This is the best take on this question I've ever heard. I could hardly agree more on every point. It's just sad that some audiences don't have the intelligence Goldsworthy assumes they have, and aren't interested in understanding the past; they just want a passionately told story that makes them feel morally superior. In fact, this is probably the majority of the general public, so while I dislike that some authors pander to it, I'm hardly surprised by it.
Your channel is a gold mine of Roman history for me and many others. I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to give us your hard learned knowledge in a digestable manor. Beyond that Ferox is badass, just read my first book of yours (The Fort) and it delivered. Perfect amount of real life detail interwoven with the story you craft, absolutely excellent. I always look forward to your uploads long or short.
When i see this question i immediatly think of how Nero is portrayed in the writings we have describing him. As far as i can see he may have been a little out there but no more than many others who have much more flattering legacy. All due to how their lives were chronicled and the reasons behind that. I can very well see how a learned senator may see Nero in a bad light as he gave them short shrift so document his deeds and actions in a less than flattering manor.
Thank you very much for your time, Professor. The self reflective aspects of writing history are absolutely fascinating to hear an authority speak about and ground it in our beloved field. Bravo.
Such an important lesson about history. One which is not always adhered to! As someone who also has an interest in WW2, I find some history of the period does fall into trying to fit a narrative and national prejudices can creep in.
Congratulations on 100 videos. Looking forward to many more. The question you answered in this video was a good one and very relevant considering how we are now seeing Statues being torn down and names of famous institutions being changed due to their association with unpalatable parts of our history. As you say in your answer " with the past we have the advantage it's already happened, it cannot be changed.....the past has happened, ranting about it, complaining about it, condemning it doesn't change that reality. The reality is something we need to understand because it helps to tell us more about human beings which tells us more about ourselves". I agree. As a nation we are now seeing our Poliical leaders and representatives apologising for the way the British Empire treated the people of the countries it "conquered". That may be the right thing to do but people living today can't be held responsible for something that happened in which they had no part. If I was to find out that someone today had a relative in the past that had murdered or mistreated my Great Grandfather I wouldn't be justified in expecting an apology or some kind of reparation. So, not only should you approach history " without anger or without passion" or prejudice but you should also appoach the present without anger or prejudice otherwise history will have taught you nothing.
It's like Lysenkoism. If you're doing science in order to promote a political agenda, it's going to be junk science. Similarly, politically-motivated history is usually junk history.
I suspect a historian might be significantly influenced by external pressures from wider society to deliver a skewed narrative. These pressures might be political or market driven. My father is convinced one prominent WW2 historian is not above appeasing the US market by, perhaps, over egging their own contributions to the war. It must take a great deal of moral courage not to succumb to such pressure.
@@Zhohan- Well, "decolonizing history" isn't inherently bad if it leads to questioning a triumphalist Euro-centric narrative, paying more attention to marginalized people in history, etc. It's similar to feminist history, which has led to a greater understanding of women's role in history. However, you still need to study history in an intellectually honest way. You need to follow the evidence where it leads you, rather than towards a predetermined ideological goal. And you need to understand history on its own terms.
@@Unknown-jt1jo I completely agree. I worry more of academics and historians taking it too far when the goal should be objectivity to the best of your ability.
@@Unknown-jt1jo it’s perverse because it does the opposite of what you’re suggesting. It takes a practically exclusively Western worldview and ideological perspective and overlays it on history with all of its associated baggage and distortion. The language you use to describe it is in itself loaded. Just because it considers itself post-“insert euphemism”, doesn’t mean it’s any less blind to its biases than any preceding prism in its own lineage.
There’s that video, ancient Rome explained in 20 minutes with 10 million views, video made by Russians talking about the class struggle, A perfect example of the point you’re making Adrian
I disagree slightly with Adrian on the fringes of what he says teaching about the past should be. Certainly I agree with the basic work of teaching the general history of empires - trying to stick to the facts and trying to understand the mindset of the people in any given situation. But at the same time, there are so many ways people come to the classroom already influenced by their culture's presentation of the past that they are often will fail to think individually about the historical presentation at a higher level. To say that everyone is human and that simplistic narratives of good versus bad does not mean that some social institutions are not worse than others, that individuals and groups do not have moral agency, and that better or worse visions of the world have not emerged through history which are in fact in opposition within those very societies of the past. This is really more meaningful in the 'subtle' aspects of past societies (particularly empires) that are harder to evaluate because they lack a clear modern counterpart or because it has effects in the present we are taught to ignore. Thus the value of being able to think about past events at a higher level, which does not come easy. In other words, the student's ability to think in sophisticated ways about issues of morality in relation to past events is underdeveloped for want of practice and good example. That is exactly where higher level debates about the past can be useful. So on the one hand the good historian does present the past in ways that bring the student to consider facts or perspectives harder to come by from casual, uncritical reflection, there should be more to teaching the past than that. Religious education, some kinds of philosophy and literature sort of did this previously even as today's students benefit from them less.
research funding institutions unfortunately dictate what kind of history is studied and many are unfavorable or even hostile to understanding the past on its own terms
History on its own terms, is an oxymoron. The recording if events in chronological order isnt History. Facts need context. What the teller of the History decides are relevant contextual facts is what gives a History its leaning/bias. The possible motivations, biases, beliefs of historical actors are what inform their decisions and actions, and what give a context and meaning to the events they act within and contribute too. "History on its own terms" is a delusional phrase with no meaning. It pre-supposes events 'just happen'....in order . Its nonsense.
Thank you, sir, for being a voice of reason in a field increasingly tainted with ideological nonsense. I recently watched a video on the subject of Sulla, wherein the presenter denounced anyone in modern times who might find anything admirable about the man as reprehensible. Editorial opinions are not history, nor is narrow-minded critical theory. Honest attempts at objectivity broaden the mind.
Mary Beard annoys me because she hones in on aspects of antiquity that she will mock, admire or condemn based exclusively on the ideological proclivities of contemporary institutional power. Her leanings aligning with that power is the primary reason she and many others are in their high profile positions in my opinion.
@@teddyjackson1902 I've watched a few of her BBC documentaries. They are certainly well made and have some interesting content, but the commentary tends to get on my nerves. I won't be buying any of her books. I wish that I could just listen to historical podcasts and TH-cam presentations without having to divide my attention and also listen closely to determine if there is any linguistic propaganda in play.
![F.HERO Ft. JSPKK x ลำไย ไหทองคำ x M-PEE - ไม่สนิทบิดหมด (Thai Riders Anthem) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kPJZ0UihBfk/mqdefault.jpg)
This channel continues to deliver the goods
Congratulations on the 100th video!!! I eagerly watch/listen to each one as soon as I have time!!
Standing ovation for using "spleen" in a sentance. Thank you kind sir, you made my day. 😻 🎉
This is the best take on this question I've ever heard. I could hardly agree more on every point. It's just sad that some audiences don't have the intelligence Goldsworthy assumes they have, and aren't interested in understanding the past; they just want a passionately told story that makes them feel morally superior. In fact, this is probably the majority of the general public, so while I dislike that some authors pander to it, I'm hardly surprised by it.
Your channel is a gold mine of Roman history for me and many others. I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to give us your hard learned knowledge in a digestable manor. Beyond that Ferox is badass, just read my first book of yours (The Fort) and it delivered. Perfect amount of real life detail interwoven with the story you craft, absolutely excellent. I always look forward to your uploads long or short.
When i see this question i immediatly think of how Nero is portrayed in the writings we have describing him. As far as i can see he may have been a little out there but no more than many others who have much more flattering legacy. All due to how their lives were chronicled and the reasons behind that. I can very well see how a learned senator may see Nero in a bad light as he gave them short shrift so document his deeds and actions in a less than flattering manor.
100 Great vids, I enjoy every single one of 'em! Congratz!
Thank you very much for your time, Professor. The self reflective aspects of writing history are absolutely fascinating to hear an authority speak about and ground it in our beloved field. Bravo.
Great videos, excellent answer.
100 videos! Wohoo!! How exciting. Here is to the next 1,000 - so grateful for these. Fab question and could not agree more with the perspective.
Thank you, Adrian.
Such an important lesson about history. One which is not always adhered to! As someone who also has an interest in WW2, I find some history of the period does fall into trying to fit a narrative and national prejudices can creep in.
Just what the best historians should try to achieve. A good philosophy for the discipline.
We'll always be here for your long videos, feel no shame, sir.
Im here either way, Road to 100,000 subscribers.
Proud to be apart of the first 2k
The longer the better for this Roman history anorak!
Congratulations, Professor.
Congratulations on 100 videos. Looking forward to many more.
The question you answered in this video was a good one and very relevant considering how we are now seeing Statues being torn down and names of famous institutions being changed due to their association with unpalatable parts of our history.
As you say in your answer " with the past we have the advantage it's already happened, it cannot be changed.....the past has happened, ranting about it, complaining about it, condemning it doesn't change that reality. The reality is something we need to understand because it helps to tell us more about human beings which tells us more about ourselves".
I agree. As a nation we are now seeing our Poliical leaders and representatives apologising for the way the British Empire treated the people of the countries it "conquered". That may be the right thing to do but people living today can't be held responsible for something that happened in which they had no part.
If I was to find out that someone today had a relative in the past that had murdered or mistreated my Great Grandfather I wouldn't be justified in expecting an apology or some kind of reparation. So, not only should you approach history " without anger or without passion" or prejudice but you should also appoach the present without anger or prejudice otherwise history will have taught you nothing.
Congrats! You'll reach 200 in no time at all.
Thank you Prof G!
Hurrah! Centurion Goldy.
"Nice one Centurion"
Such a great idea to answer each question like this, and of course, congrats on 100!
Great question , this is one of my pet hates .
100 videos? Many left for me to enjoy then :)
Congratulations on 100! A great response to the question
Glad to see the subscriptions grow.
What is on that shelf 🤔! 🔍
too many people from all sides of the political spectrum, use history as a weapon to seek power today.
It's like Lysenkoism. If you're doing science in order to promote a political agenda, it's going to be junk science. Similarly, politically-motivated history is usually junk history.
I suspect a historian might be significantly influenced by external pressures from wider society to deliver a skewed narrative. These pressures might be political or market driven. My father is convinced one prominent WW2 historian is not above appeasing the US market by, perhaps, over egging their own contributions to the war. It must take a great deal of moral courage not to succumb to such pressure.
Often it is quite obvious when a historian identifies too much with the object of study. Modern history has this issue more often.
Meanwhile my history program at my university and many of its professors push forward the notion of “decolonizing history.”
@@Zhohan- Well, "decolonizing history" isn't inherently bad if it leads to questioning a triumphalist Euro-centric narrative, paying more attention to marginalized people in history, etc.
It's similar to feminist history, which has led to a greater understanding of women's role in history.
However, you still need to study history in an intellectually honest way. You need to follow the evidence where it leads you, rather than towards a predetermined ideological goal. And you need to understand history on its own terms.
@@Unknown-jt1jo I completely agree. I worry more of academics and historians taking it too far when the goal should be objectivity to the best of your ability.
@@Unknown-jt1jo it’s perverse because it does the opposite of what you’re suggesting. It takes a practically exclusively Western worldview and ideological perspective and overlays it on history with all of its associated baggage and distortion. The language you use to describe it is in itself loaded. Just because it considers itself post-“insert euphemism”, doesn’t mean it’s any less blind to its biases than any preceding prism in its own lineage.
Sure the Romans were murderous tyrants, but they made nice roads.
Monty Python
There’s that video, ancient Rome explained in 20 minutes with 10 million views, video made by Russians talking about the class struggle,
A perfect example of the point you’re making Adrian
Marxian analysis is simplistic and obtuse.
I disagree slightly with Adrian on the fringes of what he says teaching about the past should be. Certainly I agree with the basic work of teaching the general history of empires - trying to stick to the facts and trying to understand the mindset of the people in any given situation. But at the same time, there are so many ways people come to the classroom already influenced by their culture's presentation of the past that they are often will fail to think individually about the historical presentation at a higher level. To say that everyone is human and that simplistic narratives of good versus bad does not mean that some social institutions are not worse than others, that individuals and groups do not have moral agency, and that better or worse visions of the world have not emerged through history which are in fact in opposition within those very societies of the past. This is really more meaningful in the 'subtle' aspects of past societies (particularly empires) that are harder to evaluate because they lack a clear modern counterpart or because it has effects in the present we are taught to ignore. Thus the value of being able to think about past events at a higher level, which does not come easy. In other words, the student's ability to think in sophisticated ways about issues of morality in relation to past events is underdeveloped for want of practice and good example. That is exactly where higher level debates about the past can be useful. So on the one hand the good historian does present the past in ways that bring the student to consider facts or perspectives harder to come by from casual, uncritical reflection, there should be more to teaching the past than that. Religious education, some kinds of philosophy and literature sort of did this previously even as today's students benefit from them less.
You’re talking about a subject other than history.
100 Videos over 5000 subscribers.
You are now a Legatus even though you came from the barbarian Island of britain but you warned it
research funding institutions unfortunately dictate what kind of history is studied and many are unfavorable or even hostile to understanding the past on its own terms
History on its own terms, is an oxymoron. The recording if events in chronological order isnt History. Facts need context. What the teller of the History decides are relevant contextual facts is what gives a History its leaning/bias. The possible motivations, biases, beliefs of historical actors are what inform their decisions and actions, and what give a context and meaning to the events they act within and contribute too. "History on its own terms" is a delusional phrase with no meaning. It pre-supposes events 'just happen'....in order . Its nonsense.
Thank you, sir, for being a voice of reason in a field increasingly tainted with ideological nonsense.
I recently watched a video on the subject of Sulla, wherein the presenter denounced anyone in modern times who might find anything admirable about the man as reprehensible.
Editorial opinions are not history, nor is narrow-minded critical theory.
Honest attempts at objectivity broaden the mind.
Mary Beard annoys me because she hones in on aspects of antiquity that she will mock, admire or condemn based exclusively on the ideological proclivities of contemporary institutional power. Her leanings aligning with that power is the primary reason she and many others are in their high profile positions in my opinion.
@@teddyjackson1902 I've watched a few of her BBC documentaries. They are certainly well made and have some interesting content, but the commentary tends to get on my nerves. I won't be buying any of her books.
I wish that I could just listen to historical podcasts and TH-cam presentations without having to divide my attention and also listen closely to determine if there is any linguistic propaganda in play.