|
Grand Fromage posted:The comparison doesn't work since Americans do not in any way consider themselves to be British. No one in the US considers the country to be the unbroken continuation of a line of authority dating back to King Egbert.
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 03:50 |
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:Roman emperors used violet dye. Jesus lead a peaceful life but had to violently die. Jesus died for our SIN but no one wants to die for COS
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The comparison doesn't work since Americans do not in any way consider themselves to be British. No one in the US considers the country to be the unbroken continuation of a line of authority dating back to King Egbert. Well of course WE know that, the funny thing is imagining some lazy or incompetent future historian concluding that the US is basically an offshoot of the UK that grew wildly into its hulking mongoloid little brother.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:no, even weirdo tories are more likely to cite magna carta etc rather than any claims of ancient royal legitimacy  Snorri included a euhemerized version of Norse myth as an introduction to his Edda--apparently all the kings of the region are descended from some guy named Odin who came from Asgard, ie Asia. Yes, that all apparently got imported into our genealogy when my dad hit British royalty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
Of course Americans don't consider themselves British, why would they when it was founded by refugees from Troy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
Actually we are the 13th tribe
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
We're all descendants from the Korean Empire anyways
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:32
|
|
|
Dalael posted:We're all descendants from the Korean Empire anyways Finnish empire!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Does anyone in the UK consider their unbroken line of authority to go past William the Conqueror because if so lol why would you divide things at william the only semi-unusual thing about him is that he was a bastard, otherwise the norman conquest is more or less a standard "close relative of the royal family presses a claim by force when the main line mostly dies out" situation certainly there's a cultural divide between pre-norman and post-norman england, but a break in authority? briefly due to the danish invasion i suppose but edward the confessor ended up on the throne anyway. it's deeply unclear which, of harold godwinson and william, edward actually left the kingdom to, since he had planned for years around the idea that william was his heir, harold's legitimacy derived from the danish kings rather than the house of wessex, and yet suddenly the deathbed witnesses say that edward left the whole thing to harold at the very end, alexander-style  william failing in his conquest would have been a bigger break in the legitimacy of authority, from the perspective of contemporary views of legitimacy, than him succeeding Jazerus fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Nov 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
At least Harold was unlikely to burn down the entire North of England. Good lad Although ruining the North is something of a tradition for British governments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:There weren't huge, organized attempts specifically to convert every last peasant but they certainly structured their society in a way that life was less difficult and dangerous if you converted to Islam. More importantly, more expensive. Soft incentives and all that, and if you look at eg al-Andalus it worked pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
Don't the English nominally trace their royalty back to King Arthur? Or have I misinterpreted their national mythology.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The comparison doesn't work since Americans do not in any way consider themselves to be British. No one in the US considers the country to be the unbroken continuation of a line of authority dating back to King Egbert. I mean, back in 2012 there were New Hampshire legislators who tried (and failed) to pass a bill demanding that all further laws passed should have to find justification from Magna Carta. Some places are obsessed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 01:06
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Don't the English nominally trace their royalty back to King Arthur? Or have I misinterpreted their national mythology. Arthur is either not real or is so displaced from his origin as to be unrecognizable. At any rate I don't believe the Arthur mythology even claims to place him in any specific dynasty
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Don't the English nominally trace their royalty back to King Arthur? Or have I misinterpreted their national mythology. are you thinking of Alfred?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
one slight parallel to the byzantine situation, and an incredibly controversial one probably, might be the modern greeks themselves. i know that what we now call greece was hit really hard by the slav migrations in the 7th century, and i've heard the claim that a large part of their heritage is slavic, not homeric or whatever. nowadays it seems fair to say that they present themselves as the heirs of ancient greece. now modern greeks do live on the same territory as the people they claim descent from, but by the 5th century iirc the roman empire hadn't been governed from rome in a while, and the big imperial palaces included plenty in the east of the empire. the east had been increasing in importance in the empire for many generations at that point i think. so they probably would've said they lived in part of the same place the people they claimed ancestry from, the romans, lived in as well or is that just lovely-wrong fishmech posted:I mean, back in 2012 there were New Hampshire legislators who tried (and failed) to pass a bill demanding that all further laws passed should have to find justification from Magna Carta. Some places are obsessed. do you think the NH house of reps benefits in any way from its massive size* or does it just add another set of ways for a legislature to be a crazy shitshow. i'm guessing the latter *400 members. ~1/3600 new hampshire voters are members of the house of representatives oystertoadfish fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Nov 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 01:26
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Most of the USA weren’t even English colonies. Uh, yeah they were. Though if you mean in the sense that it was random groups of opportunists and/or religious communities, rather than a bunch of organized English state projects, then uh I guess? bewbies posted:Well of course WE know that, the funny thing is imagining some lazy or incompetent future historian concluding that the US is basically an offshoot of the UK that grew wildly into its hulking mongoloid little brother. Why are you talking like actually secretly the Eastern Roman Empire did not consider themselves Romans and historians have made an error? oystertoadfish posted:one slight parallel to the byzantine situation, and an incredibly controversial one probably, might be the modern greeks themselves. i know that what we now call greece was hit really hard by the slav migrations in the 7th century, and i've heard the claim that a large part of their heritage is slavic, not homeric or whatever. nowadays it seems fair to say that they present themselves as the heirs of ancient greece. Genetics is a dumb and often creepy way of trying to measure cultural connection/identity. Nothing good lies down that road. quote:now modern greeks do live on the same territory as the people they claim descent from, but by the 5th century iirc the roman empire hadn't been governed from rome in a while, and the big imperial palaces included plenty in the east of the empire. the east had been increasing in importance in the empire for many generations at that point i think. so they probably would've said they lived in part of the same place the people they claimed ancestry from, the romans, lived in as well I don't even have the foggiest idea what this is saying..?? Anyway I don't know why people act like there's some total fluff to acting like modern Greeks have any connection at all to ancient/medieval Greeks. Like yes the idea that "BECAUSE I AM GREEK I AM THE SOLE INHERITOR OF THE GENIUS OF SOCRATES HOHOHO, UNBROKEN PURE CULTURE EVER SINCE" is hiliarious dumb nationalism bullshit. But we're not talking some random claim of connection. There is a, y'know, linguistic continuity going on here? Not to mention largely a geographic one. Is this just some wild over-correction reacting to the nationalism stuff? Or what. And I dunno but it always sounds a little too subtextually similar to white supremacist nonsense about modern Greeks being a completely unrelated population, because it makes them uncomfortable to have this "unremarkable" rickety state (or two) of middle eastern looking people being associated with the marble statue brilliant people. Grape fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Nov 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 04:24
|
|
|
Grape posted:Uh, yeah they were. they're talking about the territory that makes up the modern USA
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 04:29
|
|
|
Everything west of the Mississippi and south of GA was never English. Nothing much west of the Appalachians was ever governed by the English. Texas and California, the two biggest states, are Spanish/Mexican. Or were.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:they're talking about the territory that makes up the modern USA There was barely anyone (colonist wise) living in most of the areas outside the 13 colonies. With a few notable exceptions (New Mexico Spaniards, New Orleans, etc). It's kinda strange to act like the USA wasn't the entity that spawned from the 13 colonies and then gobbled up all that land. The idea that those places were filled with French and Spanish colonists is bizarre and wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 04:38
|
|
|
I guess most of the inland territory technically never was under English control, but it still was largely vacant (aside from the native americans) before the US started to incorporate them as territory, and all the colonists/frontiersman still came filtered through the culture of the original US colonies, which were all English except for the Dutch one. Even Texas's current identity was largely developed by settlers from the US, although the US went and took over some land much further south which shifted the balance some. Florida, California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Louisiana still bear traces of their old colonial masters, but I have no idea if there's anything left in Mississippi, Michigan, any of the midwest, New York, or Alaska. Hawaii and Alaska still have heavy influence from their native population. So does Oklahoma, but that's because of the machinations of the US government, so it's a mixed bag.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 04:58
|
|
|
I'm very late to this but I'm so jealous that you guys got taught anything about history. I did a little bit of Japanese history in like grade 4 and even then it was like WOW SAMURAI SO COOL WOW DISNEYLAND WOW THEY SLEEP IN BOXES??? Apart from that we learned that the turks are all evil, evil cunts for shooting the anzacs and the anzacs are super cool and good for being stubborn and running up cliffs into machine guns for our British overlods. We didn't even learn about the loving pacific in WW2 or about our participation in Vietnam or gently caress all about how Captain Cook came here and shot some Aboriginals who were just trying to be nice or that we were still using them as slaves and taking their kids in places up to the 1970s. Captain Cook is portrayed as a cool dude. I seriously can't beleive we didn't learn about WW2 in school, Japan bombed Darwin and sent subs to Sydney and there are still a lot of bunkers and forts all over the islands/rivers for repelling the expected Japanese invasion, but we learn nothing. New Zealand is the same from that I've been told. My mate drives past bunkers with roadblocks ready to roll into place every day to get to work. And it's gotten worse since I was in school. The current government mandated that kids just get taught to worship the anzacs. We lost Gallipoli hard and its our national pride lmao. Our country views history as irrelevent. I would have killed for some ancient history in school, but it wasn't an option until year 11 and 12, and at that point you can't take interesting subjects, you have to take subjects that will get you into uni or drop out and learn a trade. I learned about the Byzantines from AOE2 and the ERE from somewhere else but it was only within the last year that I learned they were the same E: Let me put it this way, there's more historical info on Tripadvisor than there is in the Australian education system. underage at the vape shop fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Nov 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 05:13
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I guess most of the inland territory technically never was under English control, but it still was largely vacant (aside from the native americans) before the US started to incorporate them as territory, and all the colonists/frontiersman still came filtered through the culture of the original US colonies, which were all English except for the Dutch one. Even Texas's current identity was largely developed by settlers from the US, although the US went and took over some land much further south which shifted the balance some. The Dutch influence in New York is still evident in some ways. I've heard arguments made that the mercantile madhouse nature of Manhattan has some roots in New Amsterdam, don't know how credible that is. There are otherwise lots of little place names the like from NYC up the Hudson to Albany (which was really all the Dutch colony covered). Yer Tappan Zee's and the like. A good example of what most of the French/Spanish territory ultimately boiled down to is the Dutch "presence" in Connecticut. I live and grew up in that exact area where they "were". There is zero trace of them, and not because the Puritans wiped it all out, but because all they had there was a couple outpost forts and the naive hope that this meant no one else would waltz in and do stuff with the land. There was nothing in the way of actual Dutch civilian colonists starting up towns or any of that. A lot of the western territory over the Mississippi river was essentially that sort of thing pre-USA. If even that in some cases. Grape fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Nov 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 05:16
|
|
|
NYC's a weird thing because as such a huge city and center of immigration, regardless of how much dutch influence there was by the time of the Revolution it has since both had enough other influences to flush that out or dilute it while also developing its own unique identity. Upstate, there's nothing so far as I can tell. My grandpa's from upstate New York and I've met some dutch people, and there is no relation as far as I can tell. Never heard of any attempts to gin up latent dutch nationalist sentiment. And I've never heard of any lasting influence Russia left in Alaska except maybe some Orthodox Christians. Nobody gave two shits about the name Bolshaya Gora.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 05:48
|
|
|
New Orleans was a hugely important city and ... is not even remotely English.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 05:50
|
|
|
Russian colonists also had a pretty big impact west coast down to California. Spanish Colonization of the west coast is also fairly big and also a pretty big loving deal since it set the stage for much of the west to be used for ranching such.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 05:54
|
|
|
edit: the first/only legacy of russian colonization in california i can think of is the fact that there's a river named the russian river so this is an apology for posting flippantly about important poo poo. to answer this first: Grape posted:Is this just some wild over-correction reacting to the nationalism stuff? Or what. I was trying to draw an analogy between people saying the Byzantines weren't roman based on specious criteria and people saying modern Greeks don't get to be heirs to ancient Greece due to specious criteria. i failed badly to put it another way: people were discussing analogies to the byzantine/roman identity situation, and i tried to make an analogy between a bad argument against byzantine claims to the roman heritage and a bad argument against modern greek claims to the... greek heritage Grape posted:And I dunno but it always sounds a little too subtextually similar to white supremacist nonsense about modern Greeks being a completely unrelated population, because it makes them uncomfortable to have this "unremarkable" rickety state (or two) of middle eastern looking people being associated with the marble statue brilliant people. i didn't know that white supremacists went after the modern greeks on those grounds, to be honest, and if i did i wouldn't have made the comparison i hope that addresses your concerns, seriously - i obviously said some poo poo that came out the wrong way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 05:55
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:edit: the first/only legacy of russian colonization in california i can think of is the fact that there's a river named the russian river your analogy made no sense to me either. People have a problem with the byzantine/rome thing because they conflate roman with latin and also get, rightly or wrongly, fixated on the city of rome as being integral to the roman identity. People trying to get weird about mdoern greeks have to do the exact opposite where they ignore the lingual and geographical continuity. I also don't think the labeling of east rome as byzantium is generally a racism thing but i could be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 06:21
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:And I've never heard of any lasting influence Russia left in Alaska except maybe some Orthodox Christians. Nobody gave two shits about the name Bolshaya Gora. Besides their religion many Russian intermarried with coastal natives, with an especially large effect on the Aleut. They also dumped foxes all over the islands after killing all the Steller's Sea cows, which proceeded to wreck havoc on the seabirds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 06:31
|
|
|
Senor Dog posted:your analogy made no sense to me either. Yeah, if anything, there's toooons of fans of the Byzantines who romanticize Byzantium as a bulwark against the despotic east.. to put it charitably.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 06:54
|
|
|
The main problem I have with fans of "Rome" who are always fans of Rome from the 2nd Punic War up to the Julio-Claudians, is that their Rome is never the Rome that they think it is. They're almost always way too into different 19th-21st century ideas like standardized equipment for soldiers or the concept of the nation-state. They're always minimizing just how important Greek language and Greek culture was to Rome was even going into BCE times. Also the idea of pagan worship of Jupiter and Mars just getting replaced out of nowhere with Christianity and nobody talking about Greco-Roman syncretism, the rise of mystery cults, all the weird poo poo like Cybele and Syrian nonsense, and Sol Invictus. So yeah my major problem isn't even how much people think the "Byzantine" empire wasn't Roman, it's how much people think that the Roman Empire wasn't "Byzantine". It was a weird Greek-speaking monotheistic military dictatorship way way way before you seem to think it was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 07:07
|
|
|
The Roman Empire ended in the third century and Aurelian was the first Byzantine emporer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 07:19
|
|
|
"What is the modern Rome" is an active field of theological debate among Muslims because Rome is present in the endtime prophecies. Leading theories are Turkey and Russia
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 07:23
|
|
|
Whatever the most powerful empire in the world is at any given time, that's Rome. The Roman Empire is eternal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 07:29
|
|
|
The EU is Rome imo
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 07:29
|
|
|
That chinese village is rome
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 07:36
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:"What is the modern Rome" is an active field of theological debate among Muslims because Rome is present in the endtime prophecies. Leading theories are Turkey and Russia Was there any panic or anticipation about the world ending when Constantinople fell to the Turks?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 07:58
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:The EU is Rome imo They still need to grab a few more provinces in North Africa before they can form Rome imo
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 10:35
|
|
|
Stringent posted:The Roman Empire ended in the third century and Aurelian was the first Byzantine emporer. I'll take it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 11:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 03:50 |
|
|
Don Gato posted:They still need to grab a few more provinces in North Africa before they can form Rome imo They were doing poo poo like pay off local warlords back when a lot of people tried to cross from Lybia that sort of went into that direction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 11:15
|
|
