YouTube Historians/HistoryTube/PopHistory -

[Slap47]

I'm sorry that I failed you. Historia Civilis went full on Antifa and deleted all of the stuff. I failed to archive any of it.

Doesn't Cynical have his own thread or am I just thinking of gay tweets he made that got put into one of the Trump threads?

I watched like five of ET videos .
And in one of them He had guest Cynical hystorian who fits in this thread as well.
And from what I have seen is your standard Western Champagne soycialist.
And ET said they were friends. So it is not that suprising he Is another useful idiot

Oh God, the cynical historian. He might be the biggest lolcow out of all of historytube.
To quote myself from another thread.

https://archive.md/fsaUw

https://archive.md/S0pA9

https://archive.md/6FgHb

This Cynical History guy is interesting. He has a reputation for being neutral for some reason. In his Death of Stalin video (comments closed) he supports Russian censorship of the movie for some reason.

In short: Mr. Z is more right wing while Emp. Tigerstar is a lefty through and through. They had some autistic twitter beef.

Tigerstar is a man of many red flags.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

I'm sorry that I failed you. Historia Civilis went full on Antifa and deleted all of the stuff. I failed to archive any of it.

Maybe there's a way you could find it through the way back machine.

This Cynical History guy is interesting. He has a reputation for being neutral for some reason. In his Death of Stalin video (comments closed) he supports Russian censorship of the movie for some reason.

I have to question whether or not the cynical historian supports the first amendment of the constitution. I remember him saying something along the lines of "conspiracy theorists should be banned and face legal penalty do to the harm they spread" in one of his videos. At the same time I remember one of his videos was essentially him making a conspiracy theory about Woodrow Wilson and World War One.

Tigerstar is a man of many red flags.

Having been around the historical map community (They called themselves that before the twitter pedos did themselves) I can safely say that Tigerstar has always been like that.

 

[Clint Torez]

He's a furry, what did you expect?

 

[Slap47]

I have to question whether or not the cynical historian supports the first amendment of the constitution. I remember him saying something along the lines of "conspiracy theorists should be banned and face legal penalty do to the harm they spread" in one of his videos. At the same time I remember one of his videos was essentially him making a conspiracy theory about Woodrow Wilson and World War One.

It would be ironic if he was a conspiracy theorist himself. His videos often mention Gamergate so I wouldn't be surprised by that.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

It would be ironic if he was a conspiracy theorist himself. His videos often mention Gamergate so I wouldn't be surprised by that.

I stop watching his videos when he disable the comments of his slavery video because I knew he's become a crazed twitter leftist at that point but damn being obsessed with Gamergate is a low even for him. Maybe I should catch up on him to see his recent spergery.

 

[Serbian Peacekeepers]

Why does the history sphere draw so many fucking commies and fags? Is the the result of the modern revisionism of "white r bad and eval" or what?

cone of arc , a ex war thunder youtuber , has started several series about tanks and ships , he has videos on the memes of tonk and panzer of the lake , both which he helped find. hes worth a watch just bypass the video about t-34s he has a girl voice a part and she does a high pitched nyanners voice

 

[naaaaiiiiillllll!!!]

This thread has been very interesting/disappointing since I watch a ton of these channels (or did in the past), so seeing how good/bad they are is eye-opening. Fortunately, I read regular history texts for fun and only use these channels as background noise or maybe a springboard to do my own research.

Anyway, I thought I'd share some channels I've found over the years I didn't see mentioned yet (apologies if they already were). Maybe y'all would like them or maybe y'all know something about how messed up the creators are. Feel free to share:

1) Lots of people have mentioned Voices of the Past. He's part of "The History Brothers" family of channels I've grown to like. History Time, History of the Earth, and History of the Universe are quite good (the last two are a bit theatrical tbh and are more natural history/science focused).

2) Another great channel is Fall of Civilizations, which normally runs podcasts but started turning them into full videos. Their Sumerian episode got over 14M views due to the algorithm, and it tells a beautifully dramatic tragedy of that culture that I still consider one of the best videos of YouTube. He has biases (his Aztec video had an anti-European vibe that was eye-rolling towards the end), but the quality is quite good. Besides, he is just a good storyteller.

3) Again, the algorithm boosted The Histocrat with his "The Druids" video. He's a bit more dry, but I've found his stuff quite good as well.

 

[Slap47]

Why does the history sphere draw so many fucking commies and fags? Is the the result of the modern revisionism of "white r bad and eval" or what?

cone of arc , a ex war thunder youtuber , has started several series about tanks and ships , he has videos on the memes of tonk and panzer of the lake , both which he helped find. hes worth a watch just bypass the video about t-34s he has a girl voice a part and she does a high pitched nyanners voice

Conservatives tend to be more business oriented. Armchair Historian and AlternateHistoryHub are very conservative, and also treat their channels more like businesses. History isn't usually something you do for the money.

 

[biscuitscilia]

View attachment 2287209

Conservatives tend to be more business oriented. Armchair Historian and AlternateHistoryHub are very conservative, and also treat their channels more like businesses. History isn't usually something you do for the money.

Only Armchair is openly conservative and republican, Cody used to identify as conservative but his mindset changed and he is more of a libertarian centrist from what I've seen. He does have some strong positions against certain left-wing points, but considering he's friends with Tigerstar and Cynical Historian, he isn't as vocal on that or at least doesn't conflict with their views.

 

[Corpun]

Why does the history sphere draw so many fucking commies and fags? Is the the result of the modern revisionism of "white r bad and eval" or what?

cone of arc , a ex war thunder youtuber , has started several series about tanks and ships , he has videos on the memes of tonk and panzer of the lake , both which he helped find. hes worth a watch just bypass the video about t-34s he has a girl voice a part and she does a high pitched nyanners voice

A lot of leftists seem to have a moral crusade to make history less 'whitewashed' as they put it. That's why shit like the 1619 project or randomly pushing for revisionist crap like transsexuals in Ancient Greece or black people in Medieval Europe is getting pushed.

View attachment 2287209

Conservatives tend to be more business oriented. Armchair Historian and AlternateHistoryHub are very conservative, and also treat their channels more like businesses. History isn't usually something you do for the money.

My respect for Armchair Historian has grown immensely with that image.

 

[Slap47]

Reparations

 

[Corpun]

View attachment 2311195

Reparations

Is Mr. Beat trying to bait right wing retards, left wing retards, or try and be a neutrel figure here?

 

[Slap47]

Is Mr. Beat trying to bait right wing retards, left wing retards, or try and be a neutrel figure here?

Mr Beat believes in reparations.

However, he's one of those people that interprets reparations as an expanded welfare system that specifically targets black people. He seems to believe that the "Give us a cheque" crowd does not exist, and are just a strawman created by overly emotional people.

Well, thats my interpretation at least.

 

[Techpriest]

Why does the history sphere draw so many fucking commies and fags? Is the the result of the modern revisionism of "white r bad and eval" or what?

Holy shit I absolutely despise the idea that revisionism is some kind of communist plot to paint white people as always bad and always evil. A lot of historical revision is simply research finding new and different things, or archeological evidence providing new insights, or more detached perspectives on historical events trying to eliminate bias found in earlier historical works. Take for example, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which is a classic work of historical literature... and flawed as hell. Gibbon's recounting of events is very well done, and quite informative, but he draws the completely wrong conclusions, moralizes, and cannot divorce his own world view from events, and portrays the collapse of Rome as a result of complete and total moral failings. It's an impressive piece of work and worth reading, but basing your take on Roman history off of it in the modern age is kind of retarded. His 'deluge of barbarians' never really happened, his views on religion are a bit wonky and certainly full of his own projections, and his complete dismissal of the Byzantines is really detrimental to the work as a whole.

A lot of historical revisionism is challenging the standard, classic, popular, or mainstream views of historical interpretation. Sometimes they have a point or their argument is more logical. Sometimes it's totally crazy dumb bullshit. Sometimes it completely revolutionizes how we look at history or stands as a classic (John L. Stephens and Frederick Catherwood come to mind with this, as their journey to the Mayan ruins in central america completely changed the view of the native peoples there from a historical standpoint and directly challenged the more popular theories of the time) and other times it completely falls flat. The point though, is that historical events are almost always open to interpretation when we don't have records - and often enough even if we do. People love to say that history is written by the victors, but often enough it's also written by the losers, who are super salty about losing (cough cough Lost Causers, german war memoirs).

Also fuck Cecil Rhodes and Rhodesia, absolute trashfires the both of them.

 

[Serbian Peacekeepers]

Holy shit I absolutely despise the idea that revisionism is some kind of communist plot to paint white people as always bad and always evil. A lot of historical revision is simply research finding new and different things, or archeological evidence providing new insights, or more detached perspectives on historical events trying to eliminate bias found in earlier historical works. Take for example, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which is a classic work of historical literature... and flawed as hell. Gibbon's recounting of events is very well done, and quite informative, but he draws the completely wrong conclusions, moralizes, and cannot divorce his own world view from events, and portrays the collapse of Rome as a result of complete and total moral failings. It's an impressive piece of work and worth reading, but basing your take on Roman history off of it in the modern age is kind of retarded. His 'deluge of barbarians' never really happened, his views on religion are a bit wonky and certainly full of his own projections, and his complete dismissal of the Byzantines is really detrimental to the work as a whole.

A lot of historical revisionism is challenging the standard, classic, popular, or mainstream views of historical interpretation. Sometimes they have a point or their argument is more logical. Sometimes it's totally crazy dumb bullshit. Sometimes it completely revolutionizes how we look at history or stands as a classic (John L. Stephens and Frederick Catherwood come to mind with this, as their journey to the Mayan ruins in central america completely changed the view of the native peoples there from a historical standpoint and directly challenged the more popular theories of the time) and other times it completely falls flat. The point though, is that historical events are almost always open to interpretation when we don't have records - and often enough even if we do. People love to say that history is written by the victors, but often enough it's also written by the losers, who are super salty about losing (cough cough Lost Causers, german war memoirs).

Also fuck Cecil Rhodes and Rhodesia, absolute trashfires the both of them.

Jonny is that you?

 

[Techpriest]

Jonny is that you?

Nah, just someone who enjoys studying history. And calling Rhodes a trashfire isn't really too far off the mark, the only good thing the man ever did in his life was set up the Rhodes scholarships. The rest of it is seeking power for the sake of power in the cloak of empire. He wanted to start a society for world domination, for fucks sake, and his political actions would result in the trashfire of Zimbabwe and South Africa. All because he couldn't be satisfied with being among the wealthiest men on the planet.

 

[Corpun]

Mr Beat believes in reparations.

However, he's one of those people that interprets reparations as an expanded welfare system that specifically targets black people. He seems to believe that the "Give us a cheque" crowd does not exist, and are just a strawman created by overly emotional people.

Well, thats my interpretation at least.

Wonder what his thoughts on CRT are?

 

[Übertroon]

His 'deluge of barbarians' never really happened

So what would you call several hundred thousand Germans rampaging across North Africa then?
There's been numerous instances now where revisionists have tried to claim that the Roman Empire wasn't being swarmed with foreigners, but unable to explain why the Romans were suddenly forced to give land to hundreds of foederati within the borders of the empire within a century where foreign tribes were moving across the continent and Germanic tribes were forming kingdoms from Britain to Carthage.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

Nah, just someone who enjoys studying history. And calling Rhodes a trashfire isn't really too far off the mark, the only good thing the man ever did in his life was set up the Rhodes scholarships. The rest of it is seeking power for the sake of power in the cloak of empire. He wanted to start a society for world domination, for fucks sake, and his political actions would result in the trashfire of Zimbabwe and South Africa. All because he couldn't be satisfied with being among the wealthiest men on the planet.

He was a patriot of the British Empire. He wanted the Brits to have there own chunk of africa when everyone else wanted a piece of the pie. If it wasn't for him it would've been some other British aristocrat, or the Portuguese, Germans and Boers' trash fire.

Also fuck Cecil Rhodes and Rhodesia, absolute trashfires the both of them.

Rhodesia is only seen as bad because it was a white country in africa in the 1970s that crossed hairs with the western new left movement. If Rhodesia existed in any other context it wouldn've been seen in the same light as other minority run states throughout history like the Qing Dynasty, the Parthian Empire, or the Indo-Greek Kingdom.

 

[Techpriest]

So what would you call several hundred thousand Germans rampaging across North Africa then?
There's been numerous instances now where revisionists have tried to claim that the Roman Empire wasn't being swarmed with foreigners, but unable to explain why the Romans were suddenly forced to give land to hundreds of foederati within the borders of the empire within a century where foreign tribes were moving across the continent and Germanic tribes were forming kingdoms from Britain to Carthage.

The difference was mostly in the state of Rome at the time, and how weak the west was economically and politically. The relationship between the foederati tribes and the Roman Empire saw shifts over time, especially when Roman power was weak. When it comes to the foederati painting them as a deluge of barbarians that descended on Rome isn’t accurate, as plenty of them already lived inside Roman territory and simply as the empire crumbled, provided what the Roman state couldn’t - stable leadership and protection. The political infighting of the west was at the highest point it had been in centuries and the foederati participated in that power struggle on many sides, for and against tribal leaders and Rome itself. The Romans were suddenly in a position of weakness and consistently failed to adapt to it at the end of the empire, treating the tribes not as equals or worthy allies, but as subject peoples and pawns in the political machinations of the empire. It was the Italian Social Wars all over again, but on a larger scale and with a far less politically stable Rome.

While there were large groups of people moving in and around Roman territory, the lack of political and economic stability changed how the Empire handled the issue and it’s impressive how the western Roman Empire consistently made their situation worse by assassinations of competent generals and refusal to stop killing said competent generals, or ruining treaties and creating even more political instability by killing the current rulership off. It’s hard to negotiate an end to a war you caused when you keep losing every battle, and your leadership is a game of musical chairs. It was the failure of the central state to be able to do anything that killed Rome, not some rampaging horde of barbarians. The barbarians are the symptoms, not the disease. In better times, Rome could and would happily destroy, resettle, or integrate them.

And the Vandals in Africa numbered far less than several hundred thousand, the actual numbers were far closer to 50 to 80 thousand. Archeological evidence also indicates that the Vandals quickly rebuilt almost anything that they destroyed and the scale of destruction was very limited.

He was a patriot of the British Empire. He wanted the Brits to have there own chunk of africa when everyone else wanted a piece of the pie. If it wasn't for him it would've been some other British aristocrat, or the Portuguese, Germans and Boers' trash fire.

Rhodesia is only seen as bad because it was a white country in africa in the 1970s that crossed hairs with the western new left movement. If Rhodesia existed in any other context it wouldn've been seen in the same light as other minority run states throughout history like the Qing Dynasty, the Parthian Empire, or the Indo-Greek Kingdom.

Nah, Rhodesia was doomed to fail from the start. Those other minority ran states either assimilated into local culture and customs among the leadership in the case of the Indo-Greeks, adopted a policy of cultural tolerance over a multicultural empire like the Parthians, or in the case of the Qing fought a fuckload of rebellions but also at least adopted local customs. Rhodesian policy also prevented what a lot of those other states did successfully - integrate the local population into the day to day running of the country. Rhodesia also failed to actually get the minority population to settle down within the country itself (despite getting a quarter million white immigrants, almost the same number of whites emigrated from Rhodesia over the same period of time) and the economic policies of the nation really fucked it - welfare for the white minority who could always be ensured a job even if they had no skills, fuck all for the majority of the population. The policy of elite separation from the larger population of the country also kept societal integration and assimilation from happening in Rhodesia. Minority rule without actually providing for the majority fails and that’s the entire system Rhodesia was based around. It was a state doomed to fail because it refused to acknowledge reality.