[removed]

[removed]

As soon as he had Joe Rogan pop up to lend him credibility we turned it off. I’d never heard of this guy before, but the Rogan clip was an immediate no.

Ideals aren’t the same as reality.

[removed]

[removed]

Technically it means "before we started writing things down", but it's usually meant as "before ancient greece". Often ignoring that people in other places wrote a lot of things down before that, or that other cultures oral histories go back much further.

In this context, it just leans much harder on the racism as these guys always say non-European people are too ignorant or innocent to know what their own stories mean. And obviously this renegade historian knows the REAL truth where they couldn't.

[removed]

That’s a great YouTube channel, just watched his Life & Death at the Height of the Ice Age episode. Good stuff. Any suggestions for other channels like his?

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

If that's the case, then it seems a bit off and I can see how it can come across as cringe-y. Kinda suggests to me that he's using it as a crutch.

[removed]

Great link. Much respect for Milo.

[removed]

Nice answer. Yeah he just said it like 5 times per episode. I got through grad school, not a history major, but took my fair share of history classes and never heard the term before. Just sounded weird.

There is no way to feed and water 300,000 men and their animals at this time.

Its a ludicrous number.

[removed]

Learning more about the end of the ice age, Younger Dryas Impact theory, it can really teach you a lot about how North American features were formed, a lot about geomorphology and glacial science. At least that's something

Prehistory is an accepted term and quite harmless as well. It just means the time before we have written sources (which can vary for different places). Why he would need to repeat it often is weird but as with so many cranks it might be just to pad the run time; when there's not much substance to a theory (and there never is with conspiracy theories) there is always a need for repetition, redundancy and futile exercises in pedantry.

[removed]

I picked on red meat as a straight forward protein source that every ancient society would have at least had access to. It's also why I counted 2200 of their 2500 calories as coming from bread.

Were there other options? Sure. Beans and other legumes would fit the bill and would have likely played a significant role but beans also would have needed more water, which would have further complicated things. Plus, not every society would have had access to the same sorts of legumes so in the spirit of keeping it simple I put the number at 4oz of meat since going into more detail than that is just going to get too situational. As a note Tacitus does speak briefly as to the meat requirements of a Roman legion numbering it at around 150 swine/day for a full legion of 6000 troops plus their supporting folks. Now he was speaking about a legion in garrison, not on the march and we have no idea if it was some super special 'Legate Picard Day' or something but the point remains, that's a hell of a lot of food.

I also left out fat requirements since the Romans solved this through olive oil but I have no frigging clue how the Assyrians or Egyptians would have done the same outside of imports.

While I think it might be a stretch to believe everything he says, me just being a history enthusiast, I have always found the “clovis first” aproach to the peopleing of the americas to be the sort of thing “mainstream” archeologists have a bias for.