Historia Civilis

Reader mode
This is a very fascinating video. I knew the basic details on this story of how Antony and Cleopatra went out, but there are so many details I had never heard before. Cleopatra's Red Sea plan, the Eros story, Antony's rather painful and humiliating end, Octavian's reaction to the city of Alexandria itself, and how Cleopatra was even captured in the first place. Way more interesting than the basic story I knew.

Also, Octavia was a super mom. Another thing I didn't know. I doubt we have details, but I wonder what raising all those kids from all those different people was like for her.
 
Zimmerwald1915 said:
Imagine thinking HC was the sort to promote communist doctrine after he previously boosted Cicero and Metternich.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And yet, having watched the video, he boosted overt socialist theorist George Woodcock and repeatedly calls the capitalist class literal demons for their ongoing subjugation of the working class

I wasn't expecting the Comrade Civilis arc but it's a welcome one to be sure
 
I have a great deal of respect for Cicero myself, he was flawed human being but so are we all and some of the stuff he was critized for even in his time were things like promoting himself was something literally every roman politician did just as much only Cicero's achievements weren't centered around slaughtering people for loot, plunder and slaves.

I'd would more have side eyed him if he was putting forth either Catos as being great because oh boy both of them were extremely unpleasant people if for different reasons to put it mildly.
 
Last edited:
So a post over at bad history did a pretty harsh critique of his latest "Work" video. I'd figured I'd share it here because it does seem Historia Civilis did a rather bad job with this (and I even agree with his underlying premise as well). A few basic issues underly the video such as what he is even counting as work, as well as the video relying on very few either old & outdated sources or even just an opinion piece (in the case of "Woodcock" who he quotes a few times). It's definitely worth a look.
 
Last edited:
I would take anything from r/badhistory with massive grain of salt, people there are more than willing to utterly nitpick most minute details. They are sort of people who will complain that 10 minute video about Byzantines didn't cover absolutely everything ever and then act like author was intentionally lying. Never mind how often they get their own history wrong.

However, I will acknowledge that way HC frames the pre-industrialization and post-industrialization is rather... simplistic, because what constituted as "work" was very different between those periods. It's same as when people say "Medieval people had more vacations", which only works if you assume they did exact same type of work as modern humans and ignore how much was done of basic chores.
 
Last edited:
Teen Spirit said:
Not a subject I expected him to cover but I am interested for sure


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0wwuj0sTyY
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I am not sure about the rest, but the part on Spain has some very wrong information.

The 1812 constitution wasnt created by Napoleon, but by the Spanish rebels in Cádiz. The same spanish rebels that wanted to restore Fernando to the throne, which is why his refusal to accept that constitution was so controversial and led Spain's politics to a path of continuous violence throughtout the 19th century.
 
I was under the impression that a lot of the 19th century violence in Spain had to do the traditionalist Carlists opposition to the end of Salic law and especially to constitutional monarchy that spawned no less than three wars in the 19th century.
 
Alane1 said:
I was under the impression that a lot of the 19th century violence in Spain had to do the traditionalist Carlists opposition to the end of Salic law and especially to constitutional monarchy that spawned no less than three wars in the 19th century.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not exactly. 19th century Spain was marked by the liberal's constant attempts at getting even the most basic reforms passed, while the conservatives did everything in their power to destroy liberalism. After the 1st Carlist War coups and counter-coups (both called pronunciamientos) both by liberals and conservative forces became a daily part of spanish life, with many years even featuring several attempts of coups by whichever opposition to the current regime existed.

While the carlist were a violent force, their popularity after the 1st war was never as high as alt history leads you to believe, and were at the end of the day a product of Fernando VII's ultra-conservative ideology, as during the "Década Ominosa" he repressed any visible liberal thought, while empowering reactionary elements of Spanish society.

The unending coups i mentioned in the first paragraph ended roughly after the "Glorious Revolution", but violence never trully went away, particulary because after the fall of the 1st Republic the monarchy came back and while willing to give democratic reforms they were minimal in extent and effects, so violence by republicans and eventually other groups such as anarchists and socialists became inevitable. Of the later two we have the example of the "Pistolerismo" of the 1910's and 1920's
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Back
Top