|
Worcestershire sauce is basically garum Holy poo poo
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 05:01 |
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:We have McDonalds locations older than the government of France. "the government of France" is about as good a measurement as "one Rhode Island" source: us/france dual citizen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 21:57
|
|
|
most french presidents have had an illegitimate child older than the government of france
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:We have McDonalds locations older than the government of France. I didn't say 'the government of France', now did I? I said 'France'. These are not the same thing. Im sure that particular Gaulish tribe wasn't run the same way for 300 years either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
Libluini posted:That's a bit hard for me to answer, as all books on the matter I've read were in German and called the people sacking Rome "Celts". So my honest answer would need to be "the notion came from everyone" They get called "celts" in english too sometimes but from what I've seen they were as much "gauls" as any gaul was, ie, the romans knew them as that and they came from the place called Gaul. "Celt" is a worse descriptor anyway because that implies that Brennus and Sean South of Garryowen come from some single ancient tradition. Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Sep 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
Libluini posted:That's a bit hard for me to answer, as all books on the matter I've read were in German and called the people sacking Rome "Celts". So my honest answer would need to be "the notion came from everyone" The Romans used the term "Celt" and "Gaul" interchangeably. Edgar Allen Ho posted:"Celt" is a worse descriptor anyway because that implies that Brennus and Sean South of Garryowen come from some single ancient tradition. The Romans only used "Gaul" or "Celt" to refer to continental Celts. Sean South of Garryowen, as far as the Romans would be concerned, would be "Britanni", which was their name for Insular Celts. Epicurius fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Sep 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I didn't say 'the government of France', now did I? I said 'France'. These are not the same thing. Im sure that particular Gaulish tribe wasn't run the same way for 300 years either. There's no reason to think that particular Gaulish tribe even still existed 300 years onward, that's the point. Caesar's Gaul and the Gauls that sacked Rome are only tangentially related from a distant perspective that can lump ancient events together regardless of their relative timeframe. Technically you could argue that there only started to be a recognizable coherent idea of what "France" was as opposed to just the dominion of a single government about 200 years ago, and the English and French have been allies for over a century by this point. I think a lot of people try to skew the Hundred Years' War into being the definitive English hate the French and vice versa event, but one of the original conceits that led to the war was the way that England and France were nebulously united under strange feudal convention and the King of England also had a claim on the French throne from being the last French King's closest relative. In summary, all the works of man at any one point in time are infinitesimally small motes of dust when put up against the scale of all history, and things can change and be established really fast. Fantasy and Sci Fi histories like to throw around milneniums to give themselves a lot of buffer between eras, but it comes off as kinda ridiculous when you compare to real timeframes. SlothfulCobra fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Sep 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 23:55
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:The Romans used the term "Celt" and "Gaul" interchangeably. in english though SlothfulCobra posted:There's no reason to think that particular Gaulish tribe even still existed 300 years onward, that's the point. Caesar's Gaul and the Gauls that sacked Rome are only tangentially related from a distant perspective that can lump ancient events together regardless of their relative timeframe. There was definitely a France more than 200 years ago, although not all of the inhabitants would have agreed as to what constituted it. Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Sep 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 00:30
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Ehhhh a better example might be eg the traditional rivalry between England and France, or Scotland and England. Y'all are a babby country, you'll understand when you've grown up You are like tiny babies, observe Denmark and Sweden 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 07:20
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The Romans called basically any Celtic people Gauls and were absolutely still pissed off at them for sacking Rome. I don't know of a source stating it but I am sure this was part of Caesar's calculation that he could get away with waging illegal war, he was attacking the great bogeymen of the Roman imagination. Its like people today who can't tell the difference between sikhs and muslims. Tias posted:You are like tiny babies, observe Denmark and Sweden We have always been at war with Sweden.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 11:22
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:
But after all this time you still haven't picked up language.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 11:29
|
|
|
Tias posted:You are like tiny babies, observe Denmark and Sweden Which is the one with the windmills and hot chocolate
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 12:27
|
|
|
I see very little about LGBT stuff in East Asian history so this was pretty cool to read, about palace women in Joseon Korea:Han Hee-sook, 'Women's Life during the Chosŏn Dynasty' posted:Lesbianism, which was referred to as taesik (대식), was a common occurrence among palace women. Taesik literally meant the sharing of each other's energy. King Sejong ordered that anybody found guilty of lesbianism be struck with a cudgel 70 times, with this number eventually increased to 100. Nevertheless, the practice of lesbianism remained prevalent, and in one extreme incident which occurred during the reign of King Sejong, Crown Princess Pong was caught having sex with a palace girl named So Ssang, which resulted in the princess being stripped of her title and the execution of her lover. Palace women in Joseon were recruited as preteens and, in Sejong's time, forced to stay within the palace for literally their entire lives (or well, until they got sick, then they were sent away since nobody other than the royal family was supposed to be allowed to die on palace grounds), working 12 hour days, banned from marrying for life, and the only men in the living quarters of the palace were the royal family and eunuchs. Later on in Joseon it started to get thought the "excessive resentment" of the palace women because of this was the cause of some natural disasters so they relaxed some of this, but still.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 14:40
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:But after all this time you still haven't picked up language. No, we stole it
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Its like people today who can't tell the difference between sikhs and muslims. Well, those are clearly defined things. There's a lot of debate about whether "Celt" means anything useful at all or if it's just a modern nationalist construction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:But after all this time you still haven't picked up language. They've got a language; it just doesn't have its own written form. In the mean time, they use pictures of bokmĺl as a logographic writing system, but it contains no phonetic information.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:But after all this time you still haven't picked up language. Ah yes, we could be saying such legible and cultured-sounding things as vet hut and akta dig sĺ att du inte fĺr en tjonga 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 09:34
|
|
|
skasion posted:Romans did have a secret police from the late 4th century AD on, the agentes in rebus (“people active in things”) — a militarized bureaucratic courier force immune to prosecution and answerable to the emperor. They had quite a few responsibilities and a nasty reputation, but there were never many, around 1000 at a time for the whole empire, which should remind us that the biggest reason why the empire didn’t have the characteristics of a modern totalitarian state was practical, not ideological. The imperial government, even the late imperial version which is commonly considered bloated and overexpensive, was minuscule relative to its territory. From several pages back, but gosh if "people active in things" isn't the most magnificently, ominously vague title ever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 03:10
|
|
|
So not sure if this is the right place to ask this. I've never had much interest in the Middle Ages. Dunno why, just didn't. Recently though I have begun the long, slow process of learning. The first and most shocking thing to me is that...it lasted 1000 years? Holy poo poo. I would imagine a lot of things changed in a millennium. I mean, even I know dimly of some of the big changes. But what I'm curious about is this - when we speak of medieval, when you think of the most generic fantasy ever, what "era" in that huge span of time is most represented? I don't think ti's the 5th Century.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:So not sure if this is the right place to ask this. You're thinking of 14th century, probably
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:But what I'm curious about is this - when we speak of medieval, when you think of the most generic fantasy ever, what "era" in that huge span of time is most represented? I don't think ti's the 5th Century. The Late Middle Ages, 1300-1500 roughly. That's where you get plate armor and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
I think also the early middle ages gets branded late antiquity these days. I don't know when late antiquity ends though. The 11th century saw the beginnings of many of the things you think of as medieval iirc. Knights, castles, the dominance of the papacy in international politics. The late period is often called the high middle ages and that's probably the term to search for if you want to know more
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
From what I've seen late antiquity is generally defined as the end of the Crisis of the Third Century up to the beginning of the Arab conquests, which I'd agree with as a convenient end date.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
Most of the people writing fantasy know about nothing on the Middle Ages, so their ideas come from all over the period and outside it as well. Probably the majority of modern fantasy is indebted to Lord of the Rings for its idea of “medieval fantasy”. Tolkien was a scholar of medieval language and literature and deliberately juxtaposed influences from a lot of different times and places, so you’ve got pre-industrial revolution hobbits (18th or early 19th century), modernist military-industrial despots like Sauron, migration period (4th-6th century) “Germanic” “barbarians” in Rohan speaking Mercian Old English from the 8th-10th centuries, and Gondor which is inspired by the medieval Roman empire (10th-11th centuries). Probably the other biggest influence on how people think of the Middle Ages is Malory’s Morte d’Arthur, which is a 15th century English book translating, arranging and adding to 12-13th century French books hearkening back to 9th-12th century Welsh and English annals and legends that probably had even earlier Welsh inspirations that don’t survive. In Malory’s case we have no idea how intentional any of this was or whether he even understood or cared about how weird and anachronistic his book was. It’s all fuckin’ over the place, basically. cheetah7071 posted:I think also the early middle ages gets branded late antiquity these days. I don't know when late antiquity ends though. Peter Brown, who was the first historian to popularize the idea, used it to describe the 3rd-8th centuries. Alternatively, some writers draw the line at the Arab conquests, ie mid-7th century.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
medieval... roman empire? WHAT??
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:medieval... roman empire? WHAT?? I assume skasion means the Byzantine Empire, but I do find "medieval Roman Empire" a frustratingly ambiguous term, since it could also refer to the Holy Roman Empire. ("Medieval Rome" is even worse, since it could also refer to the actual city.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:since it could also refer to the Holy Roman Empire. :that's bait.gif:
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
I can't imagine anybody even moderately versed in medieval European history thinking that someone means the Holy Roman Empire when they say the medieval Roman empire
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
Fantasy works often pick and choose what they want to work with, but usually they ignore early-medieval things like mass migrations across Europe or the early days before the proper establishment of feudalism, the days when local lords illegally constructed castles against the will of their monarch. I feel like a lot of fantasy works even want to borrow heavily from things that are past the medieval era, but compensate for it by not having gunpowder become a thing. Fantasy works tend to have an uncomfortable relationship at best with religion, which was a real big part of medieval life and politics, and it's probably best to not go poking around for parallels to Europe's relations to the outside world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
No one would think medieval Roman Empire refers to the HRE.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 18:57
|
|
|
You say that like there hasn't been 900 years of proclaiming to be the successors to the legacy of Rome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 19:22
|
|
|
Basically "medieval fantasy" is at this point a commonly accepted set of window dressing for authors who want to set their work in an invented world. It's been around for the better part of a century in the modern form, but also traces its lineage back to 19th century Romantic literature and fairy tales. Most people writing it have read more other fantasy authors than they've read history, so by now it's more influenced by conventions within the genre itself than by our knowledge of the past. Plus the understanding of the Middle Ages that gave rise to the genre is now in itself rather antiquated. This is not in itself a bad thing at all, as long as you realize it. Just keep in mind that the relationship between "standard medieval fantasy" fiction and historical fiction set in the Middle Ages is something like the relationship between space opera and hard science fiction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:No one would think medieval Roman Empire refers to the HRE. Perhaps we could use geographic or cultural identifiers to distinguish between the various claimants.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 20:30
|
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:Basically "medieval fantasy" is at this point a commonly accepted set of window dressing for authors who want to set their work in an invented world. It's been around for the better part of a century in the modern form, but also traces its lineage back to 19th century Romantic literature and fairy tales. Most people writing it have read more other fantasy authors than they've read history, so by now it's more influenced by conventions within the genre itself than by our knowledge of the past. Plus the understanding of the Middle Ages that gave rise to the genre is now in itself rather antiquated. Guy Gavriel Kay is basically the exception that proves the rule on this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
skasion posted:Probably the other biggest influence on how people think of the Middle Ages is Malory’s Morte d’Arthur, which is a 15th century English book translating, arranging and adding to 12-13th century French books hearkening back to 9th-12th century Welsh and English annals and legends that probably had even earlier Welsh inspirations that don’t survive. In Malory’s case we have no idea how intentional any of this was or whether he even understood or cared about how weird and anachronistic his book was. It’s all fuckin’ over the place, basically. Here's Christ Carrying the Cross from a mid-15th century altarpiece. Note the Roman soldier behind him.  As a side note, I wish movies set in the past took this route today. Romeo+Juliet was so cool. Siivola fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Oct 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Guy Gavriel Kay is basically the exception that proves the rule on this. He has his Byzantine series too
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:From several pages back, but gosh if "people active in things" isn't the most magnificently, ominously vague title ever. in context "agentes in rebus" is less vague - yeah, if taken totally literally and in the wonderfully stilted victorian tradition of latin translation, it means "people active in things", but both words had narrower senses based on context, practically speaking. "actors in public affairs" - the people who actually do the physical business of government - is more of the intended meaning. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Oct 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:in context "agentes in rebus" is less vague - yeah, if taken totally literally and in the wonderfully stilted victorian tradition of latin translation, it means "people active in things", but both words had narrower senses based on context, practically speaking. "actors in public affairs" - the people who actually do the physical business of government - is more of the intended meaning. "agents" in english is already very vague in terms of its literal meaning but endowed with much stronger connotations in this kind of context
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:"agents" in english is already very vague in terms of its literal meaning but endowed with much stronger connotations in this kind of context yeah the more interesting part is res/rebus ("thing(s)"), which, despite theoretically being such a general word, is often very specifically public things, a connotation it picked up through its use in res publica. the romans are forever referring to "things" when they mean "public affairs"
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 05:01 |
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:Basically "medieval fantasy" is at this point a commonly accepted set of window dressing for authors who want to set their work in an invented world. It's been around for the better part of a century in the modern form, but also traces its lineage back to 19th century Romantic literature and fairy tales. Most people writing it have read more other fantasy authors than they've read history, so by now it's more influenced by conventions within the genre itself than by our knowledge of the past. Plus the understanding of the Middle Ages that gave rise to the genre is now in itself rather antiquated. The modern “medieval fantasy” also incorporates a lot of Early Modern and even later aesthetic depending on the author. It only takes one discovery of firearms (whether actual gunpowder or a fantasy equivalent) to suddenly shift the setting to the early 18th century down to the frock coats and pistol dueling stances.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 23:51
|
|
