|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:Sweden's, as stated, should be Denmark. Russia invaded in a subsequent war but that territory is now Finland. If it's trying to depict the most recent "invasions" then it ought to be the USSR for Finland and Imperial Russia for Sweden. If "conquered" then leaving Sweden blank kind of makes sense. Not so sure how it affects the rest of the map, though, except the Russian flag in Finland makes more sense that way. e: Denmark for Sweden would make no sense either way. Also, even if we pretend Finland wasn't part of Sweden proper (which it was), the Russians still invaded Sweden as defined by contemporary boundaries, so that argument doesn't make sense either. Cake Smashing Boob fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Oct 16, 2014 |
# ? Oct 16, 2014 14:00 |
|
|
# ? Jun 9, 2024 18:54 |
|
Benito Hitlerstalin posted:If it's trying to depict the most recent "invasions" then it ought to be the USSR for Finland and Imperial Russia for Sweden. If "conquered" then leaving Sweden blank kind of makes sense. Not so sure how it affects the rest of the map, though, except the Russian flag in Finland makes more sense that way.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 14:46 |
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Why not? Christian II reconquered Sweden, he just lost the peace pretty much immediately by being a goddamn idiot. If you want to make that argument then you might as well put the EU or Belgium/Germany down for Sweden as a much more recent example.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 14:53 |
|
Benito Hitlerstalin posted:If it's trying to depict the most recent "invasions" then it ought to be the USSR for Finland and Imperial Russia for Sweden. If "conquered" then leaving Sweden blank kind of makes sense. Not so sure how it affects the rest of the map, though, except the Russian flag in Finland makes more sense that way. Sweden lost almost half of its area, third of its population and Sweden's king got replaced, so Sweden should definitely have the Czarist flag. And Finland should have the USSR flag.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 14:55 |
|
ekuNNN posted:Last country to be invaded by Didn't Serbia invade Bosnia and Croatia last?
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 14:59 |
|
Torrannor posted:Didn't Serbia invade Bosnia and Croatia last? Wouldn't that be Yugoslavia?
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 15:00 |
|
Benito Hitlerstalin posted:If you want to make that argument then you might as well put the EU or Belgium/Germany down for Sweden as a much more recent example.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 15:09 |
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Was Sweden's ascension to the EU precipitated by a Belgian invasion? No? I'm not sure what you're getting at.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 15:22 |
|
I'm pretty sure that map is from the "last conquered by" thing that did the rounds a couple of years ago. Everything seems to match well enough.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 15:24 |
|
Benito Hitlerstalin posted:No? I'm not sure what you're getting at.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 15:51 |
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Christian II brought an army to Sweden and made the Swedish nobility accept him as king. That goes for many Swedish regents. e: Which is to say I'm not sure what difference that makes, if any? He became king of Sweden, as he was king of Norway and king of Denmark. Sweden wasn't made a Danish possession or put under Danish rule. It gets a little bit weird what with the Kalmar Union, I agree, but if we are to count being the lesser partner in a personal union as being "conquered" then surely Poland has a later and better claim what with Sigismund III Vasa. Not counting the EU etc. I guess you could slap some heraldry on there, maybe? Cake Smashing Boob fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Oct 16, 2014 |
# ? Oct 16, 2014 16:00 |
|
Benito Hitlerstalin posted:That goes for many Swedish regents. That is a better qualification for an invasion than the glorious revolution.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 17:00 |
|
Rumda posted:That is a better qualification for an invasion than the glorious revolution. Yeah but if we're talking invasions Imperial Russia curb stomped Sweden at a much later date anyhow.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 17:03 |
|
Benito Hitlerstalin posted:That goes for many Swedish regents. As for Sigismund III Vasa, did he actually conquer Sweden? I thought he just went to Sweden as the legitimate heir, where he was accepted after acceding to the demands of the Lutheran nobility? His attempt to regain control over Sweden after he reneged on that was a failure too, so that wouldn't count as conquest. Benito Hitlerstalin posted:I guess you could slap some heraldry on there, maybe?
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 17:10 |
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:As for Sigismund III Vasa, did he actually conquer Sweden? I thought he just went to Sweden as the legitimate heir, where he was accepted after acceding to the demands of the Lutheran nobility? His attempt to regain control over Sweden after he reneged on that was a failure too, so that wouldn't count as conquest. No, I wouldn't count it as conquest either, but my point here was that Poland had about the same level of control over Sweden that did Denmark. e: "Denmark", "Poland". A Buttery Pastry posted:I don't think being put under the same administrative system as the rest of the realm would necessarily be a requirement for what counts as conquest, since non-uniformity of the administration was basically the rule for most of European history. Denmark itself operated under at least two different systems of law during the same period (maybe more), and the empire as a whole would have added up to even more. Just because Sweden wasn't integrated directly into a unified administration doesn't mean it wasn't part of a larger whole. A Buttery Pastry posted:It does get a bit complicated when we have to go back to periods with strong feudal ties and weak states, where saying "Denmark" conquered this or that perhaps isn't entirely accurate. Of course if the map just stuck to some sensible definition of invaded, such as a hostile foreign power moving armies into the territories of the state in question we wouldn't even have to consider Denmark in the first place. I basically agree with the first and second point both. Cake Smashing Boob fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Oct 16, 2014 |
# ? Oct 16, 2014 17:46 |
|
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 19:11 |
|
How can ex-Yugoslav countries have different laws in 1989?
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 19:15 |
|
...Poland??? Is this a case of just "There are no sodomites in our pious catholic realm.", or something else? Also Turkey and Italy before Germany and the Nordics. Huh. What's your problem, San Marino?
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 19:31 |
|
my dad posted:How can ex-Yugoslav countries have different laws in 1989? Because Yugoslavia was a federation, and the various republics in it could have different laws
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 19:32 |
|
3peat posted:Because Yugoslavia was a federation, and the various republics in it could have different laws I know that. But I didn't know that was one of the things that were allowed to be different across the republics. Can any Crogoon or Sloveniagoon say when the laws were changed?
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 19:39 |
|
3peat posted:Because Yugoslavia was a federation, and the various republics in it could have different laws I can confirm that the socialist republics did have their own separate penal codes. E:Croatia decriminalized homosexuality in 1977.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 19:41 |
|
The Ottomans legalized homosexual sex?
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 19:43 |
|
Probably not what we'd recognize as homosexuality, but something having to do with Eunuchs and some other third-gendered stuff.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 19:48 |
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:The Ottomans legalized homosexual sex? Yes, by sultan Abdulmecid in 1858 quote:The most important reform measures promoted by Abdülmecid were: And in medieval times, the Ottoman Empire used to be the most tolerant and progressive out of all the big states in Europe, see for example their meritocracy system as opposed to the nobility based system in western Europe.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 20:01 |
|
my dad posted:How can ex-Yugoslav countries have different laws in 1989? perhaps for similar reasons why homosexuality was decriminalised in England and Wales in 1967; but not in Scotland until 1980 nor Northern Ireland until the ECHR rules against their ban in 1982. That one is even more hosed up; since the Scottish Parliament didn't exist until 1999, so you'd have thought that it would have been sensible to pass similar legislation for Scotland then... Northern Ireland is more complicated, since you had the Parliament until 1972, random assemblies with limited powers at random points in the mid seventies and early eighties plus... slightly more immediate problems for the UK government to consider in Northern Ireland than LGBT rights. The Yugoslav republics had autonomy so you'd expect to see legislation differences in areas like the decriminalisation of homosexuality, since its not something that you'd imagine the central government to get overly concerned about. ecureuilmatrix posted:...Poland??? lots of the laws banning homosexual sex were passed during the nineteenth century; when Poland was occupied by Germany, Austria and Russia and thus subject to their laws. It was probably just a case of them not bothering to pass laws on the thing during the 20s and 30s... Its not like the earlier a state legalised homosexual sex makes it better for LGBT people now: the UK are generally rated the best in Europe for LGBT rights despite being amongst the last in Western Europe to legalise the thing, while Poland and Italy certainly aren't paragons for LGBT rights, although things are improving...
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 20:05 |
|
Don't forget that homosexual sex was perfectly acceptable in Ancient Greece.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 20:08 |
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Don't forget that homosexual sex was perfectly acceptable in Ancient Greece. Wasn't it only if you were a top?
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 20:36 |
|
Badger of Basra posted:Wasn't it only if you were a top?
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 20:44 |
|
Benito Hitlerstalin posted:That goes for many Swedish regents. Sigismund didn't sucessfully conquer Sweden, he was the legitimate heir, his uncle rebelled against him and then Sigismund faffed around a bit in Sweden without achieving anything. Not at all like good old Christian Tyrann e; beaten.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 20:53 |
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yeah, my impression of it is something along the line of the Ancient Greek men thinking women are basically filth, so having as little to do with them as possible was a good thing. That included sticking your dong in other mens' butts, but conversely, never having another man make a woman out of you by having their dong up yours. The Romans seem to have had a similar sort of view on man-on-man action. Remember Athenian women weren't allowed to leave the house without a full body burqa-style covering. Progressive people these were not
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 20:57 |
|
icantfindaname posted:Remember Athenian women weren't allowed to leave the house without a full body burqa-style covering. Progressive people these were not Though Spartan women could and often did own property and businesses. Thinking on it it's kind of weird to associate all ancient Greeks with one uniform culture when we don't do that for other micro nations (like the German states).
|
# ? Oct 16, 2014 21:28 |
|
icantfindaname posted:Remember Athenian women weren't allowed to leave the house without a full body burqa-style covering. Progressive people these were not This isn't actually true - most evidence suggests that Athenian women held jobs, had their own phratries (cross between a neighbourhood association and a local cult), and were generally very active in civic life. The reason this story gets repeated so often is because this is what a handful of elite Athenian writers thought the ideal woman should be like, and since their writings survived into the present day while most common citizens' perspectives were lost, we only had their word for what life was like in ancient Athens. Much of our written evidence about Athenian democracy comes from sources with an axe to grind against the democracy, and in the days before archaeology, their word was often all we had to go on. It doesn't help that most early modern classical historians were also virulently anti-democratic, so they were willing to accept the writings of ancient critics of Athenian democracy at face value while ignoring the actual evidence. Basically, trying to build an accurate picture of Athenian society from written evidence alone would be like people in the year 4500 trying to reconstruct early 21st century American society based solely on surviving recordings of Fox News. e: Regarding homosexuality; the ancient Greeks (and later Romans) didn't actually think of sexuality that way. To a Greek, sexuality wasn't about the person you were having sex with, it was about the way you were having sex. Greek sexual thought divided people into "active" (penetrating) and "passive/pathic" (penetrated) partners - they also thought that only penetrative sex counted as sex, hence the preoccupation with penetrating. Being active was thought of as natural for a male, regardless of who you were penetrating, and being passive was natural for a female; passive men, however, were generally scorned and despised. No one really knows what the Greeks thought of female sexuality, because very little writing by Greek women survives into modern times. They knew lesbians existed - they called some of them tribades. which means "those who rub," but this word refers specifically to women who penetrate. Tribades were also regarded with disdain, because the Greeks thought women were supposed to be penetrated by nature, but we don't know what the Greeks thought of women who were penetrated by other women; since being passive was seen as natural for women, they may not have cared, in the same way that they didn't care about men who penetrated other men. This is all further complicated by the fact that the Greeks saw sex and love as being two different things, not necessarily connected, and they had different sets of sexual and romantic mores - while all the weird hangups about penetration apply to sex, the Greeks don't seem to have cared at all about homosexual love. We know male romantic love was quite common among the Greek elite - as one might expect in a society where marriages were often arranged and the genders didn't socially mingle all that much - and was widely seen, under the right circumstances, as beautiful and noble; two of the founding heroes of the Athenian democracy, Harmodios and Aristogeiton, were famously lovers. But love between men and women was common too, and received much the same sorts of praise; there were cults across the Greek world to famous mythological lovers, and Odysseus and Penelope were widely revered as models of heterosexual love. And we know that female romantic love existed, and was even celebrated by writers like Sappho and Aristophanes, although, like I said, this comes with the caveat that so little writing by ancient women survives that we have very little material concerning ancient lesbianism. There's quite a lot to say about Greek sexuality and romanticism, and lots of scholars, including my current thesis supervisor, have made careers out of exploring it. tl;dr: From a modern perspective, Greek sexuality was a very weird thing indeed, and making generalisations about it is extraordinarily difficult. Ancient Greece was a very different cultural world from our own. The Sin of Onan fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Oct 16, 2014 |
# ? Oct 16, 2014 21:51 |
|
Kainser posted:Sigismund didn't sucessfully conquer Sweden, he was the legitimate heir, his uncle rebelled against him and then Sigismund faffed around a bit in Sweden without achieving anything. Not at all like good old Christian Tyrann The question is whether or not "Denmark" did. I don't think sharing a monarch and/or forcing/being forced back into a personal union qualifies. e: at the very least you'd have to add a Norwegian flag as well. Cake Smashing Boob fucked around with this message at 13:14 on Oct 17, 2014 |
# ? Oct 17, 2014 12:50 |
|
ecureuilmatrix posted:...Poland??? Some of the German states did decriminalise homosexuality during the early nineteenth century, but Prussia never did, and it was recriminalized across the German Empire following German unification. Italy's interesting - before unification, a lot of Italian states had decriminalised homosexuality, but not Piedmont-Sardinia. After unification, the new Italian goverment recriminalized it across the new state... except in the south, where an exception in the legal code let it remain legal in the areas formerly ruled by the Kingdom of the Two Scillies. Then thirty years later, it was decriminalised Italy-wide anyway.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2014 13:46 |
|
IceAgeComing posted:That one is even more hosed up; since the Scottish Parliament didn't exist until 1999, so you'd have thought that it would have been sensible to pass similar legislation for Scotland then... Northern Ireland is more complicated, since you had the Parliament until 1972, random assemblies with limited powers at random points in the mid seventies and early eighties plus... slightly more immediate problems for the UK government to consider in Northern Ireland than LGBT rights. The Yugoslav republics had autonomy so you'd expect to see legislation differences in areas like the decriminalisation of homosexuality, since its not something that you'd imagine the central government to get overly concerned about. It's because Scots law uses a common/civil law hybrid whereas England & Wales use common law. This means the bills have to be seperate, they usually can't just roll one out over Scotland and England & Wales. The Scotland Committee in the government of the time could have just made their own bill but in situations like this they tended to watch how the law goes in England & Wales and close up any loopholes etc. The English bill specifically banned gay threesomes (!!!) and homosexual sex in hotels (neither legalised until 2000!) whilst the Scottish bill did not.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2014 14:32 |
|
|
# ? Oct 17, 2014 14:35 |
|
Apples and Oranges, the upper two rows display sovereign nations while the lower row does not.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2014 14:53 |
|
Kosovo and Montenegro are both regions of Serbia, duh.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2014 15:46 |
|
The Sin of Onan posted:This isn't actually true - most evidence suggests that Athenian women held jobs, had their own phratries (cross between a neighbourhood association and a local cult), and were generally very active in civic life. The reason this story gets repeated so often is because this is what a handful of elite Athenian writers thought the ideal woman should be like, and since their writings survived into the present day while most common citizens' perspectives were lost, we only had their word for what life was like in ancient Athens. Much of our written evidence about Athenian democracy comes from sources with an axe to grind against the democracy, and in the days before archaeology, their word was often all we had to go on. It doesn't help that most early modern classical historians were also virulently anti-democratic, so they were willing to accept the writings of ancient critics of Athenian democracy at face value while ignoring the actual evidence. Thanks, that was quite interesting.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2014 19:00 |
|
|
# ? Jun 9, 2024 18:54 |
|
Speaking of Ottomans http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2014/10/16/history_of_the_ottoman_empire_ottoman_map_of_the_united_states_in_1803.html
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 06:50 |