|
OctaviusBeaver posted:I know it was a dick move but you gotta admit that taking Constantinople by storm and without gunpowder was really impressive. It is, even if they went through the Sea-Walls not the Theodosian Walls. The Theodosian Walls are just ridiculously impressive, they were built in the early 400's and were never breached until an entirely new technology was invented millenia later.
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
Jack2142 posted:It is, even if they went through the Sea-Walls not the Theodosian Walls. The Theodosian Walls are just ridiculously impressive, they were built in the early 400's and were never breached until an entirely new technology was invented millenia later. Do parts of them still stand? I guess the Ottomans kept them around for awhile but historical preservation often loses when it comes to city planning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
I think parts of the walls have been rebuilt. Most of them are ruins at best or totally gone, probably plundered for building materials. Which is still pretty good considering they were built around 410. I was in Stockholm recently I saw a decently preserved city wall in their medieval museum from like 1500 but that's practically built yesterday in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
I don't think there's any long segments of contiguous walls but the ruins are still there and mark the boundary between the old town and modern urban sprawl
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:Do parts of them still stand? I guess the Ottomans kept them around for awhile but historical preservation often loses when it comes to city planning. Parts of them are still original/later ottoman additions and parts of them have been reconstructed recently. It's currently a public park with gardens and greenery. You can definately notice which parts were reconstructed because the modern reconstruction was done really shoddily. The Turkish government has a really bad record of preservation and reconstruction depending on the political and cultural importance of the site in question.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:Do parts of them still stand? I guess the Ottomans kept them around for awhile but historical preservation often loses when it comes to city planning. Some have been reconstructed but there are other sections that are pretty much standing without alteration. Other than 500 years of not being maintained, anyway. I haven't been to Istanbul but from pics I think the Aurelian walls of Rome are in better condition and older, though not as much of them remain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Some have been reconstructed but there are other sections that are pretty much standing without alteration. Other than 500 years of not being maintained, anyway. Just a personal tip on Rome- the Bioparque has not only the Galleria Borghese, but has large sections of intact Roman walls and gates, perfect way to spend an afternoon just walking around and soaking in the history. The zoo is also pretty quaint.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:It is, even if they went through the Sea-Walls not the Theodosian Walls. The Theodosian Walls are just ridiculously impressive, they were built in the early 400's and were never breached until an entirely new technology was invented millenia later. Civil war amongst the defenders will make it difficult to defend any fortified city.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 01:09
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:I was raised deeply catholic, and now I'm decidedly not religious. I honestly don't understand the logic of non-religious people not grasping how religion was the main motivating factor. If anything I'm more likely to cynically blame "religion" for all that suffering than just economic factors or whatever. I find this a funny topic really, when I was in college I also felt like there was a certain desperation in a lot of the literature I read to find any, any explanation for the crusades that didn't come back too 'at the end of the day genuine religious conviction can make people act in ways that are difficult to explain completely secularly'. Things like demand for land or booty, or politicking within Catholicism, or Byzantine wiliness, or some wider civilization clash between East and West, whatever it took, even if there were tons of holes that were really obvious in some of them, or don't really explain how many of the specific events of the crusades panned out like they did, like I never understood how the idea that the Crusades were some sort of outlet for Western need for conquest and plunder borne out of reaching their limits at home caught on when it's painfully obvious reading the course of the crusades themselves that they were probably the worst way a noble could enrich themselves in Medieval Europe, it seemed to have exactly the opposite effect most of the time and the constant moaning from Westerners in the Holy Land that nobody hung around after a crusade was concluded and the participants fulfilled whatever other religious duties they had would probably hint that the spiritual significance outclassed most other reasons people would go on crusade in the first place. I find it doubly weird since, for a atheist like myself who was raised Catholic, and I presume that non-religious people are fairly prominent in academia, reading about the first Crusade in particular is so loving insane and such a parade of somehow triumphing when all of the odds were stacked against the Crusaders that you kind of see how people would have really gotten caught up in the idea that they were fighting and succeeding because the were fighting with God's graces.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 01:11
|
|
|
I usually hear it more as "knights and nobles are culturally expected to fight, a lot, and are basically not fulfilling their designated societal role when not fighting, so the call to crusade provided a way to exercise that without fighting fellow christians" as the semi-secular explanation
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 01:41
|
|
|
sullat posted:Civil war amongst the defenders will make it difficult to defend any fortified city. Yeah Alexios V running away in the middle of the crusader siege after repelling an attack is probably the most important reason why the city fell in 1204. Then a pair of nobles bickering over who got to be Emperor now, and the Varangians who threw back the Crusaders deciding now was the time to demand a raise. Nothingtoseehere posted:Do parts of them still stand? I guess the Ottomans kept them around for awhile but historical preservation often loses when it comes to city planning. Yes they do, also I have not been to Istanbul, I hope to make a trip next year once I save up some vacation time + cash. However here are some images pulled out of the butt of google search.   "restored" section  Grand Fromage posted:Some have been reconstructed but there are other sections that are pretty much standing without alteration. Other than 500 years of not being maintained, anyway. According to a tour I went on when in Rome, the Aurelian Walls were maintained by the Papacy a defense for the city until the papal states were conquered in the 19th century, so its more ~150~ years since they stopped being used as active fortifications, rather than ~500~. Jack2142 fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Nov 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 03:45
|
|
|
Justinian II showing up out of exile with a rag-tag army that was never going to take the city in a million years then sneaking through an abandoned aqueduct in the middle of the night and organizing a coup is a way cooler conquest straight out of a movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 04:18
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Justinian II showing up out of exile with a rag-tag army that was never going to take the city in a million years then sneaking through an abandoned aqueduct in the middle of the night and organizing a coup is a way cooler conquest straight out of a movie. Yeah, but his nose was cut off at the time so his chances of an A-lister portrayal are null
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 14:40
|
|
|
skasion posted:Yeah, but his nose was cut off at the time so his chances of an A-lister portrayal are null Ralph Fiennes might be up for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 14:43
|
|
|
Freudian posted:Ralph Fiennes might be up for it. Daniel Day Lewis in his actually final role.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
skasion posted:Yeah, but his nose was cut off at the time so his chances of an A-lister portrayal are null Tyrion Lannister disagrees.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
“Justinian the heroically mildly scarred” doesn’t really have the same ring to it
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
Give him a gold nose, it'll be iconic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
ThatBasqueGuy posted:Give him a gold nose, it'll be iconic. The danes actually exhumed Tycho Brahe (for.......reasons) and concluded that his nose was most likely made out of brass-
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Yeah Alexios V running away in the middle of the crusader siege after repelling an attack is probably the most important reason why the city fell in 1204. Then a pair of nobles bickering over who got to be Emperor now, and the Varangians who threw back the Crusaders deciding now was the time to demand a raise. Imagine being on the wrong side of those walls and you have to find a way in. Ancient people were crazy man, i'm barely inclined to climb stairs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:The danes actually exhumed Tycho Brahe (for.......reasons) and concluded that his nose was most likely made out of brass-
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:....wizard reasons? A lot of those old scholars were fans of mercury and other hideously dangerous poo poo (especially when put into your mouth and swallowed down), so I wouldn't wonder about some of them having to replace bodyparts falling off
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Imagine being on the wrong side of those walls and you have to find a way in. Ancient people were crazy man, i'm barely inclined to climb stairs. Even better for most of the wall there was also a deep moat. The one part that didn't was the Blacharnae section everyone always tried to attack.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
Libluini posted:A lot of those old scholars were fans of mercury and other hideously dangerous poo poo (especially when put into your mouth and swallowed down), so I wouldn't wonder about some of them having to replace bodyparts falling off Brahe lost his nose in a duel and when they examined his corpse (again, for reasons) he didn't have that much mercury in him. His hair samples did contain a lot of gold though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 08:03
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Brahe lost his nose in a duel and when they examined his corpse (again, for reasons) he didn't have that much mercury in him. His hair samples did contain a lot of gold though. What if this means he did figure out how to transmit Mercury to gold before he died 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 08:29
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:ok. so. when aristotle and people who follow him say accident, they mean the characteristics of a thing that do not make it what it is but simply belong to it. I have black hair but it is rapidly going grey. My HEGEL-ness is not changed by that. When they say substance or essence they mean the qualities of a thing that do make it what it is, that are essential to it. Trans-substantiation, "the substance being carried across", means the accidents of the bread are the same but its essential hidden bread-ness (whatever that might be), its substance, has been replaced by the substance of God. Goddamn thank you for this. I was raised catholic (lapsed as gently caress but still kinda culturally identify - I get about a thousand times more catholic in the presence of the elderly baptist in-laws who use the term Papist unironically) and this was never explained in any kind of reasonable way. All the old nuns who taught catechism just repeated “miracle” and “article of faith” over and over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 17:31
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Goddamn thank you for this. I was raised catholic (lapsed as gently caress but still kinda culturally identify - I get about a thousand times more catholic in the presence of the elderly baptist in-laws who use the term Papist unironically) and this was never explained in any kind of reasonable way. All the old nuns who taught catechism just repeated “miracle” and “article of faith” over and over. glad i could help
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
That’s one of the pluses if Roman Catholicism : you can just believe whatever you want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
Mother church, that famed bastion of heterodoxy and free thought
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:What if this means he did figure out how to transmit Mercury to gold before he died 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
euphronius posted:That’s one of the pluses if Roman Catholicism : you can just believe whatever you want. Uh not the Catholic Church I grew up with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 21:45
|
|
|
Gonna be honest, I have a lot of difficulties understanding how any of you can actually believe in a religion (which I think is separate from believing in a God) considering the accumulated knowledge of history from this thread.. As an agnostic, I can understand how someone can believe in an all powerful being (even I don't myself) but I can't understand the belief in specific religions.  *edit: not trying to start a religious debate or insult anyone's beliefs, just a casual observation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
Diest best. Sure somebody created all this it just absolutely doesn’t care about it or you. Hail Satan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Diest best. Sure somebody created all this it just absolutely doesn’t care about it or you. Yeah, i'd be more inclined to believe something like this. Dewey explains it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSgBrs7NJxs
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Gonna be honest, I have a lot of difficulties understanding how any of you can actually believe in a religion (which I think is separate from believing in a God) considering the accumulated knowledge of history from this thread..
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Yeah, i'd be more inclined to believe something like this. Dewey explains it best: The best part is It doesn’t care if you believe in It or not!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Gonna be honest, I have a lot of difficulties understanding how any of you can actually believe in a religion (which I think is separate from believing in a God) considering the accumulated knowledge of history from this thread.. *shrug* Not sure I do. Not sure if I don't. Like I said, super lapsed catholic. It's more of a part of my background than anything else, but enough so that I get irked when I see someone just spouting dumb bullshit about "stuff catholics believe." Even that is more a reaction to living in the south for the past decade+. Never ran into that much on the west coast. Happily there is a pretty strong tradition of people who are bad at being catholic still kind of clinging on to the fringes, so it's not like I'm abnormal in this. Frankly part of that is probably due to my historical training. I just view my catholicism as something contingent on my culture and all the other poo poo associated with when and where I was born, much the same way I'm not all that surprised that someone born in 13th century India is a Hindu or someone born in 19th century Turkey is Muslim. I also don't get all hung up on who is right about what because, again, historical view holy poo poo that leads to some dumb bullshit. Like, to use a recent topic of discussion here, crusades. edit: what little religious identity I do have does seem more important to me as I get older, though. edit 2: the historian part of me also digs on the long history of the Catholic church. You're looking at an organization that has a bureaucratic history going back to the Roman Empire (and not that Byzantine "this is totally still Rome guys" stuff either). The liturgy has changed in the last ~1500 years to be sure, but some core components of all that ceremony would be very recognizable to, for example, a 16th century Frenchman. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Nov 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 22:32
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:edit 2: the historian part of me also digs on the long history of the Catholic church. You're looking at an organization that has a bureaucratic history going back to the Roman Empire (and not that Byzantine "this is totally still Rome guys" stuff either). The liturgy has changed in the last ~1500 years to be sure, but some core components of all that ceremony would be very recognizable to, for example, a 16th century Frenchman. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Nov 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:not really. you guys changed a lot. it's we who have valid historical claims on our heritage. My grandma is still super salty about Vatican 2.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:My grandma is still super salty about Vatican 2.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 22:44
|
|