|
Phobophilia posted:I would like to draw a direct parallel between the mutilation of political rivals in the Constantinople-based era of the Roman empire and the modern New Jersey mafia tradition of kneecapping opponents. I would also like to put forth the theory that the Byzantines were actually the source of the Atlantis stories and they they were descended from Colombians.
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
Kanine posted:I would also like to put forth the theory that the Byzantines were actually the source of the Atlantis Could not resist.  
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Whoops, forgot which Latin-American country the crackpots were bent on being Atlantis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
Been meaning to link this, next time Atlantischat came around.quote:When the mythical island of Atlantis submerged into the ocean, it took all of its orichalcum with it. The legendary cast metal was reputedly second only to gold in value. A team of divers say they’ve recovered 39 blocks of orichalcum in a sixth-century shipwreck on the seafloor near Sicily The hard-hitting facebook-covering coverage you expect from IFL Science
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Been meaning to link this, next time Atlantischat came around. If only the boat was off the coast of South America and of Roman design...
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Except for the part where the second guy starts talking about nation-states like those were a thing in the first millennium. That's kinda bananas. People do it on and off, little do they realize that nations are an invention of the 19th century. I guess that's another case of a 22th century reenactor playing a 500 pound Patton on a mobility scooter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:People do it on and off, little do they realize that nations are an invention of the 19th century. I guess that's another case of a 22th century reenactor playing a 500 pound Patton on a mobility scooter. This is kind of like nerds insisting that "all food is organic, because it's carbon-based". You have to ignore an awful lot of historical usage of the word "nation" to claim that nations didn't show up until the 1800s.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
The juju of Nationalism is definitely at work before the 19th century, even if that's the obvious point of explosion.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
In the 14th century Edward III was raising money to fight his war for the French throne by scareongering about a french plot to invade England and destroy the English language. Feels fairly nationalistic to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:In the 14th century Edward III was raising money to fight his war for the French throne by scareongering about a french plot to invade England and destroy the English language. Feels fairly nationalistic to me. Isnt that (that being the hyw) where most people say the idea of nations as a thing started? Before that (exceptions like roman republic aside) it was mostly daves land and freds land rather than any concept of this is england and im english regardless of who happens to be in charge?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
It's a fluid thing. Traditionally the legal concept of a nation state is traced to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and modern nationalism to Napoleon. National identity arose differently everywhere and it's the kind of debate that has no real satisfying answer. Applying our modern concept of the nation state to the classical world is absolutely wrong. It doesn't mean there's nothing about the classical world that resembles the idea of nations though. It's just so different that the comparison isn't useful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
The concept of "nation" still doesn't work in many parts of the world. See: The Middle East, where the concept of "tribe" has far more weight than "Iraqi" or even "Sunni".
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
I think the distinction is that it's nationalistic feelings as opposed to fully-developed nationalism. Nationalism as we understand it is a function of expanded communication. Ancient Romans and Chinese probably had a more developed sense of national identity, but they didn't have nationalism as we understand. Everyone has had their own communities, but the idea of nation (and "imagined community" as Benedict Anderson described it) has varied.Cast_No_Shadow posted:Isnt that (that being the hyw) where most people say the idea of nations as a thing started? Before that (exceptions like roman republic aside) it was mostly daves land and freds land rather than any concept of this is england and im english regardless of who happens to be in charge? Our modern polities are expected to rule precisely and equally over all of its territory and inhabitants, but pre-modern dynastic polities were nothing like that. They were based on the centre revolving around a monarch, whose power emanated into outlying regions. The outlying inhabitants tended to be equal in that they were all equally distant from the centre and the monarch who united them. Edward III's cousin once removed was the reigning King of France, and the Hundred Years' Wa was begun to secure control over English lands in France.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:The concept of "nation" still doesn't work in many parts of the world. Even in the US, prior to the Civil War and I imagine for a while after, people tended to identify with their home state first, then as an American. A lot of people today still do actually, especially in the South.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:The concept of "nation" still doesn't work in many parts of the world. See: The Middle East, where the concept of "tribe" has far more weight than "Iraqi" or even "Sunni". Uh I don't know about that. Iraq had plenty of nationalism until it was destroyed by colonial imperialism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Uh I don't know about that. Iraq had plenty of nationalism until it was destroyed by colonial imperialism. Iraq wasn't a state until colonial imperialism. I assume you're referring to the 19th and 20th centuries, and not to this century.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Protonationalistic feelings are difficult to pin down at the best of times. When late medieval Germans begin to tire of having their regions partitioned by politics and inheritance, what is that? When you say 'I am not a South-West-Saxon or a South Saxon but just A Saxon' you are expressing a belief in an idea of a Land. This is sometimes referred to in that context as heimatliebe. It's definitely something. For the Roman world the dominant identities are civic and cultural, though - definitely not national.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Also in the Arab world don't fall in to the trap of thinking that the weak nationalism of today means nationalism has always been weak - it shows you skipped the middle part of the 20th century.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
I think you can point to things well before the 19th century as nationalistic. The Dutch Revolt against Spain may have been fueled by the Reformation, but there was certainly an aspect of local elites sick of taking orders from a distant and uncaring metropole that is pretty much the definition of nationalism. Plenty of people in England responded with rah-rah chauvinism to Spain's attempt to claim the English throne in the 1580s and that wasn't purely a Reformation thing either. Portugal's successful and Catalonia's unsuccessful attempts to break with Spain in the 1640s don't even have the Reformation to blame, just local elites tired of taking orders from a weak and disinterested regime in Madrid, and if that isn't nationalism what is. Back on topic...trivia question. Who was the last Roman Emperor to have a monument in the city of Rome? This is relevant to the Rome/Byzantine question. Patter Song fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:I think you can point to things well before the 19th century as nationalistic. The Dutch Revolt against Spain may have been fueled by the Reformation, but there was certainly an aspect of local elites sick of taking orders from a distant and uncaring metropole that is pretty much the definition of nationalism. Plenty of people in England responded with rah-rah chauvinism to Spain's attempt to claim the English throne in the 1580s and that wasn't purely a Reformation thing either. Portugal's successful and Catalonia's unsuccessful attempts to break with Spain in the 1640s don't even have the Reformation to blame, just local elites tired of taking orders from a weak and disinterested regime in Madrid, and if that isn't nationalism what is. This is a big deal though. One of the reasons the French Revolution is such a big deal is how deep it ran into the communities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
If somebody uses the word natio in a medieval text, you cannot assume that the word is connected to the same (quite large) pool of ideas as it is in the 19th century. Some points have already been brought up, and nationalism or what people nowadays associate with it is a direct result of the state creating a narrative that overgrew old (communal) identities and loyalties that the people held before. When Hegel's Saxons speak about Heimat, it is not a reference to a topos that includes a shared history of sort of a larger scope, but a diffuse term that refers to a place of belonging or a small community where people share certain customs (not even necessarily the same language). Nationalism is tied to the existence of a state in the modern sense, who uses certain narratives to expand the range of what you'd associate with Heimat well beyond what was understood by the word one or two hundred years before. This is carried on many levels and is especially evident in the way that the state established a certain language as the standard idiom through compulsory schooling. Children learning poems of national poets come to mind, Goethe in Germany and I'm sure you can come up with a number or people from your country. Let's not forget the way that history is told. There's always a master narrative that people are infused with, usually some kind of war long ago against invaders or foreign forces. Since you already spoke about Germany, the Hermannsmythos is the best example for this, or french nationalist literature refering to the Gallic Wars.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 17:18
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:If somebody uses the word natio in a medieval text, you cannot assume that the word is connected to the same (quite large) pool of ideas as it is in the 19th century. Some points have already been brought up, and nationalism or what people nowadays associate with it is a direct result of the state creating a narrative that overgrew old (communal) identities and loyalties that the people held before. When Hegel's Saxons speak about Heimat, it is not a reference to a topos that includes a shared history of sort of a larger scope, but a diffuse term that refers to a place of belonging or a small community where people share certain customs (not even necessarily the same language). Nationalism is tied to the existence of a state in the modern sense, who uses certain narratives to expand the range of what you'd associate with Heimat well beyond what was understood by the word one or two hundred years before. All of that does not necessarily mean that there isn't a historical relationship with that idea of heimat and later ideas of nationalism.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
They're definitely related in an evolutionary sense, but the scope is different. It's no accident that nationalistic parties here claim that they're the party of the "Heimat".
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Yes I think that's right.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:Even in the US, prior to the Civil War and I imagine for a while after, people tended to identify with their home state first, then as an American. A lot of people today still do actually, especially in the South.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:I think you can point to things well before the 19th century as nationalistic. The Dutch Revolt against Spain may have been fueled by the Reformation, but there was certainly an aspect of local elites sick of taking orders from a distant and uncaring metropole that is pretty much the definition of nationalism. Plenty of people in England responded with rah-rah chauvinism to Spain's attempt to claim the English throne in the 1580s and that wasn't purely a Reformation thing either. Portugal's successful and Catalonia's unsuccessful attempts to break with Spain in the 1640s don't even have the Reformation to blame, just local elites tired of taking orders from a weak and disinterested regime in Madrid, and if that isn't nationalism what is. Isn't it stupid old Phocas? fake edit: yep
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:And even then it sometimes extends to city state level, like in PA where Pittsburgh and Philly hate each other I think that's pretty universal. Everybody's ethnicity has different levels to it, and that's no less true now than it was in the fifth century. Most of us identify with our country first, and then perhaps a provincial level distinction beyond that, then our cities, and neighbourhoods, and then families.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 18:34
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Patter Song posted:Back on topic...trivia question. Who was the last Roman Emperor to have a monument in the city of Rome? This is relevant to the Rome/Byzantine question.  This guy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I think that's pretty universal. Everybody's ethnicity has different levels to it, and that's no less true now than it was in the fifth century. Most of us identify with our country first, and then perhaps a provincial level distinction beyond that, then our cities, and neighbourhoods, and then families. That order pretty much exemplifies what this national upbringing does to the individual and why a place where this is upside down, where family and clan comes first, is dramatically different.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Also in the Arab world don't fall in to the trap of thinking that the weak nationalism of today means nationalism has always been weak - it shows you skipped the middle part of the 20th century. Was it nationalism ("Syria forever!", "I love being Iraqi!"), or was it more an anti-Western, anti-Israeli sentiment in nationalist guise? Put another way, did nationalism trump tribal lines at any point?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 20:19
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Was it nationalism ("Syria forever!", "I love being Iraqi!"), or was it more an anti-Western, anti-Israeli sentiment in nationalist guise? Put another way, did nationalism trump tribal lines at any point? Who's to say if it trumped it, but it was certainly much more politically potent in Communist Afghanistan (for example) than it is today. Not all Arab nationalism is now or was then a feature of anti-Israeli or anti-Western feeling either.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Chances are great that you've never heard about Pan-Arabism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Rincewind posted:Isn't it stupid old Phocas? Yes, which raises the question why the two hundred years the Byzantines held Rome doesn't get brought up more often in the "are they Rome" argument. By Phocas' day Rome was as relevant to the empire as it had been in Honorius' day not at all but it was an imperial city nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 20:50
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Chances are great that you've never heard about Pan-Arabism. If that's for me then that's a pretty dumb comment, but I'm not sure.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Nope. I know that you know about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Then yeah, this long twin prong of wiki articles would probably be useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_nationalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Arabism
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Thanks for the links. I'll concede that Arab nationalism is A Thing, and that perhaps Afghan nationalism was A Thing during the Soviet invasion, but maintain that tribal identification and loyalty trumps that for a majority of the populations referenced.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 20:57
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Thanks for the links. I'll concede that Arab nationalism is A Thing, and that perhaps Afghan nationalism was A Thing during the Soviet invasion, but maintain that tribal identification and loyalty trumps that for a majority of the populations referenced. I'm not sure how useful it is to take that pre-selected opinion in to your reading given your apparent lack of information.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Thanks for the links. I'll concede that Arab nationalism is A Thing, and that perhaps Afghan nationalism was A Thing during the Soviet invasion, but maintain that tribal identification and loyalty trumps that for a majority of the populations referenced. Yeah, I don't know, man. 2/3 of Iraqis (for example) live in cities. Not in desert yurts or whatever you are imagining?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:When Hegel's Saxons speak about Heimat, it is not a reference to a topos that includes a shared history of sort of a larger scope, but a diffuse term that refers to a place of belonging or a small community where people share certain customs (not even necessarily the same language). Nationalism is tied to the existence of a state in the modern sense... HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 21:13
|
|
