YouTube Historians/HistoryTube/PopHistory

I agree, too many “blue states” are conservative rural territories lorded over by a few major cities (Penn and Philly, Illinois and Chicago, Michigan and Detroit, etc.). Redrawing state lines would probably do a lot of people good as they can finally escape what I can politely describe as an abuse relationship.
Redrawing the electoral districts might help too. Call it gerrymandering all you want but the big cities have way too much political power.

When it comes to electoral college and abolishing or reforming it whatever candidate gets the voting district gets the vote for that district or whatever instead of the current system where Upstate New Yorkers shouldn't even bother voting exists.
 
Atun-Shei from across the pond made a video about Boudica:
local archive:
coming soon Josh fix your shit

I haven't watched it because all of her long form videos are garbage meanderings, plus her accent is annoying.
I don't watch her because she's female and British. Funny that the rare female history youtuber predictably takes this opportunity to play dress up.
 
I know this isnt historytubers per se...
But in response to this article frog poasters have been ceaseless in their mockery.
sharing the gems:

Screenshot_20231114_184609_Chrome.jpgScreenshot_20231114_164424_Chrome.jpgScreenshot_20231114_181323_Chrome.jpgScreenshot_20231114_184645_Chrome.jpg
The quote tweets are all really funny worth a gander
 
Last edited:
Hopping a little late on the "thinking about Rome" band wagon, this guy does a really nice video on the Early Franks and the Founding of the Merovingian Dynasty. The only real issue is that he relies a little heavily on St Gregory of Tours but true source criticism is a little autistic for a normie intro into a historical topic.
 
Last edited:
Hopping a little late on the "thinking about Rome band wagon", this guy does a really nice video on the Early Franks and the Founding of the Merovingian Dynasty. The only real issue is that he relies a little heavily on St Gregory of Tours but true source criticism is a little autistic for a normie intro into a historical topic.
Yes, we should also think about The Holy Roman Empire everyday.
 
I have to vent about all the hobby historians in the current age of empires 2 fandom. They seem obsessed with adding more campaigns for civilizations outside of Europe while bitching whenever someone points out there's like 4 India campaigns but nothing for the Vikings, the Chinese, the Japanese, the English, the Koreans, or the Eastern Romans, they want a campaign for a civilization we know barely anything besides a name and the ruins of a solitary city, rather than one for Belisarius conquering half the Mediterranean
 
But in response to this article frog poasters have been ceaseless in their mockery.
sharing the gems:
The kicker is every review that's come out has made it clear the movie goes out of it's way to shit on Napoleon as impotent, petulant man child whose military acumen is questionable. So it is actually 'Purely Socioeconomic Factors'. Shame, but I should have figured when I saw Ridley Scott and Apple involved.
 
petulant man child whose military acumen is questionable
I vaguely remember reading Blundering for Glory(i think that's the title) that had that as the thesis and being very unimpressed, its really obvious that he was something special when you compare the french victory rates with him in command vs him not in command.
Edit: Turns out i misremembered the thesis of the book its actually more about Napoleon's ability to improv and his almost Alexandrian ability to read a battle and make the right decision
 
Last edited:
I vaguely remember reading Blundering for Glory(i think that's the title) that had that as the thesis and being very unimpressed, its really obvious that he was something special when you compare the french victory rates with him in command vs him not in command.
Edit: Turns out i misremembered the thesis of the book its actually more about Napoleon's ability to improv and his almost Alexandrian ability to read a battle and make the right decision
Yeah, the movie's not that subtle. It's just a tear down for being a great man. From here:

Phoenix commits to the portrayal of Bonaparte as a petulant child throwing tantrums. Even his claims of military genius are narcissistic lies that can often be disproven by observers, yet he doubles down on them.


The film delights in undercutting Bonaparte's bravado at every turn. For example, even when he claims the Russian throne, it's caked with bird poop with pigeons providing a fresh supply overhead.
While the script by David Scarpa and Scott's production take an irreverent tone towards Bonaparte's presumed accomplishments, they also highlight the thousands of French and allied soldiers who died.

'Presumed accomplishments'. Amazing stuff. DGSE should greenlight a kill order on Scott. They'd probably do it too
 
Last edited:
France went from a bankrupt nation being invaded by nearly all of its neighbours to the most powerful empire in the continent in the span of a decade forcing everyone from Portugal to Russia to bend the knee but remember guys, this was all purely thanks to 'socio-economic factors', Napoleon was just an angry manchild who bumbled his way into victory after victory purely by luck and nothing else.
 
France went from a bankrupt nation being invaded by nearly all of its neighbours to the most powerful empire in the continent in the span of a decade forcing everyone from Portugal to Russia to bend the knee but remember guys, this was all purely thanks to 'socio-economic factors', Napoleon was just an angry manchild who bumbled his way into victory after victory purely by luck and nothing else.
This shouldn't be controversial. As the man himself said, 'I found the crown of France lying in the gutter, and a complex and nearly unknowable interaction of trade, cultural exchange, wider social process too subtle to possibly record guided it to my sword. Right place, right time, really. Could have been anyone.'
 
France went from a bankrupt nation being invaded by nearly all of its neighbours to the most powerful empire in the continent in the span of a decade forcing everyone from Portugal to Russia to bend the knee but remember guys, this was all purely thanks to 'socio-economic factors', Napoleon was just an angry manchild who bumbled his way into victory after victory purely by luck and nothing else.
I am a firm believer that Great Man Theory has only been trashed by mainstream historians because a failed Viennese artist believed in it.
 
My favourite BobbyBroccoli (real name was Brennan McKay I think) moment was in his second Bognadoff twins video where he shows Bog memes including several censored ones but he forgets to censor a virgin vs. Chad one that has the word faggot in it and that's the one that appears on screen the longest while he pontificates about the gamer words used in Bog memes. I think is the same video were he sort of admits being a commie.

I like his work, I have shilled for him before but yeah, he is a wanker. A specific kind of wanker that goes beyond lobbyists are cringe amirite. If you watch his videos you know for his family history he comes from stock that has seen the tech and economic history of Canada (he mentions the company that fired his mum in the Jan Hendrik Schon video and in the recent Nortel one he mentions his grandpa moved to Ottawa for another big company). I always skip his segments shilling for Nebula because the moment he was accepted there is the moment I lost all excitement about his uploads.

I recently found this geography channel that has the same gimmick about copying Jon Bois style of video making, it has two videos: Ohio and Oklahoma. The first one made me realize Andrew Jackson wasn't this maverick that always got his way and led me on a rabbit hole about if maybe a part of him wanted to prevent the Indian Removal, the second one is a bit painful because it has these awkward segments of a guy that doesn't know how to lit himself apologizing for saying Indian while recognizing some tribes and official organisms use the term. Otherwise both are great videos. Why cant Americans just say indigenous or aboriginal? I cant wait for Gen Alpha to call them OG Landers.
 
Why cant Americans just say indigenous or aboriginal?
Because those terms are gay as fuck. What sounds cooler "Indigenous" or "Indian"?
When I think Indian I think of some buff Redskin throwing a tomahawk into a guys face.
When I think Indigenous I think of some brown welfare babies trying to fake a holocaust in Canada.

The truth is us Americans are really fucking stubborn with our terms, and in the end not even Indians are pissy about the word anymore, the only people who bitch are foreigners and Gen Z faggots.
 
I am a firm believer that Great Man Theory has only been trashed by mainstream historians because a failed Viennese artist believed in it.
You can talk about how badass and forward thinking somebody was and how they came to define an era. However, there is simply more to write about the circumstances that enabled their rise. Such as those 15 years of mismanagement and genocide at the the hand of schizophrenic revolutionary councils or the last 1000 years of French history that gave the French a desire for a strong executive.
 
My favourite BobbyBroccoli (real name was Brennan McKay I think) moment was in his second Bognadoff twins video where he shows Bog memes including several censored ones but he forgets to censor a virgin vs. Chad one that has the word faggot in it and that's the one that appears on screen the longest while he pontificates about the gamer words used in Bog memes. I think is the same video were he sort of admits being a commie.
Of course he's Canadian, joke of a country. I do remember him whining about anti-semitism and to view the Bog copy pasta at your own risk. The real test of his academic integrity would be a deep dive into the AIDs epidemic. Surely he'll find Ronny ignored the science despite the monogamous gays who just wanted to get married being completely honest and open with outsiders, right?
You can talk about how badass and forward thinking somebody was and how they came to define an era. However, there is simply more to write about the circumstances that enabled their rise. Such as those 15 years of mismanagement and genocide at the the hand of schizophrenic revolutionary councils or the last 1000 years of French history that gave the French a desire for a strong executive.
My gut feeling on this is the same as Post Modernism. These ways of thought are introduced to students as a modern replacement instead of complimentary tools and that's what it became. I remember one of the first exercises we did on death of author was giving our interpretations of Animal Farm. You want to argue meaning of an ambiguous passage based solely on the text? Fine. But Animal Farm? You really can't debate what it's about.
Why cant Americans just say indigenous or aboriginal?
We used to call them abos. And red niggers.
 
I remember one of the first exercises we did on death of author was giving our interpretations of Animal Farm. You want to argue meaning of an ambiguous passage based solely on the text? Fine. But Animal Farm? You really can't debate what it's about.
Ackshually Animal farm is about rethuglican christian nazis like dotard drumph
 
I have to vent about all the hobby historians in the current age of empires 2 fandom. They seem obsessed with adding more campaigns for civilizations outside of Europe while bitching whenever someone points out there's like 4 India campaigns but nothing for the Vikings, the Chinese, the Japanese, the English, the Koreans, or the Eastern Romans, they want a campaign for a civilization we know barely anything besides a name and the ruins of a solitary city, rather than one for Belisarius conquering half the Mediterranean
I for one would enjoy having a campaign where you deal with the previous terrible emperors of Constantine the Fifty-Sixth and Michael the Tax Cheat. I think putting out content for the actual mainline civs we all know would be nice rather than wanting campaigns for one of the scrimblo-minors.
 
Back