The Historian LEX FRIDMAN Interviewed Is WILD
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ย. 2024
- Link to my new Interactive Adventure
• Project P.C.I. - Inter...
Link to the original podcast episode I'm responding to.
• Gregory Aldrete: The R...
On this video I react and provide commentary to the new episode of Lex Fridman podcast dedicated to Roman history with his guest historian Gregory Aldrete.
The Roman Empire stands as one of the most influential and enduring civilizations in world history. From its humble beginnings as a small city-state to its zenith as a vast empire spanning three continents, Rome's legacy continues to shape the modern world in countless ways.
Rome's history is traditionally divided into three main periods: the Kingdom, the Republic, and the Empire. The Kingdom period, spanning from the legendary founding of Rome in 753 BC to 509 BC, was a time of monarchical rule. During this era, Rome was governed by kings and began to establish itself as a significant power in the Italian peninsula. The period ended with the overthrow of the last king, Tarquinius Superbus, and the establishment of the Roman Republic.
The Republican era, lasting from 509 BC to 27 BC, saw Rome evolve into a complex political entity governed by a system of checks and balances. Power was distributed among various institutions, including the Senate, consuls, and tribunes. This period witnessed Rome's expansion beyond the Italian peninsula, conquering territories across the Mediterranean. The Republic faced numerous challenges, including social unrest, slave rebellions, and civil wars, ultimately leading to its transformation into an empire.
The Imperial period, beginning in 27 BC with the reign of Augustus, marked Rome's transition to rule by emperors. This era saw the greatest territorial extent of Roman power, encompassing vast swathes of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. The Empire reached its peak during the Pax Romana, a period of relative peace and prosperity lasting about two centuries. However, internal strife, economic difficulties, and external pressures eventually led to the Empire's division and gradual decline, with the Western Roman Empire falling in AD 476.
Throughout these periods, Rome's military played a crucial role in its rise, maintenance of power, and eventual fall. The Roman army was one of the most effective fighting forces in ancient history, known for its discipline, organization, and adaptability.
In its early days, the Roman military consisted of citizen-soldiers who served seasonally. As Rome expanded, it developed a more professional standing army. The basic unit of the Roman legion, the cohort, typically consisted of 480 men divided into six centuries. Legions were supported by auxiliary units, often composed of non-Roman citizens who brought specialized skills such as archery or cavalry.
Roman military success was built on several factors. First, their tactics and formations, such as the famous testudo (tortoise) formation, were highly effective. Second, Roman engineering skills allowed them to construct roads, bridges, and siege engines that gave them significant advantages in warfare. Third, their ability to adapt and incorporate useful elements from conquered peoples' military practices kept their army at the cutting edge.
The Roman navy also played a crucial role, especially in securing control over the Mediterranean Sea. This naval dominance was essential for maintaining supply lines and projecting power across the empire.
Roman military prowess was not limited to battlefield tactics. They excelled in logistics, maintaining supply lines across vast distances, and in siege warfare, developing advanced techniques and machinery for taking fortified positions.
The Roman military was also a vehicle for social mobility and cultural assimilation. Soldiers from across the empire served together, spreading Roman culture and values. Veterans were often rewarded with land in newly conquered territories, helping to Romanize these areas.
However, as the empire expanded, it became increasingly reliant on foreign mercenaries and faced challenges in maintaining loyalty and discipline among its troops. This, combined with external pressures from Germanic tribes and other forces, contributed to the eventual decline of Roman military power.
In conclusion, the Roman Empire's journey through the Kingdom, Republic, and Imperial periods represents a remarkable arc of political and social evolution. Its military, a cornerstone of Roman power and expansion, reflects the innovation, adaptability, and organizational prowess that characterized Roman civilization. The legacy of Rome, particularly its military achievements, continues to fascinate and influence the world today, offering valuable lessons in strategy, organization, and the complex relationship between military power and political stability.
#lexfridmanpodcast #ancientrome #lexfridman
Link to my new Interactive Adventure
th-cam.com/video/AeHThdbAgJA/w-d-xo.html
Link to the original podcast episode I'm responding to.
th-cam.com/video/DyoVVSggPjY/w-d-xo.html
I knew you'd react to this podcast! IMHO it was WILD, and to me Lex Fridman is this fake version of Larry King grifting here and there for views and surrounds himself with these guests as if he's holier than thou but like I said IMO.😂😂
It's time you should be on Joe Rogan or Lex
One thing I would like to point out, the historian said Americans were in Vietnam for 20 years, we were in combat in Vietnam for 10 years 1965-1975 and we actually ended combat operations in 1973
Never believe a Friedman. Or a -berg, or a -stein. 👌🏻😂
Do more of this metatron
people literally think Hannibal was a black dude, it amazes me what people will believe
They are free to believe it and free to be wrong of course.
That was a common believe during the Early modern period where he was frequently depicted as a black african so that idea goes back quite far
@@metatronyt Well the problem I have run into when discussing this with them, specifically in person is they dont think history is even real. So you cannot even argue with them on the subject because you and they have two entirely different sets of "evidence" they claim what the Russian math guy wrote Anatoly Fomenko is the true history, I am reading his "work" right now but its very hard to follow and im not a good reader, us modern humans hate reading
@@theghosthero6173 can you point me to where he was depicted as a black african, have not seen that myself and am interested to see it
he was a Phoenician, and Carthage in particular was known to have a thriving industry of child sacrifice
if you really want to talk about what people have no clue about
Don't forget Raff, that just because he's a professor doesn't necessarily mean that he knows more than you. Or, perhaps more importantly, understands more. True understanding requires wisdom.
14:36 I'm not sure he said they were thinking about keeping the population going, lol, I have to say...maybe I didn't hear correctly...I think he's just saying that's what they would need to do in order to keep it going...like we can look at a beehive and see how many births a queen has to have in order to keep the colony's population at the same level before we swatted a whole lot of bees, lol...the bees themselves might not be thinking about things like that...
32:45 Maybe I heard wrong, again, but what I think he means when he says it's "oppressive" is not the memorization in itself, but the fact that knowing what your ancestors had achieved puts pressure on you, on what you do...they show that with the portrayal of Brutus in Rome (the two-season HBO series)...he's tormented, lol, perhaps the most tormented character in the series (without anything actually happening to him, like losing a battle or being under siege and the situation being hopeless like Mark Anthony near the end, or Pompey earlier in the series) ...he wants to live up to his ancestor, etc, and that is enough to cause him torment...he does many things he doesn't want to do in the series for the sake of his name, of the impact this will have on the perception others have of him...there are probably people that live somewhat like that today, lol, some cultures are probably more prone to that type of thing than others, non-individualistic societies, but also Westerners who want to live up to their parents, to not be in their parents' shadow...hell, lol, someone I know is currently watching Lincoln, the 2012 Spielberg film, lol, and Robert Lincoln (not sure how he's usually called, Lincoln's son) seems a bit like that himself...he is constantly conscious of people comparing him to his father, etc, he wants to join the war, because, he says to his father: "I can't be you, but I don't want to be nothing [...]", lol...from time to time I hear stories of this guy not wanting to be in his parents shadow, etc...that's a taste, perhaps, of what it's like to live in the shadow of your ancestors...I would imagine it was like that for the Romans too, lol...even if it's all they know, if they are not exceptional, they might feel like they are falling short of this or that ancestor of theirs, etc...or perhaps being ok is fine, lol, but doing something positively bad is tarnishing the family name...it being part of your culture, I would imagine, wouldn't make it any easier to bear, lol...
..that said, lol, I have no idea if 2012's Lincoln is accurate in that respect, I just wanted to use that example to show the type of thing...I could have cited Spider Man, lol, from 2002, Harry Osborn feeling like he's disappointing his father, wanting to do everything to please (trying to have Mary Jane dress a certain way, say certain things, I'm not sure how it went, lol)...
A simpler analogy...two macho guys, lol, meeting in an alley alone...same insults, they don't fight...one of them might get insulted without reacting...and the same people fight if they are in public, lol...they pressure of what other people will think can make the whole difference...you do something you don't want to do just because of what other people will say if you don't, lol...Brutus killing Julius Caesar because of what people will think if he doesn't, given his ancestor...if he didn't have that ancestor, he wouldn't be under such pressure...he wouldn't have to live up to him...people reminding him of his ancestors could only help, lol...but it's still because he had that ancestor that he feels obliged to do anything...
He’d no idea why caesars men followed Octavian.
He puts it down to him adopting Caesars name and not the fact he immediately promised to fulfil Caesars promises and then did pay out of his own pocket which got him immense loyalty from the legions with other factors.
also just baked in loyalty. Some of those guys were on campaign with Caesar for their entire adult life. Naturally a lot of them were going to side with whoever wanted to get revenge. Caesar's will also included some wild stuff that gained him popularity, which I think is what you're touching on.
Octavian also inherited a ton of Caesar's money as well, which is left out. Octavian was made the richest man in Rome overnight because of Caesar's will. It would be like if you woke up tomorrow as Elon Musk with his wealth and a retired general with loyal troops at the same time.
@@ihaveachihuahau That is...not exactly the case. Mark Anthony was the one holding Caesar's wealth, and he lawyered up and basically ensured Octavian got next to nothing of what Caesar left him. Octavian had to employ all the tricks of what would become his political acumen in scheming and conniving what money he could get his hands on selling personal property and from allies ostensibly in Anthony's camp to undermine him.
Letting it get out eventually that Octavian was paying off debts and committing to Caesar's wishes out of his own pocket rather than with Caesar's money is what won him his own popularity with many veterans and the people.
I think people put too much credence into the idea that just because Octavian was named Caesar's heir, that meant he was immediately handed pots of money. It simply was not the case.
@@Blisterdude123 I meant though, at the moment Caesar died, everyone heard from the will that Octavian was the main heir of Caesar, and they would've all thought he was incredibly wealthy. Antony used his public office to basically block it for a while, but part of the reason Octavian "inherits" Caesar's legions is because they all believe he also inherited the money as well. So that was part of why they followed him. Then, he turns around and uses what Antony does to gain even more good will from them and solidify their support by taking loans out and paying what they were owed. He only could get those loans with the promise of his inheritance though. That was a big boost to his image. It's like having AAA credit in the ancient world. Despite what Antony did, they all still believed the money was Octavian's. Antony could only hold it back for a little while. Caesar owned a ton of property and businesses as well, which Octavian did get a lot of and Antony couldn't take. Antony just took most of the liquid cash. Octavian did immediately inherit quite a lot though in terms of like assets. But he needed cash on hand to pay troops and Caesar's will (he promised money to every Roman citizen in his will, Octavian was expected to pay this). So maybe I did exaggerate too much with Elon Musk, but it's like if he started out as Warren Buffet and eventually became Elon Musk after he finally got his full inheritance. He was very wealthy without that money Antony took. It just would've taken him too long to sell assets off and stuff like that.
I had you in mind when I watched this interview😂😂
Me too!
Hiyaaaaa dear Leader
Same!
lol
@@SnailShoes lol
I know you’re doing episodes, but one thing he said at the very end of the podcast needs special attention: he said that Alexander “failed” in Afghanistan. This is modern propaganda. He founded a Greco-Roman slash Greco-Indian civilization that lasted 300 years after his death. If that’s a failure then I wanna know what success looks like.
Yeah I was like huh??
Which put the base for Buddhism as we know it by later it being one of the pillars of asia.
@@adaptivegamer9905 It comes from (very effective, tbh) propaganda from America’s adversaries and anti-war activists to persuade the public to abandon Afghanistan. “Why even try in Afghanistan? Even Alexander failed!” It was repeated even by troops and personnel in Afghanistan. Probably as a method to demotivate them.
Bactria was there for about 180 years.
@@friendlyfire7861 The merged with the Greco-Indian kingdom.
When historians and scientists are also political activists, that's when you know the downward spiral is inescapable.
There is nothing wrong with that, the problem is when they start mixing facts with propaganda.
I dunno, Snyder is a bit of an activist for Ukraine. That has not devalued his research.
@@PalleRasmussen Generally speaking, when all major institutions are captured by shitlibs and therefore nobody can be trusted, you're circling the drain.
Did you even see the video?
@@ernestogiusti5802 it would seem not. Or maybe he did not interpret it as you.
Im soo happy you did a video on this when Lex announced he was going to do a pod on the Roman Empire and i was scream typing METATRON! into his comment section
Hannibal didn't "win" cause he attacked into Italy. He won each battle individually, and if you want to learn how he "won", you'd need to look at every single battle.
it's a bloody 20 year war, there's so much to it that could never be encapsulated in even a 3 hour conversation. Though if anyone is curious on the topic, I'd definitely recommend Hardcore History's 3 part podcast on it. He also has something like a 12 hour podcast on the fall of the roman republican which is worth a listen too. And another doozy on the Gallic wars with Julius Caesar
Hannibal was the living embodiment of 'you won the battle but lost the war'. He could defeat Rome in the field time and again, but he could not defeat the 'idea' of Rome, if it didn't want to be beaten. It was too big, and and he was one man with a shrinking army, in a hostile land.
I watched this interview on Friedman's channel. The prof didn't say anything not aimed at a mainstream US audience knowing almost nothing about the Roman Empire. There is something sophomoric about the exchange in this interview. Was nice of Lex to dedicate an episode to history for a change.
Thats also why i avoid Documentaries produced in the US, if i can.
I dont like the dumb down style, and what they think is dramatic background music
@@hanshenrikbuttner9340yep. A lot of talking down, coddling and 'they didn't know better' or the way conclusions are drawn and presented.
The word "Empire" he used probably alluded to the more acceptable connotation of "a large state possessing colonies", not in the strict and narrow historiographical sense. Consider "the Soviet Empire" (a totalitarian state seeking to expand the Communist ideology but formally "a union of republics"), the French Empire of the Third Republic, etc. In this sense, an Empire might not necessarily be a monarchy.
Also, if you go pedantic Octavian never abolished the Republic, so the notions of "Empire" and "Republic" coexisted. As such, the Roman Empire is not an entirely correct term.
That wasn't a slip. If you apply ambivalent conventions, he can too.
Yes, the legions’ eagle rose and controlled colonies outside of Italy, thus projecting the power of Rome aka the imperium. Although, many of those conquered societies were very advanced and so my guess is that to modern eyes it clashes with the notion of overseas colonies drained of their natural resources or underdeveloped, for example when we think of the British and French Empires.
I guess that before speaking any historian would need to explain the framing to understand a past reality: otherwise stereotypes will lead the discussion.
@@gs7828 To piggy back off that, "imperium" itself is a word that comes from the power that the republican magistrates had to rule over a province. If you were the governor of a province, or the consul, you had "imperium" over that region. So the term that "empire" comes from was even being used during the republican period. The consuls had "imperium" over all of Rome for example. Eventually the emperors themselves had "imperium" over the entire empire as well as extra powers.
"Everyone should be an activist" was what I heard, not all the time, but frequently while I was in college from certain professors, certain social media directed towards my demographic (young adults, usually in college). I also heard people, students and teachers, say "everything is political" which means that everything has an impact on political goals (hindering or helping), and that since everything has an impact on politics then everything should be seen through a political lens.
I admit that everything does have political impact, and you can see everything through the lens of politics, but I disagree that the conclusion should be always viewing things with a political lens. If everything becomes political, every statement, every decision, is treated as having political intent, then everything begins to feel like politics. When people act politically, they tend to see everything (and everyone) as a political tool for advancing themselves and/or their political goals (or the political goals dictated by the "Party" or "Movement" etc. Intentions then are seen as a charade to get something, not what they appear to be on the surface. And as the political trends change, so do people who are deep into the political lifestyle (mostly politicians, but also people who live by the maxim: "Everything is Political"). They have to change their values and outward behavior to show solidarity and support for the cause, even if it means contradicting themselves and putting aside lifelong values they've cherished. The sole purpose, the sole virtue is driving forward the political machine. Marching on to victory not matter the cost. Unless they realize that they've gotten in too deep.
Not everyone who follows politics or expresses political opinions are like this, but this extreme behavior is being pushed as normal and virtuous, but I believe it places the political party/movement above any other morals and values, which concerns me. Political parties are not exempt from being co-opted by people whose goals are not conducive to morality and truth.
That air of paranoia only ends with it morphing in to a self-fulfilling prophecy like in the greek myth about the father awakened by a prophet to fear of murder from his son by his very action ends by the hand of the son. Real politik did a number on the old european empires because if you only think of your own self-benefit and all do the same with you and the rest presume all will stay like this forever only end like our old folks from the continent. I will be direct with it meaning I only see it as a fog raised by profitors parasytes to make a quick dime and the deluded idle to feel good at our expence.
Did me eating 2 pieces of toast instead of 2 eggs this morning have any political impact? Did me taking a large sh!t this morning have political impact? While you strain your brain coming up with total BS, realize this is exactly what academics and "intellectuals" do all day to try to justify their mostly useless and unproductive existence.
Someone posted a comment that I was about to reply to, but has been deleted. Let me know if I missed something. I’m happy to clarify my point or address any criticism if I got something wrong.
If you are studying politics or anything to do with power or economics then it's probably good to be able to see things through a prism or lens of politicians and politics itself, doesn't mean you have to subscribe to anything you view through that lens. Regardless of what ppl who don't go to college or university think or feel, and no one should be policing their language or behaviour to suit stupid ppl.
I heard "the personal is political" alot in school
I really appreciate that you commented on farmers never “seeing art, etc.”-my mom grew up on a farm in a rural area and they absolutely sometimes go into town for supplies, etc.
I imagine farmers too would go into town to sell their wares. And when you’re there of course you can see the sights if you want to for a little bit.
I’ve paused the video at this point to comment.
But it’s annoying when people think that farmers and their families just threw around mud all day-like what is teased (which is fine, it’s a ridiculous joke) in Monty Python.
My mom went to college to become a nurse. She did great in school. And happened to meet her husband at college who ended up being a “city boy” and the rest is history.
Whereas my sister and I are city folk. But, our grandparents on our mom’s side and my mom are country folk.
Personally I actually prefer my country relatives. But can’t claim anything but a city lifestyle.
In a way, I think living in nature is the best expression of art. I mean, many artists do go out purposely into nature for inspiration.
Farmers get the freshest food-my mom talks about this sometimes too-how the food she ate growing up directly from the farm was the best.
Obviously the big difference is money.
But, it’s not exactly as bad as many people today think, a life on a farm.
He was an interesting guest, but I got the feeling he had an idiosyncratic take on things.
All of Fridmans guests are. He just sits there and let's them talk. Its basically Ted talk with a guy in a suit.
Yes, let the guest talk, it's the point of the Podcast.
It has to be brief and understandable by a larger crowd. Compromises.
I really liked that Lex episode so thank you for covering it on the channel.
I beg you release more episodes reacting to this historian, I watched the podcast and it's awesome. He's very passionate about history
He's constantly applying modern eyes and letting it massively influence any analysis.
@@ObieOnce then it would be cool to see metatron address more of his points, as he did in this video, about that. You don't have to agree with something to watch it in my opinion. Watch it, discuss it, disagree or agree, conversation should be promoted
@@Dylanhya agreed, I don't mean to imply his commentary has no value simply that it needs to be addressed as what it is:
applying a modern left leaning lens to Rome, not an attempt at a neutral perspective.
@@ObieOnce what makes it a left leaning perspective?
@@ObieOnce nothing left about it. More pop-culture like
“Progress is change, but not all change is progress.”
Deceptively simple- looks easy and obvious but why did no one think of it before being pointed out?
So what?, we trade in transhumanism for militaristic slave society bullshit?
Completely agree with bad teachers and curriculum failing kids and their love of history. As an adult i love history and with the right teacher i would of loved it as a child. Taking each child and figuring out their interests and channelling that in the direction of history is really needed
Would've*
@@nss309 Thank you .See education is important 😂
Man everything that is coming from North American and European "Experts" is just propaganda this days.I miss the time that we cold have honest experts talking about history and other topics with out sound so preachy.
No. These crazy people just are platformed because crazy takes get a lot of views. I wouldn’t even call most of them try experts. You can’t just seeing a handful of interviews and just say that all experts in a nation think that way.
That's the Colleges and Universities indoctrinating their students aswell as the professors. You'll get more credit if you think a certain way...
Metatron is European, bro, and I'm sure there are good experts from America. Don't throw away the baby with the water,
Yeah, being something of a scientist myself, it's so frustrating seeing these vacuous people get screentime that is disproportionate to the quality of their "expertise"
I don’t care what u say. Cleopatra was black.
*.........,This Series Never gets old.., the effort they put into these is amazing 🙌Thanks🍑🍒*
Your bot pic looks like a pair of shaven testicles.
I love this format.
It's kinda delayed dialogue which in my opinion is much better than a life debate because everyone has time to think out a response.
Hello. I'm Algerian and I'm Berber. I'm more French and Roman than anything else. Thank you for bringing civilization to us a couple millennia ago.
What about the advancements to civilization contributed by your own culture? I don't mean to be confrontational, but I had thought most N Africans had strong cultural and national ties as well as colonial influence.
Berberist detected 🙄
Just proves that Berbers had no civilization of their own.
Also, I had thought Arabs contributed significantly to the fields of science and mathematics (admittedly I haven't deeply researched what these might be, specifically).
@@FireflowerDancer don't listen to him, he is certainly a Berberist and proud to still be colonized in his mind (just by saying he's French says it all). I'm Algerian myself, both Arab and Amazigh and very happy that our history includes the Roman empire being present, we still have beautiful remains of incredible cities, palaces, bath houses etc... in our country. But saying it brought civilization while the Berbers also had their rich own way of life is crazy and delusional.
I kept commenting about this on other videos. Can't wait to watch your video
did i watch the 4 hours interview? yes
did i watch metatron's 43 minutes video too? absolutely
im glad some of the points metratron added in between the lines were mentioned in the later parts of the original video
The Fall of Civiluzations channel did one on -I think the Assyrians... and there was this one tablet they translated I'll never forget from a teenager away at scribe school who wrote to his mother about how his clothes weren't as cool as the other kids and how she must not love him... like LITERALLY some things never change in humanity.
The idea that small town farmers "never saw art" is also classist. People make art, everywhere, throughout time. Did they see famous artists that people learn about today? Maybe not. But they SAW ART.
I agree with you
Semantics. You know what he meant.
When I heard that in the podcast it did not make sense. Like, cavemen made art in their caves when they were hunter gatherers. So he's telling me that Roman farmers spend their whole life without making a song or carving a statue?
Is even more shocking because in a part of the podcast he clarifies that there's a mistaken assumption that people from the past are less intelligent than the people of today.
And then he turns around and says that farmers never saw art.
He meant high art and what we consider iconic about that society.
No people weren’t people in the past!
The important people, the generals, kings, and priests were all a "derivation" from the people. You cant understand why a king did a certain thing if you dont understand what his people believed and cared for. Its a fascinating relationship.
Well, you've left me wanting for more, so please do so. It was both enjoyable and insightful, looking forward to the next episode of this. Cheers.
I watch most of Lex's content but was apprehensive about diving into this one, and I thought of your channel at the time and whether you would agree with this guy. So, I'm really glad I abstained because you put out this video, and it's even better having your commentary and fact checking alongside it!
SERBIAN HERE 😂
Before the 1991-1995 wars, there were around 5% Muslims, 5% Catholics in Serbia ..... aaaaand nobody was killed or expellled during this whole time in Serbia, and the percentage is still the same.
There was a large economic exodus of people since 1991. so there's over a million people less in total.
There was a large influx of Serbian refugees who had to flee Croatia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1999. and leave their homes ( since medieval times )
In any case, having heard what this historian said, about how Serbs are traditionalists ready to kill people "because of some battle in 1200" and then looking at the data and seeing that nobody got expelled and there was no warfare or oppression against Muslims or Catholics here.
He just seems a bit lazy.
He's pushing a Western Liberal narrative, it's not really dependent on reality.
My biggest issue with this episode was the way that he referred to Scipio as "this guy" and that the battle of Zama was sort of an afterthought.
C'mon man, only a Hannibal fanboy would not acknowledge Scipio as one of, if not the greatest roman generals of all time. Zama and letting the elephants go through the ranks is one of the most iconic moments in roman history.
Although I must say that overall it was a pretty good episode. And it's also good that you're reacting to it and commenting, it always helps listening to informative critique. Makes the bigger picture clearer
I get both your points, I like Scipio's life as well, and amazed by some of his things, the elephants as you said, but also the capture of New Carthage for instance. Also, it's not "som random Carthiginian generals" he defeats in Spain, it's Hannibal's brothers, who had already defeated and killed Scipio's relatives.
However, I also get his point. Hannibal is the main guy of the Punic Wars, and there's so many guys of Rome you need to talk about that are more famous than Scipio, like Caesar, Augustus, Aurelius... So there's not that much time to elaborate. I would've liked he elaborated more on the Grachii brothers and the wars between Marius and Sulla, but it is what it is.
Cheers from Barcelona!
Scipio's best battles were not even Zama as well. What he did in Spain was insane. And the fact that he personally raised the army he took to Zama, not the Roman state. He just told them "hey can I make an army and go conquer Africa?" and the Senate agreed. He got a bunch of his own veterans together and just sailed off to Africa. This was during Fabian's reign as consul with the whole Fabian strategy. He's definitely one of the top Romans, this guy seems to have some grudge against him or something, lol.
Metraton is being obnoxious here. The historian is focusing on a certain aspect that is more alien to us, he is NOT saying that it is the ONLY factor
“Never traveled” and always stayed home. That is a weird statement - even very remote areas usually have traditions to travel at least once a year to trade cows/sheep’s - mixed with religious events and theatre. Now that might be only a few per village (or many if all the fighting age men will attend) so in a given year most might stay in villages - but not throughout a lifetime.
Yes that’s exactly what I thought too.
Yep. And he threw out such a definitive phrase as seemingly hard fact that seems odd to me.
Definitive statements are not something often heard from a historian when covering such a broad subject. (It at least rarely should)
"One afternoon Hannibal kills about 60,000... Liberty Mutual customers..."
Nice commercial transition.
😂
The problem with the American perspective is that it's corrupted with politics.
And here, I don't mean left-right-demo-pub-country-leading-ing-ism, but rather "x is immoral therefore don't teach it." It's like a level above what's presented as political; yet it's the same.
For example, any teacher I had from grade school would have called killing immoral, but all supported the actions taken in the World Wars, etc.
None of them wanted to explain to a grade schooler why violence can be good, and as a kid who was self-aware long before my contemporaries, this made me mistrustful of people
People, and not "adults" because I didn't understand that I was different from them at that time until I was in my 30's and my friends started having kids.
do it man. love this format. just do the whole thing. your commentary makes it really cool and informative.
This is the first time I've ever heard about traditionalism in Rome, it's fascinating, that topic deserves a video on it's own.
Congratulations on 1,000 videos, Metatron! 🎉🥳
Watched until the end, very cool hearing both perspectives...
I think "empire" wasn't used in strict definition of Roman system but the way Rome functioned.
Exactly. Is more of a way to speak of a powerful country rather than the actual political system which of course was the Roman Republic at the time.
You think or you know for sure
The possessions of Athens are also often referred to as the Athenian Empire, even though that's not what we would technically call an empire.
@@roddo1955 that's called figure of speech.
I lost it when he referred to Domitian as 'another nutjob'.
That nutjob was one of the very, very, VERY few Roman emperors to actually fix the issue of inflation and prove to be a very competent administrator!
He's only a 'nutjob' in the sense that he didn't toe the line with the Senate.
I absolutely appreciate your content, period. Furthermore, because you invited feedback for this particular format, I have even more adoration. Keep up the great work Metatron, I find your perspective(s) extremely valuable for history nerds such as myself! 👌🙌
At the Battle of Cannae Hannibal’s troops wiped out eight Roman legions; their losses included 80 Senators and 30 Tribunes.
Kind of hard to hide the deaths of senators and tribunes.
That bit where he mentioned reading something that sparks sympathy with those of the past, that's one of the biggest reasons I got into Classical Japanese. When I read the opening to Sei Shonagon's "Pillow Book," her descriptions of different seasonal scenery struck a very deep chord in me and made me want to know more about the language to understand these people's thought processes better. Also, it was a surreal experience with me, a modern, lower middle class American man feeling like I was connected to an aristocratic Japanese woman from a thousand years ago. It was incredible.
Just watched this a couple of days ago and was thinking of sending you an email to review it. Seems like you were already one step ahead of me!
Grateful for my enthusiastic history educators! TY
Can you do a video on that guy who keeps popping up on TikTok in like a lecture hall, lecturing on literally every era and topic history
If it's the bearded spectacled bloke who says that Arabs invented everything, hot water included, just let him cook in his broth of ignorance, let us ignore him...
Definitely enjoy this format. And I'm glad I watched the whole thing before. You're giving me contrast where you disagree (and especially where I didn't have the additional information) and expanding thoughts on where you agree. Looking forward to the next chapters.
Yes!!!!! I wanted you to comment on this one!!!!!
Great video adds a lot of value to the Lex Fridman podcast. Thanks for creating it.
Please continue this! Your insight is very useful and appreciated :)
This made me think how cultures develop. I'm a Lithuanian and Baltic tribes whether you see: history looks so alien, but also so close to s heart. Some left over customs, some religious celebrations are still celebrated today. But you hear languages that sounds so foreign, you might understand only a few words, culture also so different! And yet they are ancestors and people from which I was born after all these years.
I loved the format, would be great to see another episode.
I asked on another one of your videos but I feel like this is the best place to ask : I would really love if you did some long multi-part rise and fall of various empires.
Pretty please with a cherry on top
As somebody from the balkans, the serbia anecdote by the professor told me all i needed to know about his background
I don't know, this feels like metatron is nitpicking, i quite frankly liked the podcast interview
The podcast was awesome. The professor was great.
You and TikHistory are some of the Best Chanels on Historic subjects❤
"The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there." -L.P. Hartley, The Go-Between
Was hoping and waiting for this 😁
Great work. While Lex often doesn’t push back on things it’s good to have a more informed response/rejoinder. Hearing more than one perspective on the same thing is great. Also the decorum and care with which you present your rejoinders speaks to your faith and values. I consider it a great example.
The biggest difference between the ancient world and the modern world? Electricity.
I would 100% love to see multiple episodes covering this pod cast, especially because its a break from the more recent stuff of just destroying low hanging fruit (ex hanibal was sub saharan)
although still important to talk about it is nice to see something like this.
The infant mortality issue was a thing even into the 20th Century. My grandparents had 2 children die at less than 2 years old, and they still hadn't been named, and the headstones named them as "Baby ".
English isnt Romance at all. it's structure is Germanic and languages are classified via ancestral links to earlier languages by grammar and syntax. Romanian has a lot of Slavic vocabulary vis a vis Italian or French, but it's still Romance.
So romanian can be under romance being 60% slavic but english *which we can't even dare to categorize under romance languages* having 70% of its words being latinized hodgepodge s with sprinkles of germanic world structures can't be given the same brevity?
@@IbnRushd-mv3fp Yes, English borrows words, vocabulary, from Latin. English also borrows words from almost every other language as well. The STRUCTURE of English is Germanic, and the language is rooted in Germanic. English is a special language in that it takes words and vocabulary from all over and adopts it. That doesn't change the roots of it though. People who speak Spanish also use English words, that doesn't change the roots of Spanish in Latin though.
Lex is the Man. He hosts folks with all kinds of views. It's actually refreshing...even if I don't agree with all of them 100%
I'd love to see you continue the reaction to these sorts of historical talks. I very much agree with you that a lot of these people that will talk about history in the public eye tend to lean on modernism a little too heavily, perhaps so that they don't seem "out of touch" to the audience they are speaking to, or maybe they are unable to be unbiased in their interpretations, so it's nice to have you critique those points.
I thought this video was interesting and would love to see more. Honestly, a commentary on the entire podcast would be fine by me. Hope you do a part 2, and maybe even 3, 4 and 5.
First, LOVING the daily uploads. And all the different types of content.
Found this reaction video very enjoyable. I always enjoy your commentary.
Thanks I’m glad to hear! See you tomorrow
I enjoyed this video commentary, thank you, and look forward to the following vids if you do any.
02:35
Of course we're talking about the republic here but AFAIK, 'empire' has two meanings:
▪︎A state reigned by a monarch who for some reason isn't called a king but an emperor, or
▪︎a bunch of lands subdued by some state called the motherland which in itself can be a republic, like the French colonial empire.
Adrian Goldsworthy has his own TH-cam channel. That would be my go-to for this kind of information.
This guy: talks about Brutus's ancestor overthrowing the government and changing the entire structure of government as an example of how the Romans resisted change
Brutus' ancestor was the man who killed the last king of Rome (He was shockingly also called Brutus). By tradition, he was expected to follow in the footsteps of his ancestor (and kill a king). They didn't touch on this in the podcast. It was a traditional thing for Brutus to do what his ancestor did. The tradition at that time was the Republic, not a monarchy. He helped kill Caesar to maintain what was left of the republic.
I watch both your channel and Lex’s. I enjoyed your analysis. Good episode
Thank you. I’ll go watch the whole interview before you drop the rest of the videos. Just because it was in my watch later list anyway 🤪🤪 Thanks again and I am really enjoying your channel.
This is why I appreciate Pieter Bruegel's work of everyday peasant life and landscapes of Dutch & Flemish Renaissance period. I lends a better veiw of what people were like.
I listen to the entire podcast and have been listening to you for months. I have to say you two are very much aligned. Many of the points you mention he gets to later. Love listening to you both.
That was definitely interesting. I like the quote: "Progress is change, but not all change is progress."
thanks for covering this!
You have to leave out bias when looking into history. Not holding the past to the standards of today. You have to be impartial in order to grasp the bigger picture.
Thank you so much for this😊. As I was watching Lex's original podcast all I was thinking was I wonder what Metatron thinks about this? 😂
When I listened to that podcast every point you bring up I was thinking the exact same thing.
Yes please do more videos like this . I very much enjoyed your commentary . Please do more, especially from Lex Fridman
glad ur making more content. u the man. i greatly appreciate u for sharing u knowledge, experience and perspective
There is a problem at the start, when he compares Rome and Carthage. At the start he is saying how Rome and Carthage started at the same time and that's not really a truth. Carthage is much older than Rome and by following the ancient writers, we could see that Carthage was Rome before the Rome. Plus, 509 BC Carthage and Rome are signing the treaty of the sphere of influence. But all in all, brilliant podcast.
I think he more meant they both rose to prominence at the same time as like regional powers. Carthage was a little older, but they gained most of their regional influence around the same time as Rome did.
Mongols looool. What laws or languages or religions did the Mongols spread? The British Empire stands on the shoulders of the Roman giant, as does ALL of Europe since the Western Roman Empire fell. Rome is the greatest. End of story.
Assuming a base life expectancy of 40 years in pre-industrial societies, once early childhood deaths (32.5% before age 1, this number included in the total of 45% before age 15) are removed, the average life expectancy for individuals surviving past age 1 rises to 59.3 years, and for those surviving past age 15, it increases to 72.7 years. Human life span, once past childhood, has been relatively stable for millennia, not drastically changing throughout history, provided stable environmental conditions (that is, absent exceptional periods of famine, war, disease, etc).
I loved it, please continue.
I do not think he meant that women literaly thought they needed 2.1 surviving children to have a stable population.
Rather that they gave birth to many children and needed to to do so because so many would die. You coudlnt just get 1-2 and be 99% certain they would reach adulthood
Exited for the next episode
This should be fun!
I’ve watched Dr Aldrete’s two extant Great Courses in their entirety and found them quite good.
Love the format, I’d watch 30 hours of this
I was waiting for this…
"It was not oppressive, it was normal". ANd slavery was normal to a slave, doesn't make it not oppressive. Not in the modern culture wars definition, but in actual objective meaning. And wether being oppressed by ancestors to behave a certain way and not how you want is good or bad is up to you to decide.
Please do more of this!!!
Diseases like Tuberculosis , Typhoid fever, Pneumonia used to kill many children usually from birth to 5 or 6 it was almost always deadly for them. I know examples from my familial history of that happening up until the early 1900s. For example my great grandfather had 12 siblings, 5 of them died aged 10 or less, 7 of them lived to be adults. He did say an average person so i would agree.
Would love to attend a symposium with professor Andrete and Matatron where differences in perspectives bring more depth and of course understanding, and maybe reveal new lines of research for further discussion.
Dude LOVE your channel. What you are doing here is super important. Separating the truth from lies.
I appreciate that thanks
@@metatronyt I’m curious about your accent/dialect-do you mind if I ask where you’re from originally?
"Love" perhaps would not be the same. Romanticism in the 1800's changed a lot of things, like the individual being the protagonist of his own life story. The "individual" as an universe in itself.
One example of that is the change in the authoral attribution of an work of art.
What do you guys think?
I think his thing about the "power of the past" was really just his nerdy way of commenting on the difference in how we view ourselves and our families. Its true that today we have a more nuclear family structure and emphasis on the individual, while ancient Rome and other pre-modern societies iften treated the family as the primary social subject and most people's lives were in relation to their broader family.