|
Disinterested posted:You can look at certain types of record where heights are usually taken - military entrance is a common one. yeah but i recall reading a book where they measured the height of viking settlers by calculating from exhumed remains of various types, and they were systematically quite a bit shorter than modern scandinavians using that approach like short of 1.70 average height for males for your average farmer-fisherman iirc, so taller than your industrial revolution prole, but still much smaller than modern people
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:How much of the armor is intact? What time period is this from? I'm curious about how much of the armor is made of materials that can decay and how much that changes over different varieties of armor and different times. Haven't counted how many suits it is (the collection is gigantic by any means), it's full plate and also horse armor and weapons. Prime condition gothic plate to suits from the 17th century. Some have leather straps still left on them, and there's special padding for horses and men for jousting made from hemp(?) that's super old and rare. There's also Hussar's shields with fittings intact, which is something of a rarity, considering that wood and rawhide decays easily. Now, everything that you see on display seems to have been well cared for throughout the ages, which is kinda rare, but not completely surprising, considering that it's the imperial collection of arms and armor. Rodrigo would jizz himself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
I was in Vienna recently and went to the Vienna museum which was good but only featured the decorative armour, not the actual combat stuff. That was cool (can confirm that it was quite short for some reason) but I wanted to see what real, in-use armour looked like. Maybe 5 years ago while still at uni I emailed a guy whose article (or book?) I liked and over a few emails he sent me some photos of the work he was doing at the time, analysing damaged armour from ancient Greek battlefields, working in the backrooms for a museum somewhere. I might still have a couple photos on an old hard drive, you have these bronze Corinthian helmets rusted Green with spear holes in the cheek where the previous wearer had been killed. I find that "immediacy" way more interesting than the floral designs on commissioned parade armour.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
There isn't just one collection. The vienna museum is small and has a few suits from the Zeughaus. There's 2 suits for jousting, one decorated, some others for actual combat. The Hofjagd und Rüstkammer has an extremely large collection of everything. Representative stuff that's excessively decorated, jousting armor, suits for combat, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
Yeah we definitely didn't spend as long there as we should have, or dedicate enough time to museums. We had to bring work with us so we only managed to slip in a few museums over the last couple days. Next time we'll go longer (maybe even for a few months to work on German) and do all the things we didn't get time for last go.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Decius posted:You assume these (Spatha, Gladius, Viking) swords were used in a hammer grip, which apparently was not necessarily the case: http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2478 I've only been able to get really hands on at with the collection at the ROM due to some friends but a hammer grip really doesn't fit my 6 foot tall body.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
How did the Popular Assemblies come to exist, and how did they develop as institutions?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
As for how they came to be, it's hard to say - the institution was at least as old as the kings and probably had some kind of religious aspect. The story is that the Roman kings were invited from abroad, so presumably the original assemblies had something to do with the process of selecting one. As for how they developed, that's more complicated and I've posted about late Republican electoral chicanery before, so if you want more detail you might want to look back in the thread history. The important thing to keep in mind is that there were 35 "tribes", which were geographical districts. Only four of those were in the city of Rome itself and those urban tribes, in particular, were divided between the super-wealthy city-based landowners and the urban poor. The rural tribes were comprised mostly of people who owned a little bit of land but were cash-poor and not people of great means. Most of the electoral manipulation that went on was the city elite trying to manipulate these small landowners into not coming to the city on election days, making it exorbitantly expensive to do so, etc. This was done because the urban poor could be paid for with things that it was easy for the aristocrats to do - fancier games, tax relief, goddamn Sullacare, etc. The landowner demands were often too onerous or inconvenient, and the conflict between well to do rural plebeians and down on their luck city patricians was an ongoing theme. By the late Republic, most of the legislation (qua legislation) was coming from the tribal assemblies, though often backed by some patrician patron. The final stage of development was Tiberius consolidating all their functions into the Senate and sending the Assemblies packing. The four urban tribes became swelled with new freedmen and got a mortal lock on them,so gradually the assembly's role became to "oversee the grain dole", which meant to eat poo poo if anything goes wrong with the grain trade.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
When different cultures met each other for the very first time, how did they learn each other's languages?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:When different cultures met each other for the very first time, how did they learn each other's languages? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sleeping_Dictionary
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:When different cultures met each other for the very first time, how did they learn each other's languages? How do children learn languages? The process is not different on an essential level.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 09:34
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:How do children learn languages? The process is not different on an essential level. Wow what? Adults with an L1 learn an L2 just like babies learn an L1? Stop the presses guys, we're putting this on the cover of Nature.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Wow what? Adults with an L1 learn an L2 just like babies learn an L1? Stop the presses guys, we're putting this on the cover of Nature. I didn't say that, but if you're put into a foreign language community where you cannot fall back on your L1, you absolutely will learn the language by immersion. e: and I do stand by the "essential level" part, because the problems of language acquisition after the critical period are generally, like, that it's harder, that things don't stick, not really much else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 09:58
|
|
|
Real life works exactly like that scene in The 13th Warrior where Antonio Banderas listens to the Vikings talk a lot and then eventually he can talk in Swedish or whatever too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
I think you're strawmaning him quite a bit. While the brain is not as capable at language acquisition as a 0-4 year olds, and L2 will never come with the same sheer crushing necessity as L1, it works pretty much the same way. If you go in the deep end you will rapidly establish a functional ability to communicate, even if it's pidgin to the extreme, starting with repeating sounds once you establish what they're referring to. You build on that the same way kids do. The benefit of already having an L1 (even with no linguistic or grammatical education) is that you already understand intrinsically the base concepts of language, the existence of (if not the term for) phonemes and morphemes etc, so you don't have to overcome the initial hump of having to learn what language IS or that sentience exists outside of the self. I don't get why you'd be making fun of him except to jump on a bandwagon because not being the butt of every joke is a novelty for you or something? If you've ever lived in a foreign country with no previous knowledge of that language you'd appreciate how quickly you go from clueless to functional.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
Sulla-Marius 88 posted:I think you're strawmaning him quite a bit. While the brain is not as capable at language acquisition as a 0-4 year olds, and L2 will never come with the same sheer crushing necessity as L1, it works pretty much the same way. If you go in the deep end you will rapidly establish a functional ability to communicate, even if it's pidgin to the extreme, starting with repeating sounds once you establish what they're referring to. You build on that the same way kids do. The benefit of already having an L1 (even with no linguistic or grammatical education) is that you already understand intrinsically the base concepts of language, the existence of (if not the term for) phonemes and morphemes etc, so you don't have to overcome the initial hump of having to learn what language IS or that sentience exists outside of the self. I was being mostly serious with the bad movie comparison, dude. The protagonist is immersed in a completely unfamiliar culture and slowly picks up the language. The part where he's instantly fluent is obviously ridiculous though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
I can't speak about the ancient world, but French traders would often marry American Indian wives and early translators were from those families. The Lakota Sioux word for "translator" (ceska or similar as memory serves, I forget) is also used as an epithet for mixed-race people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:When different cultures met each other for the very first time, how did they learn each other's languages? Swords, guns and arrows: the universal language.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
gavigai
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 13:39
|
|
|
Guardian with an interesting article on the black market in antiquities being smuggled out of Syria.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
How well did the Byzantine Empire tolerate non-Christian minority religions?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
I'm planning on sprucing up the shop I run at a well-known Roman Villa, and would quite like a Latin phrase (and translation) somehow related to it to paint onto a small section of wall. Something to do with spending money, or charitable giving, or similar. "Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo" is probably not a suitable candidate, even as a threat to non-buying customers. Any suggestions would be gratefully received, though!
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
sebzilla posted:I'm planning on sprucing up the shop I run at a well-known Roman Villa, and would quite like a Latin phrase (and translation) somehow related to it to paint onto a small section of wall. Something to do with spending money, or charitable giving, or similar. Pecunia non olet 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
sebzilla posted:I'm planning on sprucing up the shop I run at a well-known Roman Villa, and would quite like a Latin phrase (and translation) somehow related to it to paint onto a small section of wall. Something to do with spending money, or charitable giving, or similar. Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
goose fleet posted:How well did the Byzantine Empire tolerate non-Christian minority religions? Not well. During the Second Sassanid war, the emperor decided to force-convert all the Jews in the east, leading them to go over to the Sassanids en masse. After the war, when the empire recovered the area, they massacred the Jewish communities in Antioch and Jerusalem. When the Muslims swept through a few years later it became less of an issue, since the religious minority-heavy areas were now under Muslim rule. I don't think the Byzantines recovered any primarily muslim territory in great numbers to have an idea of how they were treated, although I do think they massacred the Muslims on Crete pretty thoroughly, although that was because they were pirates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
sebzilla posted:I'm planning on sprucing up the shop I run at a well-known Roman Villa, and would quite like a Latin phrase (and translation) somehow related to it to paint onto a small section of wall. Something to do with spending money, or charitable giving, or similar. Semper ubi sub ubi.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
goose fleet posted:How well did the Byzantine Empire tolerate non-Christian minority religions? To add to sullat, about as bad as their Christian minority religions. There were massacres of Coptic Christians, for example.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
I've heard it claimed by various historians that Byzantine religious intolerance was a major factor in the defeat of the Empire when confronted with the first Caliphate. Better be treated as subjects by infidels who treat you the same no matter what denomination of christian you were than what the Romans got up to in the Levant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Better be treated as subjects by infidels who treat you the same no matter what denomination of christian you were than what the Romans got up to in the Levant. That was the hope, anyway
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Kellsterik posted:That was the hope, anyway In addition to the reality? Early Islam was incredibly tolerant for its age.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:In addition to the reality? Early Islam was incredibly tolerant for its age. I'd argue that particularly (but not exclusively) in Egypt before about 900, the caliphates were tolerant in the sense that the government could legitimately levy certain taxes on people of the book that they couldn't on believers and so it was in their interests to maintain a good sized Coptic Christian minority. This caused some significant financial problems for the Fustat government after a few centuries when large numbers of Copts started converting in response to the social/economic disadvantages to being a Christian, and so the tax base for stuff like the jizya shrunk. I completely agree with the argument that the conquest of Egypt was helped by the Copts wanting the Romans off their backs, but I don't think the Umayyads, Abbasids, etc were actually a big step up from Constantinople. Invading a territory with the support of some aggrieved group and then just settling into the old palaces so to speak is pretty much how the early caliphates did stuff in North Africa and Iberia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Yeah, early Byzantine history was when Christianity was figuring out official doctrine and what wasn't, and the penalty for being on the wrong side could be painful. Later on, there were vicious disputes between iconoclasts and iconodules, with more than a few fatalities for being on the wrong side. But that was more politics than anything.Friendly Tumour posted:I've heard it claimed by various historians that Byzantine religious intolerance was a major factor in the defeat of the Empire when confronted with the first Caliphate. Better be treated as subjects by infidels who treat you the same no matter what denomination of christian you were than what the Romans got up to in the Levant. It was more the bitter, 20 year long war between Constantinople and Persia that weakened both empires and left them vulnerable to the Arab invasion. You could argue that religious intolerance exacerbated the war, especially the atrocities by the Byzantine side, but both sides really wanted control of the Levant. In the end, of course, neither side got it. sullat fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Jul 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
How long did any traces of Roman paganism last into the Byzantine period?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
goose fleet posted:How long did any traces of Roman paganism last into the Byzantine period? Depends on how you define the "traces" because a lot of "traces" are still surviving in modern culture. FRom various superstitions to of course things like Christmas being when it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
Organized worship, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
goose fleet posted:How long did any traces of Roman paganism last into the Byzantine period? Well Tribonian, one of Emperor Justinian's legal advisors and the one of the principal authors of Corpus Juris Civilis was an open and flagrant pagan. So until the 6th century at least I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 10:34
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Well Tribonian, one of Emperor Justinian's legal advisors and the one of the principal authors of Corpus Juris Civilis was an open and flagrant pagan. So until the 6th century at least I guess? There's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_Greco-Roman_polytheism, which mentions that some of the inhabitants of the Mani peninsula in Greece remained pagans into the 800s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 13:25
|
|
|
I find it somewhat strange how Norse paganism is much better known then Baltic/'Romuva' paganism. When the latter lasted almost 400 years longer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:I find it somewhat strange how Norse paganism is much better known then Baltic/'Romuva' paganism. When the latter lasted almost 400 years longer. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:I find it somewhat strange how Norse paganism is much better known then Baltic/'Romuva' paganism. When the latter lasted almost 400 years longer. How many divisions of vikings does Perkunas command?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:39
|
|