I began to suspect this because the voice was very very similar, then I looked for clues.

The final confirmation was in how he wrote the "About" section for both Patreons.

TheQuickSlice is probably why his Historia Civilis videos are fewer and far between.

TheQuickSlice is a channel dedicated to dysfunctional reality tv relationships.

Am I wrong???

Writing this because I basically read this post (https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoriaCivilis/comments/1gy6dx9/im\_disappointed\_by\_historia\_civilis\_latest\_video/)

Before I got an opportunity to watch the video myself.

I would like to share my thoughts on it but adding to 171 comments seems pointless.

I disagree that Historia mischaracterized Louis XVIII. He never did in the video???? Like he is not the one that does the electoral reform and he is not the one that picks Villelle. If anything Historia gets his character right by reminding the audience that he promised not to roll back the gains of the French revolution in direct contrast to Charles X and the ultra royalists.

Seriously this seems like an utter non critique what the post claims historia did he didn't do.

I will agree 100% however that Historia totally botches the invasion of Spain. Yeah the other powers where a little worried about it. You had to be worried when France made any big plays. But everybody besides the English where siked to see the Spanish Liberals put down. 100% correct that the "Many Hundred Thousand Sons of St. Louis," cemented France as part of Metternichs reactionary concert of Europe.

u/Imperator_Romulus476 also correctly points out that Historia (lazily it must be said) uses Villelle to represent all of the ultra royalist policies. Even when he personally was opposed to the Spanish intervention.

Historia is also wrong that a liberal Spain wasn't a threat to super reactionary France. But here is where some wrinkles come in.

Because Historia's own views seep in here. Everybody today is a liberal compared to the reactionaries of 1820. Besides like online skitzos. But honestly Historia here gets blinded by his own conceptions. Or because I think Historia is a really smart guy, he intentionally frames things in a weird way to demonize the reactionaries (in a stupid way. Reactionaries don’t need help being antagonists)

Liberal Spain isn't an existential threat to France as a liberal nation state. Super true Historia. However what part of hyper reactionary parliament did you miss here?

Liberal Spain was an existential threat to the hyper reactionary project underway in France. You know this. You even half heartedly point it out. But you attempt to separate the "goofy ultra conservative ideology" of the State from the Nation.

Thats not really how it works? Villelle viewed it as an existential threat to him because it was. France wasn't fighting phantoms. Its government was fighting its real enemies.

But Historia doesn't want to frame it that way. Because it doesn't make the ultra conservatives look stupid. If you really want to do this Historia. Point out what you already harp on in the video. That the interests of the nation, of the liberal national invention that is "France" did not correspond with the interests of its government.

Instead you Frame it as "le ultra conservatives being dumb" and not what it was. The reactionary ultra royalists being reactionary. Being exactly what they where. Fighting liberalism their life or death enemy, not because they are "stupid" but because it is in their interest to do so. You can think reactionaries are stupid for not hopping onboard the sweet liberal gravy train and riding the tides of history. But unless you are an insane idealist (idealism in the philosophical sense). You have to understand that people make decisions based on their own interests. Not from abstract "ideas" derived from the aether. Not by magically knowing which way the historical winds are blowing.

This leads to the second thing I want to talk about. Historia pretending to not understand why Villelle "let himself get treated this way."

Again I am very confidant Historia is a smart guy. So this is an intentional thing. That question is beyond dumb. What do you mean you don't understand why the ultra royalist "allowed" himself to be a minister of the king. What do you mean you don't understand why an ultra royalist government "allowed" itself to get rid of the democratic functions it held.

You have to be intentionally obtuse to not get it. Call it "goofy" all you want. But these where ultra royalists. They wanted an autocratic reactionary feudal regime. Everything they do makes complete sense in this logic. They aren't stupid . Which is what Historia would like to believe and frame them as. They are simply doing the thing that benefits them. The Aristocracy supports the type of regime that benefits them. What that meant to the ultra royalists in 1820 was an attempted return to absolute monarchy.

u/Imperator_Romulus476 also makes a really good point about "his majesty's government". Villelle was a kings minister he acted like one. Nothing embarrassing about that for an ultra royalist.

All this basically starts off the front third of the video with this liberal cope about how "stupid silly ultra royalists why weren't you just liberals"

I'm sorry but thats dumb and not how history works. This wasn't "goofy ideology" that is not and never has been what dictates history. Reactionary Europe defeated Napoleon and Revolutionary France. The endward arch of that was an attempt by the reactionaries Europe put back in power to try and do exactly what was in their interest. Set back up an absolutist monarchy and role back the revolution.

Since undoing history is generally impossible, they got the boot for trying. But they didn't try because they where stupid. Metternich didn't tell everyone at the Council of Vienna to set up wholsome free trade republics simply because he was stupid.

This all has me really concerned. Because if we get to 1848 and Historia treats it like Metternich simply lost his touch, and not that his policies where unsustainable socially I am gonna flip. Metternich doens't get ousted in 1848 because he is dumb. He doesn't change at all really. He gets ousted because sorry reactionary but the world changes.

In Historia Civilis's Bronze Age Collapse video, he asserts that composite bows of the time were able to "punch through 3 inches of metal." This... does not seem right. I am no expert on military technology nor metallurgy, but it seems to raise an immediate red flag to me. Is there any source for this claim? Or was this some sort of mistake? Or is it actually true? Any information would be appreciated.

I've been noticing for some time, but it seems that HC's latest videos have been undergoing a gradual decline. They're still well-made with nice maps and the colored boxes, but it feels like something is missing, like HC's heart isn't there.

The latest video felt kinda half-assed. As someone who studied French 19th Century History more in depth, the sheer inaccuracies is mischaracterization of events astounds me.

One glaring example of the portrayal of Louis XVIII as a reactionary in the mold of Charles X. He was regularly conflicting with the Ultraroyalists, the ones who called themselves "more royalist than the King." King Louis on many occasions made common cause with the Doctrinaires/Liberals because the Ultras were putting him a difficult position. It was Louis XVIII's overall prudence that allowed him to die on the throne unlike his younger brother Charles X.

Then there's the mischaracterization of France's intervention in Spain. He presents it as stupid move when it was anything but that. The intervention by the "Many Hundred Thousand Sons of St. Louis," was internationally sanctioned (by the UK, Russia, Austria, and Prussia) by the Quintuple Alliance at the Congress of Verona.

The event helped to further integrate France into the Counterrevolutionary framework established as part of Metternich's "Concert of Europe," as France rather than being an exporter of Revolution made common cause with them to suppress a potential Revolution Spain.

The other powers were all afraid of the Spanish Liberal Triennium. King Ferdinand while a terrible King was the legitimate monarch, and he was basically placed under House Arrest while Raphael del Riego (the one who led the revolt against King Ferdinand) and the Cortes of Spain forced upon him a Constitution far more liberal than anything even Britain had at the time.

HC presents the PM Joseph de Villèle as a pompous idiot (he might have at times been out of touch aristocrat, but he wasn't unintelligent) who goaded the King to intervene in Spain when the opposite was true. Villèle was vehemently opposed an intervention into Spain citing concerns over the cost of the expedition, doubts about the troops' loyalty, and the overall state of their organization. It was other Ultraroyalists like Montmorency and the politician/writer Chateaubriand who lobbied the King to intervene in Spain. Villèle then in order to avoid being politically isolated from the King's confidence, then went along with it (once it became inevitable), so that some credits and the accompanying prestige from its success would go to his person.

HC in my view makes a frankly erroneous assumption at the idea of a Liberal Spain as something that wouldn't be an existential threat to France when any look at history would prove this to be untrue. The Trienio Liberal had it been successful would have been example for other revolutionaries and liberals on the continent would have looked to for inspiration. It was this revolution that inspired the Italian Revolutions of the 1830's.

Everyone knew this which was why Metternich and the rest of the Concert of Europe was so dead set on suppressing any whiff of Revolutionary activity. This was why Britain along with France and Russia insisted upon Greece coming into being as a monarchy.

Britain itself was quite heavily aristocratic as well, a trend that only started to shift after 1830 (if only gradually) once the Chartist movement got off the ground. The government there did crack down hard on demonstrations and Protests such as the "Days of Peterloo" Massacre. Had Queen Victoria not been so poorly prepared to rule (her mother and governor were abusive and wanted her as a weak puppet), Britain's monarchy might have evolved more along the lines of the rest of Europe's monarchies as opposed to being more liberal and more ceremonial in capacity as time moved forwards.

Historia Civilis' statement "I frankly don't understand why Villèle tolerated being treated this way," illustrates just how out of depth he is here. In the early 19th Century it was the norm for Prime Ministers to actually function as more of a minister for the King rather than as a modern head of government, like in the UK today. Heck in Sweden despite the Liberal triumph over Gustav III's (the Riksdag assassinated him after he took power in a popular self-coup), Bernadotte styling himself as Karl XIV Johan, was ruling in a similarly autocratic manner.

Napoleon's system was far more autocratic than the likes anything Louis XIV could have ever imagined and he ruled without much issue as well.

HC seems to think that de Villèle as somehow being demeaned by King Charles X who turned him into his "errant boy," when that's not how anyone alive would have saw it. The position and authority of the King was quite well understood at that time. That's why the 1830 Revolution initially started off as protests not against the King, but against his ministers who "misled him" or gave him supposed bad counsel.

While in the modern UK, the term "His Majesty's Govenment" is very much a formality, back in the 19th Century this very much wasn't the case. King George III (before he went insane from porphyria), regularly clashed with Parliament and simply appointed and dismissed prime minsters as he pleased.

The Hannoverians however weren't really that great monarchs, so there was a power vacuum in place which necessitated that the Prime Minsters and the Parliament fill that void.

Ngl I'm quite a huge fan of HC, but this video honestly just felt kinda half-assed, and could have better served by a lot more research. A quick wikipedia search will give you more context on figures like de Villèle. Not to mention there are more books out there going into depth on the circumstances leading to the failure of the Bourbon Restoration.

HC's previous 19th Century video on the Congress of Vienna was far greater in quality than this one tbh. In that video he correctly saw the nuances of Metternich and highlighted his own flexibility as a political thinker and diplomat shaped by his experiences from war rather(Metternich is often wrongly portrayed as a stubborn reactionary curmudgeon).

Contexto tengo 15 años recién cumplido hace unos meses casi un años díganos descubrí que era bisexual y ni dure mucho para tener pareja de mi mismo sexo aun al principio fue para ver si de veras si me gustaban los chicos lo ame con todo mi ser

Bueno ya voy a la historia empiezo desde el comienzo

Un chico mi ex mejor amigo el diciembre pasado se me declaró y yo lo mande a volar ya que no sabia que me gustaba y no sabia que sentir específicamente le dije como así loco tu sabes que no me gustan los hombre yo no puedo y el al día siguiente se fue a estados unidos al principio no nos dejamos de hablar hablamos como siempre y en verdad pensé que me estaba gustando y sin decirle a mi familia empeze a ir a psicólogo verdad unos 2 meses después mi psicóloga me dice con todo lo que tu me as dicho creo que si te gustan los hombres haz intentado estar con uno alguna ves le dije que no ya para ese tiempo mi mejor amigo de la nada Me bloqueo y ni me dijo porque bueno ese no es el punto de la historia aquí mismo en tiktok en un live que hice conocí a un chico decía que era colombiano y que vivía en república Dominicana eso ni me importaba solo se que lo quería para mi y le dije mira mi hermana esta soltera solo para estar más cerca de el y me dice que el es bisexual no le digo nada de mi aun y el me dice mira te tengo que decir algo pero tienes novia y de una ves supe para que era si que le mande un audio diciéndole a mi ex que terminamos ya que quería estar con él y estuve en lo correcto y se me declaró obvio no le dije que si de una vez le dije que al siguiente día nos teníamos que conocer mejor duramos algunas 10 hora en llamada desde que desperté asta dormir hablando de nuestra vida todo la relación era como cualquier otra de adolescentes muchas peleas etc pero nos amábamos teníamos planes de vernos en diciembre de este año 2024 y ya no se puede y aquí viene lo triste de verdad en octubre de 2024 exactamente 22 el murió como murió A el en la escuela lo golpearon tanto esta que lo mataron el duro 4 días luchando esta morir y eso me duele mucho e tenido pensamientos de morir pero se que el no quiere eso para mi así que ni lo ago lo que realmente me duele es que ni justicia se hace a el le dieron entre 4 personas y ninguna an sido detenido ni nada y la escuela tiene cámaras y justo el día que mataron a mi novio ya no sirven otra cosa también soy de república Dominicana y el vivía en otra ciudad y yo me escape de mi casa solo para conocerlo en una caja primera y última vez lo vi

Bueno el fin de esta historia es para que otras personas tomen conciencia que una escuela no es tan segura como la pintan y más las madre que una vuelta que hagan por las escuela de sus hijos no la hacen daño a ella que tomen un minuto para ir allá o hablar con sus hijos sin gritarle y sentarse hablar con ellos no como madre e hijo si no como una amiga con otra o otro aun su hijo no le hable de una vez sigue intentando que algún día se van a habrír con ustedes

Since all of us (plebeians) have to wait, I am asking the patricians with us in this subreddit to tell us what video was just released.

I like the style of Historia Civilis but I wonder if it someone tries it to do something that is not about History ?

Like this style used to explain physic, chemestry, or even music theory.

Or maybe just not "classical" history event, but real events like the Playstation 1 history, or gaming history at large, or sport history (like soccer).

Yeah, I know there are already youtube channels who use cartoons to explain stuffs like physchology or mythology, as example, but (I don't know if) you know what I mean

Things with square, rectangles, dashes, funny faces, and hyphen on a wallpaper. Or at least something close.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trrqslUpfdw

Unlike many descriptions of Roman elections the video by Historia Civilis is oddly precise. I struggle to find any sources that would back up some of his claims, like the fact that the Council of the Plebs voted with a simple yes/no per person.

Any ideas what could be his sources?

What do you think the next video is going to be? The progress email said there will be a naval battle on land.

Hey my name is Iñaki. I´m from Argentina. I make videos about my countrys history, and it all started with HC.
In the begining i just tried to copy (very badly) his videos. But throughout the years I developed my own style. Now, 4 years later, i make my Homage.
The first HC video I ever came across: The battle of Alesia.
I hope you like it! But mainly, if anyone has any contact with HC, please show him my vid!!
I guess there is an anti spam thing. This is not self promotion. I really want to get HC to watch my video! It would mean a lot to me!
Pd: im going to post this also as a link, let me know if i break any rules.
Long live the squares! Long live Ceasar.

More specifically i think it'd be really neat to do a broad overview of when and in what ways authority was gradually stripped from the crown over time.

Are there other YouTube channels similar to this one covering East Asian or central Asian history? Or, better yet, would any of you happen to know if Historia Civilis plans to cover history and politics in those regions? Or previous Roman civil wars for that matter.

got an aftermarket radio recently, and I downloaded YouTube and multiple videos so quickly