading into the biases a little too much. People watch historia civilis for the little quips and personality of his channel, you can find cookie cutter historical content elsewhere. I disagree with his political beliefs but still eagerly await his videos. Also "Napoleon wasn't long living nothing" is clearly a joke, you can hear him grinning when he's saying it lol. Still love your reactions though, hope you do more of his videos.
12:54 DO YOU HEAR THE PEOPLE SING? SINGING THE SONG OF ANGRY MEN. It is a music of a people who will not be slaves again. Couldn't let the song go without getting to the chorus
When I had to start writing historiography papers, finding the bias in any source was always required and depending on the time that the source was written, it was either easy or hard to find.
Mmm nah, Chris is correct, Historia Civilis DOES appear to actually have a highly negative view of Napoleon in general, just look at the Congress of Vienna videos. This jab/joke is totally in character for him.
@@supera2960 Many people watching his video probably didn't even know that Napoleon had already passed at that point. I think it was just a small joke with the true purpose of informing the audience.
I can't remember who said it but there is an old saying : " Kings are only overthrown by themselves." I might be paraphrasing but this is the perfect example.
He never hid his bias. For example, in his Rome series, he talked badly of Caesar and Cato all the time while never criticizing Cicero. In the Congress of Vienna video, he spends the entire video talking shit about the Russians, Americans and Prussians, while flattering the British and metternich. He does this in every one of his videos.
@@omarbradley6807 I think he's a socialist? (based on his "Work" video) Which I have no problem with. However, he has certain historical "characters" such as Metternich that he picks as favorites (seemingly regardless of politics) and presents them as doing no wrong.
I think one of the main sources of bias is that he doesn’t use multiple sources but instead picks one source to use as authoritative disregarding competing sources. In his work video he came off as extremely socialist but he chose Metternich a strong aristocratic conservative at his POV which was strange.
As I write this you have 3 replies and ALL of them are people presuming the guy's beliefs and treating something that doesn't fit that presumption as wierd instead of a sign that maybe the presumption itself is flawed.
So I think one of the things maybe lost due to watching it over two sittings is that we forget that the Paris guard was disbanded, or that the Algerian campaign had, as stated earlier, totally ruined the army's readiness for any kind of large scale disaster.... like hundreds of barricades going up in Paris and a full on revolution
well, such things happen today too: "Bloomberg reports that Assad has reached out to the rebels to signal that he’s ready to draw up a new constitution & hold political negotiations with the rebels"
Les Mis is technically referenced, but it isn’t from the July Revolution. It’s set in the Paris Uprising of 1832, when the more radical residents of Paris had a bad case of buyers’ remorse with Louis Philippe after several of Louis Philippe’s more popular ministers died in a cholera epidemic. It was Louis Philippe coming under fire from both the more conservative faction and the more republican faction at the same time because things sucked due to the rampant epidemic. Louis Philippe politically ran towards the middle, which left him open to attacks from both sides.
The troops sent into Paris were Royal Guards, so technically they supported the king unconditionally, however the reality struck them hard, Marmont was the traitor to Napoleon, and he had been a right hand man of Louis XVIII during the hundred days, And the possible invasion of France, was actually a reality, until the Polish uprising than November, made the Tsar forgot about going into France, and then Prussia also backed down, and as the Duke of Wellington (primie minister then) was defeated handly by Foxite Earl Gray in Great Britain, the British didn't want a war with France anymore.
Ay Mista Talleyrand which a way da wind blow? Daylight come and it's time to switch sides. Sixth boss, Seventh boss, Eighth boss, LUNCH! Daylight come and it's time to switch sides.
Usually even an inept and unpopular government can put down any insurrection easily, even when (like here) it is linked to a large popular political movement led by elected representatives, by relying on their (effective) monopoly on violent force. 1830 is the textbook example of how to screw up that last part. Not only did Charles not ingratiate himself with the common soldier to shield himself from the oppressed and hostile civilians (like all clever kings and roman emperos did) with his out of touch policies, but the ever-rebellious people of Paris, when egged on by the newspapers and (very, very hesistantly and reluctantly) by the liberal deputies to engage in a violent uprising against the goverment to seize control of the Capital and overthrow the king, had two additional elements bolstering their physical strength against the not-that-into-it army, one accidental and one brought about by massive stupidity. The accidental one was the fact that Marmont, the guy who Napoleon's veterans hated above all others, was by dumb luck in charge of the Paris garrison that week. They viewed him as the literal definition of treason for his actions in 1814, something akin to a "stabbed in the back myth" as he was the one who surrendered Paris to the allies and a few days later marched his army over to them, when Napoleon tried to abdicate in favour of his son, rather than unconditionally, to force his old friend's hand. Fairly or not, those veterans viewed Marmont with more fury than American veterans viewed Benedict Arnold, and would have ripped him to pieces had he fallen into their hands in 1830. Those hopping-mad guys manning the barricades and directing the parisians was very very bad news for the government, to put it lightly. The self-inflicted error was, wait for it, that when Charles disbanded the Paris national guard (20k strong) he did not (repeat, he DID NOT) confiscate their guns and ammo when he declared them all unworthy of protecting his government and too liberal for his liking. Really, that decision will forever stand firm for me as the single most bone-headed move EVER made by a Bourbon, which is really saying something. It will not come as any surprise to anyone to learn that these guys swiftly re-formed themselves in the chaos of 1830, and very much joined the people to kick Charles off of his throne and restore both their personal, and to them France's, national honour, as the guard stll saw themselves as THE defenders of the gains made the revolution of 1789, and the pride and glory of "La Nation". They were formed and initially led by Lafayette after all. So yeah, an unusually firm resistance backed by guys who knew how to fight and very eager to topple the king, against an out-of-touch moron whose own officers and men despised him and mass defected to the liberal opposition within three whole days, followed in the week that followed by the whole rest of France (HC didn't cover this, but basically not a single major french city tried to rally around Charles or voice any initial strong opposition to the events in the capital, and the few officials, commanders and mayors who tried to do so were pretty much everywhere swept out of power without a shot being fired in anger). The result was probably the smoothest transfer of power out of any revolution, ever, before or since. You reap what you sow.
Can someone please explain to me how pointing out that Napoleon was dead was opinionated?? Especially after Chris had said the same thing immediately before
If you wanna learn more about the streets of Paris and how they got remodeled, watch the video on Napoleon the third from biographics he remodeled the cities to make sure that these kind of barricades didn’t happen
No joke, I once had a dream where I was Louis-Philippe, watching the French Revolution from "across the street," watching my dad Phil Equality (formerly Louis-Philippe the Duke of Orleans) get tried for treason. It was a trip.
I’m a little late here but wanted to add something: Charles X ruled and made decisions the way we did because he felt Louis XVI gave in too much during the French Revolution. Was it correct? Most say no. He also was the most radical politically of his brothers. His actions throughout his reign were based on if he gave an inch he would lose everything again. Second, something that gets lost in the July Revolution was that information was delayed by hours even days due to the barricades causing problem for scouts and messengers. Polignac and the King were not working on the same information Marmont was as it had been so delayed to get to them (the King was out hunting during the Three Glorious Days). I think these factors are what destroyed the Bourbons.
love this video on a revolution i knew little about, and also your input and reaction. Greece (my homeland) at the time had its independence war, and that was heavily influenced by the ideas of nationalism and liberalism that had swept europe. Kings and Generals has done a great series on the Greek War of Independence if your interested. it shares a lot of common points with the american revolution as well
Fun fact: Spain was also, at in the early part of the 19th century, dealing with it's own incompetent, despotic Bourbon king. And given that Louis-Phillippe's own reign would end with revolution, it's astonishing at just how inept the house of Bourbon was after Louis XIV.
Historia Civilis' Rome videos are quite hard to watch. He treats Marc Anthony and Caesar so roughly and with a clear negative bias, but the videos are so freaking good
If there are any VTH Patrons here, or if you are here, Chris, you should react to the second Metatron video. The follow-up video to the one Chris has already reacted to. Edit: yay, I got a name shout out. My actual name, I mean. It's pretty uncommon but there it was. Thank you! :)
France having lots of Louises in the royal family goes way back. The first Christian king of France was Louis I. Well, Clovis, in the old Frankish of the time, but he counts as the first Louis in French regnal numbering.
16:45 Imagine how downgraded Marmont is now under the monarchy compared to the times of Napoleon when he was literally in the Emperors close circle of friends and had freedom to tell pretty much anything to Napoleon.
The Les mis was good. By far my favorite musical. The general who dies in 1832 in the play is the real name of the real General. Les mis is also a dramatized true story as the author (Victor Hugo) participated in the riots with the students and survived! And finally the best part is that the king in question in Les mis is the very same king that met with the liberals and went against his cousin who was king during this video!!
DUDE! The reason to use article 14 is somewhat similar to the recent coup / martial law situation in south Korea 😂. The argument that the liberal opposition is semi treasonous north korean sympathizers is crazy.
Since you feel the need to share your preference about historia civilis’ videos, I’ll say I like your videos more when half of your analysis isn’t about what you perceive to be “bias”. You did the same thing on his video on Julius Caesar. You don’t go into depth about the specific reasons you disagree, you just generalize it as “bias”. it’s not insightful and isn’t a critical analysis of what’s being said in the video , it feels very clear that you just do that when you don’t agree with the characterization being shared.
I don't think Civilis is inherently more biased than anyone else when it comes to retelling events, he's just very open about it and doesn't pull punches. It takes passion to be strongly opinionated on these things, and knowing where he stands gives me more reason to look into it myself to come to my own conclusions. That said, I think it would go over better if he reorganized it in a sort of Cronkite style, in which he tells the story first and then has an end section giving his opinion on how he interprets events and his takeaways. I think it's the intermingling of story with opinion and when he gives his opinion that is more bothersome to viewers than what he's actually saying
Keep in mind as well that this was coming off the of the "Year's without a summer", the peasants were still practically in famine, routy, and blaming their governments for issues out of their control. Charles X gave the peasants legitimacy to these claims, and threw gasoline in the flames.
The problem is that the Bourbons king's still believed in divine right of rule and it seems that the death of Louis XVI had not learned. That is the same problem the house of Stuart equally failed to learn in Britain, that once the people's representertives have effective some control, the old hereditary systems of government were "going to be reformed"- it is this "revolution" which for me is the movement of the new "industrial age" of the late georgian/ early Victorian era.
To be fair, Louis XVIII definitely remembered 1789, and was ready for any concession or gesture if it meant keeping the throne. Charles X also remembered 1789, but took away the wrong lessons from it. He believed the Revolution happened because Louis XVI was too hesitant and soft, which isn't necessarily wrong. However, he then persuaded himself that the way to go was to be firm in all circumstances, and that if he ignored the events and the changes they brought altogether, he could somehow turn back the clock.
The reason why "Louis" was the name so often given to French Kings is because the first man who united all Frankish tribes in the aftermath of the collapse of the Roman Empire was named "Clovis". He became Clovis I of the Franks. Take "Clovis", remove the "C" and replace "V" with "U" and you get "Louis".
So, obviously Historia Civilis is biased, but I feel it is so fairly done that it's not even worth the time to discuss it. In my mind he makes it abundantly clear (if not directly stating) when something is his opinion, and while some historical facts are omitted, it's never enough to make me seriously think Historia Civilis is cherry picking what parts of history he presents; certain discussions are just more worthy of being in his videos than others. So, I fail to see how bringing this up repeatedly (both in the comments and in the video) is even productive. At the very least, I find it unfair and boring.
With you mentioning that the places in Europe that started experiencing more liberal revolutions due to Napoleon having exerted his influence and power there, would you argue that Napoleon is possibly among the most influential people in world history? Because I really can't imagine how different the world would be had the revolutions of the 19th century not occured.
"...would you argue that Napoleon is possibly among the most influential people in world history?" Without a doubt. The man ranks up there with men like Caesar and Genghis Khan in just how tremendously influential they've been in world history.
It's pretty much an inevitable cycle. Conservatives resist any and all change (see the definition of conservativism for some insight) until a critical mass is reached sparking a revolution. Then the cycle starts again.
The guy coming back to France with the message of victory arrived one day late. Maybe, if the people would have known the french army has won the battle of Algiers, some of them would have voted differently. Juqt like Sherman taking Atlanta helped Lincoln.
Louis is a modern version of Clovis, king of the Franks just after the fall of Rome. It's the time when France become the kingdom of the franks and later France instead of Gaul.
I'm surprised he didn't mention this name once : La Fayette. The republicans wanted La Fayette to become president. He wasn't too keen so the liberals asked him to support Louis Philippe. When he joined Louis Philippe, the republicans knew the game was lost for them
When Marmont fled Paris after the Revolution and another former Marshal of Napoleon Jean-De-Dieu became Prime Minister he prevented Marmont from ever returning to France due to his betrayal of Napoleon in 1814.
I think it would be important to consider that your identity as somewhat conservative, lowercase C, is relative. Why not read Karl Marx's ten planks in his 1848 Communist Manifesto, half of the planks are things you'd likely agree with. Banning child labour, that's a winner. Or else they aren't really political problems these days like the idea of cultivating the wastelands (which is a bit of a confusing proposal but as best I can tell it's related to the way that land enclosure was working in the 300 years before his manifesto was released) or confiscating property of emigres (IE what King Charles X was for a while). If even one of the most radical people you can probably think of writes something that you'd agree a decent amount with, then someone in the ultraconservative bloc in France in 1830 is really going to be off the deep end. Wanting things as basic as a free election by universal suffrage is basically a no brainer to most people, Charles almost seems at times like someone who wants a prize for even the smallest bit of human decency. As well, I believe that Historia Civilis was writing this story the way he did in part because of the circumstances of democratic backsliding today. There were already plenty of books and some videos that you could watch to see the 1830 revolution explained. What Historia Civilis might be doing is showing the role of democracy as a stabilizing force, peaceful transfers of power, reducing corruption, entrenching the rule of law, and free media all do. As well, given the war in Ukraine right now, he has an extra narrative to show that autocrats invading their neighbours for arbitrary and egocentric reasons is not new as an existential danger to millions of people, and why a stronger democracy can be used to reduce the risk of the absolute catastrophe of war. When you look at the July Crisis in 1914, those politicians were not usually beholden to a strongly democratic system, and while many of them were tragic cases and few among them were personally at fault for the Great War, the environment in which they have to politically act, that leaders got their way into power often from a worldview where war could be noble and necessary in ways we would not agree it was, it clouded their judgments and put the wrong people into positions of power at the wrong time, all to do something as devastating as it ended up being that killed hundreds of millions of people with the effect it would end up having down the line.
I’m confused what people are complaining about regarding bias here? Not to say he’s not giving his perspective, but can someone enlighten me? Are we talking about liberals and republicans vs conservatives? Are people taking that to mean liberals and conservatives in modern day? Or something else, I just see vague “bias claims”
Basi ally the roundaboit version is some people are injecting modern politics into it by accusing him of injecting modern politics. That they disagree with. This didn't really start til after the Work video. Before that the biggest complaints were about him clearly dislike Mark Antony and Augustus.
One thing though in this context regarding bias: I think we all share civilus's bias because the vast majority of us are Liberals. That is the Ultra Conservatives are the Royalist, pro Monarchy. Most of the audience regardless of which modern political wing you are on, are anti Monarchy.😉
Yeah he said " that' wasn't the point though", like yeah duh? it seemed like an obvious joke. Whining about bias provides absolutely nothing insightful to the video at all, I can't stand when he does that shit. You can't say "bias is inevitable" then critiscize it when you don't like it lmao
Further to you opening points, I think it's important to remember that the term 'Liberal' means something different in the US to what it means in the UK and I suspect it's different to France at this time too.
Correct. I'll expand your point and say that there is a bit of a weird split on this one because most European countries still use 'liberal' in the sense that they used in France at this point because third parties, such as socialists, became prominent parts of the political landscape. So it made sense to keep a distinction between those radicals (as opposed to conservatives) who want egalitarianism and those who want more equality, whereas in the United States, other Anglophone states (oddly enough excluding the UK), Turkey, Japan and other places where socialism was cracked down on like anarchism was elsewhere, it only really made sense to talk about a left/right dichotomy between conservatives and liberals.
@@rasmusn.e.m1064 Thank you, you put it very clearly, I appreciate that.
@@orwellboy1958 No problem. I only hope it's correct, though, because it's the impression I get, but I'd love to be corrected.
Excellent point.
In the US, this classical definition of liberal is what current Republicans and Democrats claim to be but rarely are. Only those in the center would fit the definition, I think. Sharing power; checks and balances, true compromise. Non-zero sum negotiations. Sigh.
True we can't know the crowd's real motivations, but as a general rule of thumb if you're the leader of a nation, a king, a president, PM, etc and a crowd shows up to see you but they're all dead silent and just glare at you, that's usually not a good sign.
Lol I'd rather have boos and vulgarity over silence. Silence is worse unless it is a memorial event
I would have to say that there is no particular bias in this that isn't in his other videos, he has a particular bias that has been consistent throughout all of his videos. Also, love your reaction 🎉
Yup kind of wary of it now. Did not notice it in his other stuff, like Caesar. Then again that bias is appropriate for this 1800s time period. Kind of in character.
@@MarkVrem, look at the three videos surrounding (and including) his assassination of Ceasar video - it's present, even there. Though it is arguably better to have a consistent bias then feigning having no bias.
His last video "the year without summer" was way more bias.
The way he talked about Meternick and Canning is way more bias than this video.
in this one he is actually more neutral with one or two comments running from that.
I've never viewed his channel as being purely focused on history. I've always viewed it more as a sociopolitical channel that uses history as the platform with which we can see the results of different political ideologies. I don't think theres anything wrong with that since its pretty obvious when he's speaking about actual historical events vs when he's expressing his opinion on why those events happened.
His videos regarding the late Caesar videos, and the Augustus videos his bias became ALOT more blatant and obvious
You've always been upfront about your biases. This is why many folks who don't necessarily agree with you trust you to keep your reactions fact based.
The British method might be why, when 1848 happened, their attempt at revolution was so muted that it got broken up by a rainstorm.
But also, the British establishment's approach to the wider populate's grievances after 1688 (Glorious Revolution) has usually always been effective (a "carrot and stick" approach) if trouble is brewing the establishment often provides concessions that may appear insignificant, but the concessions will keep the majority happy and show they have been listened to, (e.g. Corn laws repealed in 1846 Robert Peel understood that to avoid rioting and instability, you have to keep the majority of the masses happy, and also, I believe he understood how ridiculous keeping the Corn laws in place was by 1846). Furthermore, if the monarch is seen to keep out of government, not voice their personal opinions that might affect the wider populate, then usually the population will leave the monarch alone on the thone, (the only modern day situation I can think of the monarch maybe being toppled was Princess Diana of Wales' death in 1997, when the Royal family didn't appear not to share in the nation's grievances and the Royal family had no choice but to return to London from Balmoral, Scotland, even if they did this just to satisfy the masses).
It’s so bizarre watching this after the craziness in South Korea. Sometimes it seems like the same thing happens again and again.
patterns and cycles man, patterns and cycles. And for those who like to study history, u will see stuff kinda happening again, and it'll freak u out dat it is happening again 🤦♂️🤣😬
Exactly my thought as well. How do these people never learn?
History sure as hell rhymes
@@emilianohermosilla3996 Like poetry...
What's that saying? "those that cannot remember the past are condemn to repeat it"
Historia Civilis is certainly biased, but I don't think it's any more so than any other historical channel/source. HC's bias stands out more because it is typically leftist/anti-authoritarian, which runs counter to the bias of most historical sources. We are used to history favouring the powerful elite because that is whose accounts survive. The "Great Man Theory" of history, popular in the 19th century, reflects this and still has ripples within the literature to this day. Even in a liberal democracy, we revere dictators and warmongers because of how they are traditionally portrayed in our history textbooks. If history was written by the common person it would probably be a lot more critical of figures that are otherwise lauded. While there are moments where HC could have been more generous, I think the concern around his bias is fairly overblown.
To add to your point, I also think that we need the kind of perspective HC has when we talk about history. To balance out the biases of most historical sources and challenge the common mindset of history enthusiasts.
"how they are traditionally portrayed in our history textbooks." -> I think you're caricaturing the school system (at least in the West). In my country for example (France), Napoleon isn't treated nearly the same way it was 60 years ago, there's nothing "traditional" about how he's portrayed and his multiple flaws in terms of morality are debated. In general, I don't think we would admire the accomplishment of the elites less even if the common people were the primary sources of historians. The thing you're not taking into account, is that the elites don't just write history, they literally make history (even the French Revolution was hijacked by the bourgeois), as harsh and unpleasant as it sounds. They accomplish great things and people just separate that, from "were they good people according to our current sense of morality ?". It's just human nature to love great things, even if one shouldn't forget how violence and selfishness were often a part of that (it's not incompatible). I mean, here in France people know that the money that built Versailles could have avoided hundred of thousands of dead people from famines, yet people admire Versailles no matter what, because it's still a great accomplishment. For me, the way your comment present things, implies a constant moral judgement on history.
Thank you. I wrote a comment that tried to say what you said about the “great men theory” but you worded it better than me. We should not frown at a creator showing bias against autocratic despotism and towards functioning democracy.
The first thing they teach you in any history major worth it’s salt is every source is biased and we all have biases, and there’s no such thing as an “unbiased history”, we just have to be cognizant of it and compare those different biases to make stronger arguments.
Indeed, although that effect usually goes away when you think “who I would be in this, as a common man/woman” and suddenly you start thinking of things such as the Roman Empire, German empire, etc. a whole lot different and you start appreciating living in the western world 😅
Hello there ! I'm from France, and it's so weird seing these 2 videos talking about this period of the history of my country. When I was in school, we didn't really learn about the period going from 1815 to 1870. I have learned so much more reading specific books on the matter and watching those videos.
With Historia Civilis, whenever he shares personal opinions, he usually makes it clear that they are an opinion.
This here is exactly why I get annoyed with quite a few people claiming he's biased like it's a bad thing. He makes it abundantly clear, he's not trying to manipulate people. And it's not even like it's extreme either, it's biased in that he isn't tolerating incompetent monarchs and aristocracy. That should not be controversial, and makes a lot of the people calling him biased suspect.
Fun fact about this July 1830 Revolution:
It brought to the throne King Louis-Philippe I, called Louis-Philippe d’Orléans of the House of Orléans, a junior branch of the Bourbons.
Louis-Philippe was the great great great grandson of the brother of Louis XIV.
Today, one of the candidates who would be considered if France decided for some reason to restore her monarchy is a descendant of Louis-Philippe. His name is Jean, he’s often referred to as the Count of Paris and he’d be known as Jean IV if he became King. He is a great great great grandson of King Louis-Philippe I.
Because the main branch of the Legitimist branch of the Bourbon dynasty - i.e. the ultraconservative, direct descendants of Charles X - essentially went extinct with the death of Henri, Count of Chambord in 1883, who was the grandson of Charles X. Fun fact, when Emperor Napoleon III was overthrown during the Franco-Prussian War and France became a republic without a monarchy for the third time in its history, royalists in France, who commanded a majority in the French Parliament at the time, seriously tried to over him the throne. However, Henri refused to initially become king unless the French government literally banned the French tricolor, which was highly associated with the French Revolution and the Revolution of 1830 which overthrew his grandfather. Because of this decision, many royalists in Parliament were eventually voted out and France has remained a republic ever since.
I don't get what the big deal is guys. 99% of the video is factual, the rest is easily recognizable as his opinion, usually because he says "in my opinion." Who cares if he calls a stupid autocrat stupid, just recognize the bias and ignore it if you love monarchs so much. We really don't have to make everything about modern politics, we can just enjoy some educational entertainment🤷♂
@@seanm241 you’re 100% correct. It’s so silly to whine about HC’s bias because he isn’t playing the fucking centrist angle with actual 19th century authoritarian monarchists. It’s also not insightful at all, what’s the point in bringing up perceived bias when you immediately say “well everyone has bias”. It’s lazy analysis and commentary. Period.
@@Brysonhundley since you put it like that, this seems to be reflective of the general swing to fascism the western world is currently experiencing.
I don't think it's a coincidence that HC's first video after Trump's victory in the election got that outcry about his 'strong bias', considering these people seem comfortable now with openly stating their _true_ political beliefs. Even more so considering his video "Work", as far as I am concerned, pretty much confirmed he's probably a socialist, and even if I'm wrong about that and he's just leaning towards socialism or is more of a social democrat or whatever, well you think those people care about the difference?
@@Dawid23_Gamer the ole’ Overton window is certainly shifting right which shifts all of these moderates alongside them. Without any strong ideological anchor, they always assume validity in aspects of both sides and complain about the rampant bias everywhere because it’s easier to moderate between two perceived “extremes” than to think critically about your worldview. If you’re bitching about bias when someone is railing against a 19th century monarchist, you need to examine why you feel so uncomfortable with it
@Brysonhundley Seriously, at this point I'm just automatically suspicious of commenters calling bias here, because the "bias" is that he isn't going to hold their hand and act like the autocratic king and his cronies aren't incompetent stooges worthy of disdain. It's INCREDIBLY suspicious to call bias over something like that. If that's "biased" to you, that says a lot more about you than HC.
Edit: should clarify I am only talking about the people in the comments here, not VTH. Unfortunately what I think happened here is that VTH listened to those people and got a little too critical in compensation for not being so in part 1 (because said claims of bias are manufactured crap and there was no meaningful bias to contest), particularily when he missed the obvious Napoleon joke. I also don't agree that him bringing up that everyone is biased is pointless or lazy, it just isn't a good fit here. He's gone into more detail about it in past videos that are more insightful, he just shorthanded it here and without previous context and the fact that the bias claims are so paper-thin, it comes off strange.
I agree with you fully, I'm of the opinion that HC's bias is minimal and irrelevant, but I'm of a socialist mindset so I probably don't notice the bias as others do
Aside from you this is my favorite channel, I love your reactions to his stuff.
Huge fan of these videos man. keep up the great work please! On the topic of bias, I think it is unavoidable with history. History is inherently subjective, and as a result you can recognize and mitigate bias, but you can't truly eliminate it. That's why I appreciate that you point it out to keep in mind, and where appropriate, add or push back against some claims. It is an all too rare form commentary video around here.
I literally just checked as I sat down to eat and was sad you hadn't uploaded yet, and then here you are, with the absolute perfect timing.
Just to add to the "royalty use the same name over and over" -- Danish Kings have taken turns being called Christian and Frederik for a really long time, hence the current King Frederik X
Just like Prussia/Germany with Wilhelm and Friedrich, and Austria with Josef and Franz. The Netherlands probably wins in that regard though. Like, about half of their kings have the name Willem.
@@anderskorsback4104 Thanks for the additional information! I wonder if the dutch ever consider calling one of their heirs Dafoe
i think that historia civil’s editorializing made the video a LOT more entertaining and the storytelling more engaging. He’s not lying and it makes the video much more fun
I laughed out loud seeing the thumbnail, thanks for the video.
Gotta say, it's weird seeing Chris's face with a beautify filter on the thumbnails
I don’t think he’s very biased at all tbh imo
1:33 I think the main complaints about Historia Civilis' bias come from his staunchly anti-colonial sentiments in the previous video, which, obviously in the 21st century are perfectly the mainstream, but in a historic context don't really make rational sense when talking about the mindsets of people in the 19th century. For example, I believe he stated that France didn't have a really good reason to establish a colony in Algeria in 1830 and that it was essentially worthless territory. This is actually far from the truth, considering coastal Algeria was so economically and strategically important for France that it was part of France proper until literally 1962 (within very living memory)! In fact, the Mediterranean parts of French Algeria were so valuable that they weren't even officially colonies in the eyes of the French government post-1848 but rather officially considered a formal part of "Metropolian France" that could not be separated from France whatsoever. Millions of French and European citizens even lived in French Algeria similar to Europeans in places like South Africa, which is why the Algerian War for Independence in the 1950s and early 1960s was so bloody and nearly caused the French state to collapse into civil war.
I think a lot of him saying that more reflects public opinion on the home front and all of its issues which can be argued for a big reason in decreasing popularity throughout the next election. Innocence, that’s what the videos about the distinction between the aristocracy and the common man and why they were so heated in this time
@@kaelcrane2076 I strongly assume that there were quite a few who benefitted from the Algerian colony. - Those, however, were not so much on main street, where they payed taxes for an enterprise that stood in direct competition with the domestic market, given that wages in Algeria were lower: Agriculture, textiles, et al.
@ yes it’s also true that when we talk about revolutionary might in France we mostly refer to Paris. There should be more of a distinction made with the politics in Paris and the politics, especially in outer skirts of the country were way different.
Historia Civilis was not staunchly anti-colonial last video (although I of course suspect him to be overall) as he did not talk poorly about all colonies, but rather just about colonizing for prestige.
I'd also disagree with your opinion on Algeria and agree with Historia Civilis - there was no clear reason to invade Algeria at the time that would substantially improve conditions in France. Rather, the later genuine importance of Algeria to France was more a result of societal and economic investment after the fact into a proximant and relatively densely populated coastline as opposed to any intrinsic value France had in the area at the time of invasion; the importance of Algeria to France in the late 19th and 20th centuries was a result of the invasion, not the other way around.
Subjecting people has been wrong for a long time friend.
21:54 “if [napoleon] hadn’t been sent to St. Helena he probably would still be alive”.
I love this sentence out of context.
Long live Napoleon!
I dont think its really personal bias as much as it is a modernity bias. From a recency perspective most people alive would probably say Monarchies and autocratic systems are "bad".
I mean, on a large scale, they always were (imo), or more accurately, they were bad for the common people. It's just that back then, no viable alternative was able to prove itself because taking down these oppressive systems in itself is a pain, and trying to do so will get you an extremely hostile response from the entire world because if you can show to the common person that "Look, this system works far better and our people are happier and more prosperous and wealthier and everything!", that's gonna make the dominoes fall, and that inevitably means the people currently in power lose said power.
I was gonna beat around the bush but eh, I'll just be direct: This *is* a direct parallel to the world right now. Capitalism is just as bad as authoritarianism (imo, because in a certain light, they're pretty much the same. From a strictly internal standpoint, what makes the king or the ruling nobility of a country different than the CEO or the stockholders of a company?), it's just that no viable alternative was able to prove itself because establishing actual socialism in the anarchic enviornment of a revolution where might makes right is an incredible pain, and even if you do manage to do it (like Cuba), well guess what, the US is going to do everything in its power to destroy you, because they know that if such a country succeeds and becomes prosperous, the dominoes will start falling.
There is more to it now than there was to authoritarian systems back then alongside the fact that Capitalism has an expiration date (once AI develops to a point where it can replace a critical mass of jobs, the only way forward is transitioning to socialism, anything else just makes you inevitably go backwards by different amounts), but the parallel is still there.
Honestly as long as he dosent lie about historic facts or use wonky sources (like his work time video) i don't really care if a youtube creator has bias. It's not an academic work, and many historians also have clear and assumed bias. It sparks a discussion, which is healthy especially on such political and actual topics as this one. Plus, Historia Civilis has always had a bias, it's just more obvious in his recent videos because it's a more recent period of history
In the July Revolution, I did notice some very weird and biased language in the script. Referring to certain characters as "stupid," or dismissing counterrevolutionary monarchism as "the king's goofy conservative ideology." It's a strange way to talk about history, and makes it feel more like he's talking about characters in a play rather than living, breathing people who saw themselves as masters of their own destiny.
@@samfann1768 it does seem to be a growing trend though. Even with his Caesar + Augustus videos, he became increasingly more critical of certain characters (cough Antony cough) whether deserved or not
@@j-wilk4835 Yeah, kinda worrisome tbh. He was never as historically accurate as some channels (e.g. anything to do with Indy Neidell) but he didn't used to be quite this biased.
@@samfann1768Indy also has his biases etc tho
They just align more with the most common biases in the anglophone world so people are less perceptive of them
You’d be hard pressed to find even a well established and respected historian in academia whom doesn’t have one, it’s just in our nature unfortunately (human nature that is)
Yeah, his "work time" video was so wonky! The patreon comments were even split on that video. My criticism was that the Marxist book he sources for that video has such bias for which historical examples it cherry picks to make its point. HC was highly uncritical of it only pulling from Western history to establish supposed universals of human nature of what is an ideal work schedule.
In later productions, Chris shall be starring in Les Misérables - I approve of that tidbit of singing, sir!
14:40 Marmont never really fought against the Guerrillas all that much. He was mainly opposing Wellington's army and he was also only there for a year before he is wounded at Salamanca. You are correct though that this this kind of fighting does resemble the fighting at Zaragoza, which was the first real example of urban warfare in how we would understand it in a modern context.
Yes, he had a score of defeats, however the fighting resembles more to Napoleon's ambush of the royalist forces in Paris in 1795, also let me dissent with Zaragoza, there were plenty before,
@@omarbradley6807 I don't think so. I can't think of another example where a major city decided in lieu of fortifications to fight house to house on a large scale, like 10k men or more. I can't think of another time at least in the age of gunpowder that an army chose to fight like that.
I think you're reading into the biases a little too much. People watch historia civilis for the little quips and personality of his channel, you can find cookie cutter historical content elsewhere. I disagree with his political beliefs but still eagerly await his videos. Also "Napoleon wasn't long living nothing" is clearly a joke, you can hear him grinning when he's saying it lol. Still love your reactions though, hope you do more of his videos.
12:54 DO YOU HEAR THE PEOPLE SING? SINGING THE SONG OF ANGRY MEN. It is a music of a people who will not be slaves again.
Couldn't let the song go without getting to the chorus
When I had to start writing historiography papers, finding the bias in any source was always required and depending on the time that the source was written, it was either easy or hard to find.
New thumbnails are so much better man! 10/10
"long live Napoleon" comment was a joke and not really an opinion, saying he can't live long coz he's already dead lol
Mmm nah, Chris is correct, Historia Civilis DOES appear to actually have a highly negative view of Napoleon in general, just look at the Congress of Vienna videos. This jab/joke is totally in character for him.
@@YTuseraL2694I was talking about that comment specifically tho, at least that's how I viewed it.
@@supera2960 Many people watching his video probably didn't even know that Napoleon had already passed at that point. I think it was just a small joke with the true purpose of informing the audience.
I can't remember who said it but there is an old saying : " Kings are only overthrown by themselves." I might be paraphrasing but this is the perfect example.
I feel the hate on historia civilis is only made by some Americans who confuse what the original terms for conservative and liberal means
Conspiracy theory time, historia civilis sounds kind of like if Sam O'Nella pitched his voice up slightly
He never hid his bias. For example, in his Rome series, he talked badly of Caesar and Cato all the time while never criticizing Cicero. In the Congress of Vienna video, he spends the entire video talking shit about the Russians, Americans and Prussians, while flattering the British and metternich.
He does this in every one of his videos.
Yeah, funny enough he seems to be liberal, but he supports Metternich, so it weird
@@omarbradley6807 I think he's a socialist? (based on his "Work" video) Which I have no problem with. However, he has certain historical "characters" such as Metternich that he picks as favorites (seemingly regardless of politics) and presents them as doing no wrong.
I think one of the main sources of bias is that he doesn’t use multiple sources but instead picks one source to use as authoritative disregarding competing sources. In his work video he came off as extremely socialist but he chose Metternich a strong aristocratic conservative at his POV which was strange.
As I write this you have 3 replies and ALL of them are people presuming the guy's beliefs and treating something that doesn't fit that presumption as wierd instead of a sign that maybe the presumption itself is flawed.
10:08 The ghost of Admiral Nelson was with them that day.
So I think one of the things maybe lost due to watching it over two sittings is that we forget that the Paris guard was disbanded, or that the Algerian campaign had, as stated earlier, totally ruined the army's readiness for any kind of large scale disaster.... like hundreds of barricades going up in Paris and a full on revolution
You should definitely check out his video on the Bronze Age collapse! Very good and interesting video!!
Just a point Louis Phillpe was not the heir to the throne in 1830.
It's still a small miracle that Madam Giultine didn't get more work this time around.
well, such things happen today too: "Bloomberg reports that Assad has reached out to the rebels to signal that he’s ready to draw up a new constitution & hold political negotiations with the rebels"
he has an AMAZING video on the vienna congress it’s anazing
We're having interesting times (again) in France at the moment, so it makes this video all the more entertaining to watch. Thank you.
it's quiet impressive how dumb was king charles the 10
These events strongly remind me of the events of "Night Watch", one of the best novels of the Discworld anthology by Sir Terry Pratchett.
07:30 Louis-Philippe wasn’t the heir to the throne. Charles X had a son who was 55 years old at the time
Les Mis is technically referenced, but it isn’t from the July Revolution. It’s set in the Paris Uprising of 1832, when the more radical residents of Paris had a bad case of buyers’ remorse with Louis Philippe after several of Louis Philippe’s more popular ministers died in a cholera epidemic. It was Louis Philippe coming under fire from both the more conservative faction and the more republican faction at the same time because things sucked due to the rampant epidemic. Louis Philippe politically ran towards the middle, which left him open to attacks from both sides.
Yeah...I said it was from 1832.
The troops sent into Paris were Royal Guards, so technically they supported the king unconditionally, however the reality struck them hard, Marmont was the traitor to Napoleon, and he had been a right hand man of Louis XVIII during the hundred days, And the possible invasion of France, was actually a reality, until the Polish uprising than November, made the Tsar forgot about going into France, and then Prussia also backed down, and as the Duke of Wellington (primie minister then) was defeated handly by Foxite Earl Gray in Great Britain, the British didn't want a war with France anymore.
Ay Mista Talleyrand which a way da wind blow? Daylight come and it's time to switch sides.
Sixth boss, Seventh boss, Eighth boss, LUNCH!
Daylight come and it's time to switch sides.
27:53 that's a really good point, if I remember correctly, France never really recovered from the Napoleonic Wars until the 1850s or so
Usually even an inept and unpopular government can put down any insurrection easily, even when (like here) it is linked to a large popular political movement led by elected representatives, by relying on their (effective) monopoly on violent force. 1830 is the textbook example of how to screw up that last part. Not only did Charles not ingratiate himself with the common soldier to shield himself from the oppressed and hostile civilians (like all clever kings and roman emperos did) with his out of touch policies, but the ever-rebellious people of Paris, when egged on by the newspapers and (very, very hesistantly and reluctantly) by the liberal deputies to engage in a violent uprising against the goverment to seize control of the Capital and overthrow the king, had two additional elements bolstering their physical strength against the not-that-into-it army, one accidental and one brought about by massive stupidity.
The accidental one was the fact that Marmont, the guy who Napoleon's veterans hated above all others, was by dumb luck in charge of the Paris garrison that week. They viewed him as the literal definition of treason for his actions in 1814, something akin to a "stabbed in the back myth" as he was the one who surrendered Paris to the allies and a few days later marched his army over to them, when Napoleon tried to abdicate in favour of his son, rather than unconditionally, to force his old friend's hand. Fairly or not, those veterans viewed Marmont with more fury than American veterans viewed Benedict Arnold, and would have ripped him to pieces had he fallen into their hands in 1830. Those hopping-mad guys manning the barricades and directing the parisians was very very bad news for the government, to put it lightly.
The self-inflicted error was, wait for it, that when Charles disbanded the Paris national guard (20k strong) he did not (repeat, he DID NOT) confiscate their guns and ammo when he declared them all unworthy of protecting his government and too liberal for his liking. Really, that decision will forever stand firm for me as the single most bone-headed move EVER made by a Bourbon, which is really saying something. It will not come as any surprise to anyone to learn that these guys swiftly re-formed themselves in the chaos of 1830, and very much joined the people to kick Charles off of his throne and restore both their personal, and to them France's, national honour, as the guard stll saw themselves as THE defenders of the gains made the revolution of 1789, and the pride and glory of "La Nation". They were formed and initially led by Lafayette after all.
So yeah, an unusually firm resistance backed by guys who knew how to fight and very eager to topple the king, against an out-of-touch moron whose own officers and men despised him and mass defected to the liberal opposition within three whole days, followed in the week that followed by the whole rest of France (HC didn't cover this, but basically not a single major french city tried to rally around Charles or voice any initial strong opposition to the events in the capital, and the few officials, commanders and mayors who tried to do so were pretty much everywhere swept out of power without a shot being fired in anger). The result was probably the smoothest transfer of power out of any revolution, ever, before or since. You reap what you sow.
22:04 he still had a son who became an officer in Europe. he died aged 21 tho.
Can someone please explain to me how pointing out that Napoleon was dead was opinionated?? Especially after Chris had said the same thing immediately before
In fairness it’s hard not to be biased against the bourbon monarchy.
"I don't like the election results so we're going to change it so that never happens again." Now why does that sound so familiar?
Why would someone who feels that they are entitled to rule feel the need to read the room?
If you wanna learn more about the streets of Paris and how they got remodeled, watch the video on Napoleon the third from biographics he remodeled the cities to make sure that these kind of barricades didn’t happen
The new thumbnails are so zesty 😂
Love your reactions to these. Hope to see you continue with his Roman videos soon.
No joke, I once had a dream where I was Louis-Philippe, watching the French Revolution from "across the street," watching my dad Phil Equality (formerly Louis-Philippe the Duke of Orleans) get tried for treason. It was a trip.
I’m a little late here but wanted to add something:
Charles X ruled and made decisions the way we did because he felt Louis XVI gave in too much during the French Revolution. Was it correct? Most say no. He also was the most radical politically of his brothers. His actions throughout his reign were based on if he gave an inch he would lose everything again.
Second, something that gets lost in the July Revolution was that information was delayed by hours even days due to the barricades causing problem for scouts and messengers. Polignac and the King were not working on the same information Marmont was as it had been so delayed to get to them (the King was out hunting during the Three Glorious Days). I think these factors are what destroyed the Bourbons.
love this video on a revolution i knew little about, and also your input and reaction. Greece (my homeland) at the time had its independence war, and that was heavily influenced by the ideas of nationalism and liberalism that had swept europe. Kings and Generals has done a great series on the Greek War of Independence if your interested. it shares a lot of common points with the american revolution as well
Fun fact: Spain was also, at in the early part of the 19th century, dealing with it's own incompetent, despotic Bourbon king. And given that Louis-Phillippe's own reign would end with revolution, it's astonishing at just how inept the house of Bourbon was after Louis XIV.
Historia Civilis' Rome videos are quite hard to watch. He treats Marc Anthony and Caesar so roughly and with a clear negative bias, but the videos are so freaking good
Hi VTH, I'd wonder if you have heard of American History Tellers. They are a podcast but they do have their episodes here on TH-cam.
Do I se a "What If" video out there in You Tube's future sometime soon?
If there are any VTH Patrons here, or if you are here, Chris, you should react to the second Metatron video. The follow-up video to the one Chris has already reacted to.
Edit: yay, I got a name shout out. My actual name, I mean. It's pretty uncommon but there it was. Thank you! :)
I’m bummed he didn’t mention Lafayette giving Louis-Philippe the “republican kiss” on the balcony of the palace
France having lots of Louises in the royal family goes way back. The first Christian king of France was Louis I. Well, Clovis, in the old Frankish of the time, but he counts as the first Louis in French regnal numbering.
16:45 Imagine how downgraded Marmont is now under the monarchy compared to the times of Napoleon when he was literally in the Emperors close circle of friends and had freedom to tell pretty much anything to Napoleon.
28:56 Not really at least to my understanding. He was forced out in 1848 so he has likely 20 years left in the tank.
The Les mis was good. By far my favorite musical. The general who dies in 1832 in the play is the real name of the real General. Les mis is also a dramatized true story as the author (Victor Hugo) participated in the riots with the students and survived! And finally the best part is that the king in question in Les mis is the very same king that met with the liberals and went against his cousin who was king during this video!!
Ps the bias is definitely apparent I agree.
22:38 Not at all. I love the editorializing
Can you do a ranking for the best historical dramas?
DUDE! The reason to use article 14 is somewhat similar to the recent coup / martial law situation in south Korea 😂. The argument that the liberal opposition is semi treasonous north korean sympathizers is crazy.
Since you feel the need to share your preference about historia civilis’ videos, I’ll say I like your videos more when half of your analysis isn’t about what you perceive to be “bias”. You did the same thing on his video on Julius Caesar. You don’t go into depth about the specific reasons you disagree, you just generalize it as “bias”. it’s not insightful and isn’t a critical analysis of what’s being said in the video , it feels very clear that you just do that when you don’t agree with the characterization being shared.
I agree completely.
By the way the text.of those stories was all the same. It was a portion from the encyclopedia about Dune found at the end of Dune by Frank Herbert.
I don't think Civilis is inherently more biased than anyone else when it comes to retelling events, he's just very open about it and doesn't pull punches. It takes passion to be strongly opinionated on these things, and knowing where he stands gives me more reason to look into it myself to come to my own conclusions. That said, I think it would go over better if he reorganized it in a sort of Cronkite style, in which he tells the story first and then has an end section giving his opinion on how he interprets events and his takeaways. I think it's the intermingling of story with opinion and when he gives his opinion that is more bothersome to viewers than what he's actually saying
Keep in mind as well that this was coming off the of the "Year's without a summer", the peasants were still practically in famine, routy, and blaming their governments for issues out of their control. Charles X gave the peasants legitimacy to these claims, and threw gasoline in the flames.
So when is the PoliceActivity reactions VTH?!?!?
Im kinda surprised of your slight criticisms of historia civilis biases when a channel like extra history are 10× worse.
I've rarely gotten that feeling from EH videos.
The problem is that the Bourbons king's still believed in divine right of rule and it seems that the death of Louis XVI had not learned.
That is the same problem the house of Stuart equally failed to learn in Britain, that once the people's representertives have effective some control, the old hereditary systems of government were "going to be reformed"- it is this "revolution" which for me is the movement of the new "industrial age" of the late georgian/ early Victorian era.
To be fair, Louis XVIII definitely remembered 1789, and was ready for any concession or gesture if it meant keeping the throne. Charles X also remembered 1789, but took away the wrong lessons from it. He believed the Revolution happened because Louis XVI was too hesitant and soft, which isn't necessarily wrong. However, he then persuaded himself that the way to go was to be firm in all circumstances, and that if he ignored the events and the changes they brought altogether, he could somehow turn back the clock.
The reason why "Louis" was the name so often given to French Kings is because the first man who united all Frankish tribes in the aftermath of the collapse of the Roman Empire was named "Clovis". He became Clovis I of the Franks.
Take "Clovis", remove the "C" and replace "V" with "U" and you get "Louis".
So, obviously Historia Civilis is biased, but I feel it is so fairly done that it's not even worth the time to discuss it. In my mind he makes it abundantly clear (if not directly stating) when something is his opinion, and while some historical facts are omitted, it's never enough to make me seriously think Historia Civilis is cherry picking what parts of history he presents; certain discussions are just more worthy of being in his videos than others.
So, I fail to see how bringing this up repeatedly (both in the comments and in the video) is even productive. At the very least, I find it unfair and boring.
With you mentioning that the places in Europe that started experiencing more liberal revolutions due to Napoleon having exerted his influence and power there, would you argue that Napoleon is possibly among the most influential people in world history? Because I really can't imagine how different the world would be had the revolutions of the 19th century not occured.
"...would you argue that Napoleon is possibly among the most influential people in world history?"
Without a doubt. The man ranks up there with men like Caesar and Genghis Khan in just how tremendously influential they've been in world history.
Nah, the material conditions for them and an example of British liberalism would still be there so the revolutions would still come one way or another
It's pretty much an inevitable cycle. Conservatives resist any and all change (see the definition of conservativism for some insight) until a critical mass is reached sparking a revolution. Then the cycle starts again.
The guy coming back to France with the message of victory arrived one day late. Maybe, if the people would have known the french army has won the battle of Algiers, some of them would have voted differently. Juqt like Sherman taking Atlanta helped Lincoln.
Louis is a modern version of Clovis, king of the Franks just after the fall of Rome. It's the time when France become the kingdom of the franks and later France instead of Gaul.
Louis Philippe wasn't the heir. Charles X had a son and a grandson
For the americans, 3 meters is nearly the height of a basketball hoop
I'm surprised he didn't mention this name once : La Fayette.
The republicans wanted La Fayette to become president. He wasn't too keen so the liberals asked him to support Louis Philippe. When he joined Louis Philippe, the republicans knew the game was lost for them
When Marmont fled Paris after the Revolution and another former Marshal of Napoleon Jean-De-Dieu became Prime Minister he prevented Marmont from ever returning to France due to his betrayal of Napoleon in 1814.
Yeah, Napoleon held a pretty strong grudge for the rest of his life toward Marmont after what went down in 1814.
By Jean-De-Dieu, do you mean Marshal Soult?
Chris what is going on with the thumbnails lmao
Please watch Historia Civilia video called "Work"
Funny thing is Macron tried this too and it went badly for him
Can you please Do a video on the Cambodia genocide?
I think it would be important to consider that your identity as somewhat conservative, lowercase C, is relative. Why not read Karl Marx's ten planks in his 1848 Communist Manifesto, half of the planks are things you'd likely agree with. Banning child labour, that's a winner. Or else they aren't really political problems these days like the idea of cultivating the wastelands (which is a bit of a confusing proposal but as best I can tell it's related to the way that land enclosure was working in the 300 years before his manifesto was released) or confiscating property of emigres (IE what King Charles X was for a while). If even one of the most radical people you can probably think of writes something that you'd agree a decent amount with, then someone in the ultraconservative bloc in France in 1830 is really going to be off the deep end. Wanting things as basic as a free election by universal suffrage is basically a no brainer to most people, Charles almost seems at times like someone who wants a prize for even the smallest bit of human decency.
As well, I believe that Historia Civilis was writing this story the way he did in part because of the circumstances of democratic backsliding today. There were already plenty of books and some videos that you could watch to see the 1830 revolution explained. What Historia Civilis might be doing is showing the role of democracy as a stabilizing force, peaceful transfers of power, reducing corruption, entrenching the rule of law, and free media all do.
As well, given the war in Ukraine right now, he has an extra narrative to show that autocrats invading their neighbours for arbitrary and egocentric reasons is not new as an existential danger to millions of people, and why a stronger democracy can be used to reduce the risk of the absolute catastrophe of war. When you look at the July Crisis in 1914, those politicians were not usually beholden to a strongly democratic system, and while many of them were tragic cases and few among them were personally at fault for the Great War, the environment in which they have to politically act, that leaders got their way into power often from a worldview where war could be noble and necessary in ways we would not agree it was, it clouded their judgments and put the wrong people into positions of power at the wrong time, all to do something as devastating as it ended up being that killed hundreds of millions of people with the effect it would end up having down the line.
They have guillotine addiction.
I’m confused what people are complaining about regarding bias here? Not to say he’s not giving his perspective, but can someone enlighten me?
Are we talking about liberals and republicans vs conservatives? Are people taking that to mean liberals and conservatives in modern day? Or something else, I just see vague “bias claims”
He was adding his own thoughts as a result painting the king in a even worse light he also left out some details tbh
@@jordanquimby854what historian does not do that? There is no objective view.
Basi ally the roundaboit version is some people are injecting modern politics into it by accusing him of injecting modern politics. That they disagree with.
This didn't really start til after the Work video. Before that the biggest complaints were about him clearly dislike Mark Antony and Augustus.
Please take a look at Simple History’s new video: “Biggest Idiots in War”. I think it would make for a great review.
One thing though in this context regarding bias: I think we all share civilus's bias because the vast majority of us are Liberals. That is the Ultra Conservatives are the Royalist, pro Monarchy. Most of the audience regardless of which modern political wing you are on, are anti Monarchy.😉
so royal really have no imagination with names like in germany with all of the wilhelms or england with henry or george
Historia civilis has a very typical Canadian bias. Not saying thats bad or anything, it's just how most canadians generally are taught and see things.
You cant "push back" against facts. The French didn't like the king. That's why he wasn't cheered for.
He stated napoleon was dead. And you complained about how you enjoy his videos are better when they stick to history... That was history.
Yeah he said " that' wasn't the point though", like yeah duh? it seemed like an obvious joke. Whining about bias provides absolutely nothing insightful to the video at all, I can't stand when he does that shit. You can't say "bias is inevitable" then critiscize it when you don't like it lmao
"Just give us the history"?
You give your opinion on things all the time, i would let others do as well