|
The Greeks were never under the authority of the Catholic Church.
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:The Greeks were never under the authority of the Catholic Church. That sounds like schismatic talk to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
No but they were under the authority of Rome, including its Pontifex Maximus etc. And I'm sure that the early bishops of Rome exerted their authority there as in the rest of the empire. Half continuity, half dumb pedo jokes
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
There were actually huge fights about pontifical authority for hundreds of years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Anyone wanting to know whether traditional Three Kingdoms costumes are historically accurate. http://imgur.com/gallery/Ft0l4
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 09:24
|
|
|
ew
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 09:27
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:The Greeks were never under the authority of the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church is most definitely Catholic, by its own reckoning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Marks_of_the_Church icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Apr 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
I've seen "Greek Catholic" used a couple of times but I think people generally prefer to talk about Orthodox to avoid needless confusion. Catholic is a Greek word though so you'd think it would've become synonymous with the Greek church rather than the Roman one. FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Apr 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Yeah I'm just being pedantic. Greek Catholic are churches/dioces that were originally Byzantine Rite / Greek Orthodox that switched allegiance to Rome and still run the Greek liturgy, mostly in the bits of Ukraine/Belarus the Poles were dominant in and in the Middle East
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
You're not even being accurately pedantic, though, since "Catholic Church" used in that context means the Roman church, in the same way that "Orthodox" refers to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches even though the Catholic Church obviously thinks of itself as being orthodox.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 12:36
|
|
Catholic just means universal, this shouldn't pose any difficulty 
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
Okay let's nip this. In casual usage, catholic means the Roman Catholic Church in Rome where the Pope does his popery. Orthodox means the Greek church. In technical accurate usage, both the Roman and Greek churches consider themselves catholic and orthodox. The more fun thing is both represent still active and lively parts of the Roman government.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The more fun thing is both represent still active and lively parts of the Roman government. So what you're saying is that one day, from the ashes, Rome shall rise again 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 22:07
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:So what you're saying is that one day, from the ashes, Rome shall rise again Republic or Imperial? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Republic or Imperial? Monarchy, of course. Initially, I was kidding, but considering "Christ is the King", that actually makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Commune 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Fell Fire posted:Monarchy, of course. Oh that you were still alive, we need a Brutus! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 10:24
|
|
|
blowfish posted:So what you're saying is that one day, from the ashes, Rome shall rise again No. What he's saying is that Rome never died. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Oh that you were still alive, we need a Brutus! The best part of the early imperial period is watching all the old aristocratic families die out. They were evil, greedy, selfish, reactionary, pieces of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
So in pre-European Central/South American cultures, were llamas/alpacas handled the same way cows were in Europe at the time? I vaguely remember reading that there were no large meat sources for the aztecs (or mayas or inca?) Why didn't they breed llamas/alpacas en masse? Sorry if this is a dumb question.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
I'm confused, are you saying they didn't breed large numbers of llamas? Llamas and alpacas were domesticated between 5 and 7 thousand years ago from their respective wild ancestors. Llama meat would be unusual in an average pre-columbian diet for the same reason beef was unusual in an average old world diet -- llamas and cows are a lot more valuable alive than dead. Sort of moreso for llamas, because they provide wool as well as milk and labor. Alpacas are more wool animals but the same reasoning applies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
They're lovely draft animals, they're not very strong. I am not sure if they were used for food much. My instinct is there isn't much in the way of grazing land in South America. The most advanced civilization was the Inca, and they're up in crazy rear end mountains. Amazon wouldn't be suitable for that sort of thing. Argentina has a lot of graze land but I suspect that's European created. This is from a very cursory understanding since I find the Americas super boring.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:They're lovely draft animals, they're not very strong. I am not sure if they were used for food much. My instinct is there isn't much in the way of grazing land in South America. The most advanced civilization was the Inca, and they're up in crazy rear end mountains. Amazon wouldn't be suitable for that sort of thing. Argentina has a lot of graze land but I suspect that's European created. They were used for carrying things, though, but not on the scale of horses and ox carrying large wagons. Small mountain and jungle trails and all that jazz. They didn't leave South America, though. But llamas are pretty much all there is for pack animals over here pre-Spanish.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Direct comparisons don't work super well. A llama is kind of a mule/sheep/goat/dog sort of animal. It can haul light loads around mountainous terrain, provides decent quality wool every year, is an independent and efficient grazer, produces milk, and can even be a household guard and/or pet animal. It might not be as good at hauling as a mule or as good at producing milk as a cow or as good at learning complex tasks as a dog, but it can do an okay job at all of those things. Of course the pre-columbian new world didn't have those specialized old world domesticated species anyway. The llama was a generalist and still far too useful to just eat. I mean they would eat them, but not on a regular basis. The alpaca is less useful as a work animal but produces very fine wool so you wouldn't eat your herd unless the food situation was desperate. everything you ever wanted to know about domesticated camelids Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Apr 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
can you just do an efforpost that summarizes that 500 page document
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:This is from a very cursory understanding since I find the Americas super boring. Any reasons you have this view on the America's? I'm not very well versed in pre-columbian history but it is my understand that we know very little about them compared to many other civilizations (Thanks Spain!) Do you think if we knew a lot more about them you might be more interested in the subject?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Better records would help. But I think a lot of it is that history classes in the US prior to university focus so heavily on the US and Native Americans that I got sick of hearing about it. I still rarely read any kind of Americas history other than Cold War stuff, since I was always into the USSR.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
I shouldn't say US there, it's regional and depends on the school. In my schooling history consisted of basically four topics: Renaissance art Native Americans USA The Holocaust
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:can you just do an efforpost that summarizes that 500 page document The most economically important products of the alpaca are wool, meat, and leather in that order. Both species yield about 2 kg of wool per year. Llamas yield about 50kg of meat on slaughter, alpacas yield only 20 on average. Llamas are hardy and sure-footed pack animals valued more for labor than for meat or wool. Llamas are still the primary means of portage in terrain inaccessible to motor vehicles. The Spanish really hosed up (what else is new) the Inca animal husbandry practices and the llama and alpaca nearly went extinct in the 16th century. Alpaca wool is great, people still go apeshit over it. Llama wool not so much. Both species make decent pets. The Bactrian camel is a disgrace to life on Earth, and its continued existence as a species is as inexplicable as it is shameful. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Apr 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
Alpacas are so soft it's adorable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
If it helps, U.S. primary/secondary education of native American history (especially pre-contact) is even more poo poo than the rest of pre-university history education and the real stuff is way better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Llama's do scare the poo poo out of coyotes though apparently. A bunch of people up here keep them on sheep farms basically as guard dogs. The Aztecs would have gotten a kick out of that one.Grand Fromage posted:Better records would help. But I think a lot of it is that history classes in the US prior to university focus so heavily on the US and Native Americans that I got sick of hearing about it. I still rarely read any kind of Americas history other than Cold War stuff, since I was always into the USSR. This was the same way I felt about my history education in Canada, and I'm only in the last few years realizing just how awful it was. Perhaps it's the aversion to teaching things like plague-based societal collapse, colonialism, or straight up genocide; perhaps it's that we genuinely know much more than we did 30-40 years ago, but now I feel really let down by it all. I would love to have been taught more than "Natives were here, Europeans came, there was a fur trade, 7 Years War (North American portion only, I didn't realize it was part of a proto-World War until I left highschool), Confederation, Quebec Sovereignty Issues".
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 18:03
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Llama's do scare the poo poo out of coyotes though apparently. A bunch of people up here keep them on sheep farms basically as guard dogs. The Aztecs would have gotten a kick out of that one. I know exactly how you feel. I went through the Quebec education system, and if you go by what was taught back then, you might as well claim there were no Natives in North America. There is literally nothing taught about the history of the natives other than, "They helped us in our wars, then we gave 'em blankets that killed em all. Those that were left were put in reserves and now we own the land. The end."
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I shouldn't say US there, it's regional and depends on the school. In my schooling history consisted of basically four topics: So limited, in the UK history consisted of: There were Romans! Then there were Vikings or something, I don't know shut up. Then there were Then were Germans! Then there were If you stick with it past that then you get to learn a little about Europe in the 19th century or whatever. I guess there's also some stuff on the Slave trade and the Golden Triangle of British trade. I should emphasise Germans consist of pretty much the entirety of learning 12-16.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Any reasons you have this view on the America's? I'm not very well versed in pre-columbian history but it is my understand that we know very little about them compared to many other civilizations (Thanks Spain!) Do you think if we knew a lot more about them you might be more interested in the subject? Grand Fromage posted:Better records would help. But I think a lot of it is that history classes in the US prior to university focus so heavily on the US and Native Americans that I got sick of hearing about it. I still rarely read any kind of Americas history other than Cold War stuff, since I was always into the USSR. I took a Pre-Columbian Mesoamercan art and architecture class in college, and it was one of my favorite classes out of an education of a lot of favorite classes. Turns out we actually do know and/or have figured out quite a bit about them, and it's all fascinating. It was technically an art history class so we did a lot on their visual culture (very unique and striking), but like with a lot of early civs, it's hard to separate art out from politics. I could dig out my textbooks when I get home, if anyone's interested.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:I could dig out my textbooks when I get home, if anyone's interested. I'm interested! Anything I can learn about any and all ancient culture is always welcome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
quote:If it helps, U.S. primary/secondary education of native American history (especially pre-contact) is even more poo poo than the rest of pre-university history education and the real stuff is way better. My history education during school - Canadian "Social Studies" classes - turned me off history for a long time. We spent probably half our time on Canadian History/Geography, and over that time I learned: 1. First Nations peoples used plants (every plant) for medicine. We never talked about, you know, what sort of problems a plant might be related to - just, uh, medicine. Raspberries? Medicine. Pine bark? Medicine. Lichen? Moss? I don't know, but if asked on a test I definitely would have said "used for medicine". Also, I know exactly one colorful fact about a number of native nations (the Haida make totem poles!) 2. Every Canadian city was founded by someone (since 9th Grade I've had brain space reserved for the fact that Kingston was founded by Lord Frontenac). For every place we also needed to know the name of the first European to visit it (Anthony Henday was the first European to visit Red Deer!) 3. Louis Riel was a "controversial figure", who we would later find out was involved in the "complicated" Red River Rebellion, on which there are many perspectives. We were not told any of the perspectives. 4. There were 3 or 4 battles in World War II, involving pretty much just Germany and Canada. Canada was super baller, so Dutch people love us. 5. John A MacDonald was the first Prime Minister. 6. Politics is kind of a number line going from freedom hating Communists to freedom hating Fascists, with normal people in the middle. God I would have loved some ancient history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
jmzero posted:My history education during school - Canadian "Social Studies" classes - turned me off history for a long time. We spent probably half our time on Canadian History/Geography, and over that time I learned: Yeah.. That sounds about right. Did your teacher use the words "Stormtroopers of the British Empire" when describing Canadian soldiers? Mine did. Now why would someone use a reference to a group of people who are notoriously bad at shooting while trying to claim Canada has the best soldiers, I will never understand. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
One of the best decisions I made in k-12 schooling was to ignore my history classes and teach myself. Turns out it's not very hard to know more history than history teachers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
It seems like the one universal aspect of every history thread is that everyone's history education pre-college/university was somehow poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 19:20
|
|
