RocknRollaAyatollah posted:

Sweden's, as stated, should be Denmark. Russia invaded in a subsequent war but that territory is now Finland.

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.

e: Denmark for Sweden would make no sense either way.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Why not? Christian II reconquered Sweden, he just lost the peace pretty much immediately by being a goddamn idiot.

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.

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.

ekuNNN posted:

Last country to be invaded by

Torrannor posted:

Didn't Serbia invade Bosnia and Croatia last?

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.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Was Sweden's ascension to the EU precipitated by a Belgian invasion?

Benito Hitlerstalin posted:

No? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Christian II brought an army to Sweden and made the Swedish nobility accept him as king.

Benito Hitlerstalin posted:

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?

Rumda posted:

That is a better qualification for an invasion than the glorious revolution.

Benito Hitlerstalin posted:

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.

Benito Hitlerstalin posted:

I guess you could slap some heraldry on there, maybe?

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.

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.

3peat posted:

my dad posted:

How can ex-Yugoslav countries have different laws in 1989?

3peat posted:

Because Yugoslavia was a federation, and the various republics in it could have different laws

3peat posted:

Because Yugoslavia was a federation, and the various republics in it could have different laws

Sheng-ji Yang posted:

The Ottomans legalized homosexual sex?

quote:

The most important reform measures promoted by Abdülmecid were:

Introduction of the first Ottoman paper banknotes (1840)
Reorganisation of the army, including the introduction of conscription (1842–1844)[1]
Adoption of an Ottoman national anthem and Ottoman national flag (1844)
Reorganisation of the finance system according to the French model
Reorganisation of the Civil and Criminal Code according to the French model[1]
Reorganisation of the court system, establishing a system of civil and criminal courts with both European and Ottoman judges.[1]
Establishment of the Meclis-i Maarif-i Umumiye (1845) which was the prototype of the First Ottoman Parliament (1876)
Institution of a council of public instruction (1846)
Creation of the Ministry of Education[1]
Establishment of the first modern universities and academies (1848)
Establishment of an Ottoman school in Paris[1]
Abolition of an unfairly imposed capitation tax which imposed higher tariffs on non-Muslims (1856)
Non-Muslims were allowed to become soldiers in the Ottoman army (1856)
Various provisions for the better administration of the public service and for the advancement of commerce
New land laws confirming the right of ownership (1858)[1]
Decriminalisation of homosexuality (1858)[10][11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd%C3%BClmecid_I

my dad posted:

How can ex-Yugoslav countries have different laws in 1989?

ecureuilmatrix posted:

...Poland???

Carbon dioxide posted:

Don't forget that homosexual sex was perfectly acceptable in Ancient Greece.

Badger of Basra posted:

Wasn't it only if you were a top?

Benito Hitlerstalin posted:

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?

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.

icantfindaname posted:

Remember Athenian women weren't allowed to leave the house without a full body burqa-style covering. Progressive people these were not

icantfindaname posted:

Remember Athenian women weren't allowed to leave the house without a full body burqa-style covering. Progressive people these were not

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

ecureuilmatrix posted:

...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?

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.

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.

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.