|
Libluini posted:I didn't know that, but the maps I saw were from some internet article, and could have been very wrong. Do you have any reliable source I could read about the first Humans arriving in Scandinavia? You've probably seen a map relating to a specific culture, perhaps this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture The earliest stone age cultures in Norway are these, the latter is even found in the extreme north: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosna%E2%80%93Hensbacka_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komsa_culture Reliable sources linked from there, as always. Basically from 10 000 BC the first hunter/gatherer stone age, then from 4000 BC the farming stone age. 1200 BC is towards the end of the bronze age. This piece is in a museum in Copenhagen, dated 1400 BC.  Probably quite amazing people, but we know very little of them. We even have the clothes from one of their women, in the same musem: https://en.natmus.dk/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-bronze-age/the-egtved-girl/ You've also missed a spot here: Libluini posted:...around 1200 BC, so around the time the Roman Empire beat up the Gauls The Romans invaded Gaul in the 50s BC and it wasn't an empire yet. They did have some disagreements in the preceding centuries too of course.
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
1st century BC Rome was absolutely an empire, it just wasn’t a monarchy. Yet
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
skasion posted:1st century BC Rome was absolutely an empire, it just wasn’t a monarchy. Yet You're right, in that sense it was an empire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 22:27
|
|
|
Yep. I hate the popular republic/empire distinction since Rome was an empire from at least the end of the Second Punic War. I've come around to thinking we shouldn't even say the republic ended, but that's getting esoteric so I'm willing to at least use republic/principate as a convenient division.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 22:49
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yep. I hate the popular republic/empire distinction since Rome was an empire from at least the end of the Second Punic War. I've come around to thinking we shouldn't even say the republic ended, but that's getting esoteric so I'm willing to at least use republic/principate as a convenient division. Well it's very handy to say it's an empire when it has an emperor and Augustus was the first emperor, even if he himself would have denied that. When did that distinction start really? I don't think medieval historians or monks reading ancient texts or whatever cared much for a republic, but in the 1700s, 1800s it was a pretty trendy concept.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 23:08
|
|
|
Ola posted:Well it's very handy to say it's an empire when it has an emperor and Augustus was the first emperor, even if he himself would have denied that. When did that distinction start really? I don't think medieval historians or monks reading ancient texts or whatever cared much for a republic, but in the 1700s, 1800s it was a pretty trendy concept. The idea of treating leading generals as monarchs settled in basically the minute Augustus was dead, and in a lot of ways had been coming on during and even before his lifetime. That the state was dominated by monarchs would go on to be the explicit stance of the preeminent Latin historian of the early empire, which has been hugely influential in modern points of view. A lot of the problem here is linguistic ambiguity. Post-Roman languages have invested the word “emperor” with much significance that it didn’t possess for Romans of Augustus’ day, would in fact come to possess only as the result of its association with Augustus and those who tried to follow up his acts. Augustus would never have denied being Imperator: for many years it was literally his first name. What he would have denied to his fellow senators, was that he was a king. But if Greeks in the provinces want to dedicate to him as king and god, how can he refuse?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 23:47
|
|
|
skasion posted:The idea of treating leading generals as monarchs settled in basically the minute Augustus was dead, and in a lot of ways had been coming on during and even before his lifetime. That the state was dominated by monarchs would go on to be the explicit stance of the preeminent Latin historian of the early empire, which has been hugely influential in modern points of view. A lot of the problem here is linguistic ambiguity. Post-Roman languages have invested the word “emperor” with much significance that it didn’t possess for Romans of Augustus’ day, would in fact come to possess only as the result of its association with Augustus and those who tried to follow up his acts. Augustus would never have denied being Imperator: for many years it was literally his first name. What he would have denied to his fellow senators, was that he was a king. But if Greeks in the provinces want to dedicate to him as king and god, how can he refuse? Very well put, I suppose republic too has a linguistic issue where we thing of it now as a distinct type of state but they may have thought more of as somewhere on a scale of how much the people are governing themselves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 23:58
|
|
|
I'm not sure that the roman idea of a republic would have had anything to do with people governing themselves as we'd consider it today. A people, maybe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 01:04
|
|
|
It means oligarchy in practice I guess
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 01:06
|
|
|
Grevling posted:I've been interested in how people historically have made fabric so I've collected some nettles and want to try making thread out of them. I've taken the leaves off the stalks and now I'm soaking them in water, this part is called retting. I had to bend them to fit them in the tub though, I may have already hosed up. I went down a rabbit hole of youtube "historical linen making" videos awhile back. I remember being struck by how accurate the term "flaxen haired" is. I always just kinda assumed it meant "kinda straw colored" and was mostly poetic license. No. Flax fibers as they are being scutched/heckled/spun look exactly like a fistful of long, light blond hair. I also learned where "towheaded" comes from.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 03:07
|
|
|
I’m listening to a Chinese history podcast and I was wondering if any of you might know how, in English, we arrived at using titles like Duke and Marquis for Chinese nobles. Emperor and King I can understand since those are fairly easy to equate (the head person in a monarchy) but the lower down titles always throw me for a loop when I hear them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 03:34
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I’m listening to a Chinese history podcast and I was wondering if any of you might know how, in English, we arrived at using titles like Duke and Marquis for Chinese nobles. I don't think there's a specific reason, especially if you're early in. English titles are just kludged into chinese ones to try and give the same effect. Unless you're talking pre-Qin in which case yes there is a mostly fictional Crusader Kings style hierarchy where Marquis Whoever is above Count Whoever but below Duke Whoever that has been completely adopted in english to talk about the same stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 04:54
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:I'm not sure that the roman idea of a republic would have had anything to do with people governing themselves as we'd consider it today. A people, maybe. I think the ancient equivalent word would more be 'democracy' as in Athens (not a term that was necessarily viewed as a good thing then or especially in the mediaeval period). 'People' means adult male full citizens of course, poor people/slaves/women/people not born there can get bent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 10:54
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:This is a good recent paper that goes trough the basic scenario. That sounds fascinating, thanks! I've bookmarked it for later reading. Ola posted:You've probably seen a map relating to a specific culture, perhaps this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture Looking at that map, it seems the Urnsfield-systems weren't part of the Nordic Bronze Age, so that can't be what I remembered. I think in hindsight I may have looked at something about Celts? I do faintly remember the Urnsfield-systems being mentioned in what I read.  Those ancient Nordic cultures are widely more fascinating than whatever dumb garbage I've half-remembered, anyway! quote:The Romans invaded Gaul in the 50s BC and it wasn't an empire yet. They did have some disagreements in the preceding centuries too of course. Eh, that dumb joke doesn't really work any better if you replace "empire" with "republic". Besides, the Romans in Asterix certainly behaved like an empire. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 11:04
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I’m listening to a Chinese history podcast and I was wondering if any of you might know how, in English, we arrived at using titles like Duke and Marquis for Chinese nobles. OK, I'm revealing my ignorance again here, but I literally never heard about this? Edit: Wait poo poo, I looked at the English Wikipedia to confirm this, it's true, ha ha man you English-speaking people are so weird sometimes.  To give some context, in German Chinese titles are just a transcription of the real Chinese title. We call them a literal translation like "Seidenträger" sometimes, but definitely not something like "Herzog"! For some reason even though I'm extremely online I completely missed this tiny cultural difference. I guess I should read more history books in English instead of German?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 11:09
|
|
|
Marquis at least is a fairly direct translation of intent for the Chinese position isn't it? Specifically meaning someone who was in charge of a border area and thus expected to have more military responsibility than a noble of equivalent rank in the state's interior? edit: Also English doesn't have the luxury German gives by using lego blocks in place of real words.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 11:19
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Marquis at least is a fairly direct translation of intent for the Chinese position isn't it? Specifically meaning someone who was in charge of a border area and thus expected to have more military responsibility than a noble of equivalent rank in the state's interior? So a Marquis is a Markgraf? Well, suddenly I feel silly for thinking a Marquis was something completely unrelated. I always imagined some sort of decadent French noble when hearing "Marquis". You know, the sort which hangs around the Sun King all the time, and is completely useless otherwise. Also my knowledge of Chinese titles is basically non-existent, so I can't really answer your question.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 11:42
|
|
|
Ola posted:
Which sums up Norwegian history. Until around year 1000 AD Norwegians wrote very little down. The inscription on Haga Sofia is one of the few written records we have from history.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 11:46
|
|
|
The Roman republic was en empire for a long time I personally don’t like the republic / empire nomenclature as it’s not accurate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 12:38
|
|
|
Libluini posted:So a Marquis is a Markgraf? Well, suddenly I feel silly for thinking a Marquis was something completely unrelated. I always imagined some sort of decadent French noble when hearing "Marquis". You know, the sort which hangs around the Sun King all the time, and is completely useless otherwise. It seems like they're almost the same word?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 13:58
|
|
|
Libluini posted:So a Marquis is a Markgraf? Well, suddenly I feel silly for thinking a Marquis was something completely unrelated. I always imagined some sort of decadent French noble when hearing "Marquis". You know, the sort which hangs around the Sun King all the time, and is completely useless otherwise. The English wiki for it is quite good if you're interested, and includes information on the German, Chinese, and French equivalents. I wouldn't know much about this rank without researching, since it's a fairly esoteric title. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquess
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 14:04
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Unless you're talking pre-Qin in which case yes there is a mostly fictional Crusader Kings style hierarchy where Marquis Whoever is above Count Whoever but below Duke Whoever that has been completely adopted in english to talk about the same stuff. The later Chinese titles do come from that period too though. Honestly while the translations surely aren't 1:1 I think the titles map over pretty well. Xiahou Dun might have a more nuanced opinion about it though, as I recall this is basically his thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 14:11
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I’m listening to a Chinese history podcast and I was wondering if any of you might know how, in English, we arrived at using titles like Duke and Marquis for Chinese nobles. Marquis and Markgraf derive from a word that means "border count" so a noble with expanded military duties. This is why you get tortured translations from classical Chinese 武侯 like "martial marquis" when a more modern phrase like Marcher Lord or even Lord-General might be less accurate but convey the meaning better to the audience. Marquis is a correct translation for 侯 it's just that very few English speakers know what the word means. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Sep 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 14:12
|
|
|
Zhou li, the Rites of Zhou, states that Emperors are entitled to the following simultaneous spouses: 1 Empress (皇后) 3 Madames or Consorts (夫人) 9 Imperial Concubines (嬪) 27 Shifus (世婦) 81 Imperial Wives (御妻) 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 14:38
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Zhou li, the Rites of Zhou, states that Emperors are entitled to the following simultaneous spouses: Shifus?  I read something about it meaning skilled professionals so is it just skilled retainer women like sewer, pottery marker and dancer or more like prostitutes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 14:57
|
|
|
Lots of emperors had male lovers too, that doesn't get talked about a lot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 15:40
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:Shifus?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 15:42
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Zhou li, the Rites of Zhou, states that Emperors are entitled to the following simultaneous spouses: Is there any source that gives a clear explanation of what the imperial consorts/concubines actually did with their time? With 121 of them and only one Emperor, a typical concubine presumably wasn't spending much time with the Emperor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 15:50
|
|
|
Grevling posted:Lots of emperors had male lovers too, that doesn't get talked about a lot. Really? I've never done an in-depth study of it but homosexuality was just a cool, accepted thing in East Asia so far as I know. In Japan at least it was a popular practice, similar in some ways to how it was in Ancient Greece, right up to the end of the 19th Century when Meiji tried to emulate Europe in most things, including hating the gays. I know some people attribute homophobia in East Asia to Christianity. Doesn't seem like a stretch given how common it was in Europe before Christianity became dominantn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 15:55
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Really? I've never done an in-depth study of it but homosexuality was just a cool, accepted thing in East Asia so far as I know. In Japan at least it was a popular practice, similar in some ways to how it was in Ancient Greece, right up to the end of the 19th Century when Meiji tried to emulate Europe in most things, including hating the gays. Absolutely, and there were proverbs derived from famous episodes of kings or emperors and their lovers. There's one about sharing a pear, another about cutting off one's sleeve to avoid waking your lover who has fallen asleep on it. Sima Qian wrote "Biographies of the Emperor's Male Favorites" about men who managed to gain favor with emperors by their beauty or charm, it was treated very matter-of-factly as just a thing that happens. I don't know enough about it to make a good effort post so I'll just shamelessly link to something I found by googling: https://daily.jstor.org/in-han-dynasty-china-bisexuality-was-the-norm/
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 16:11
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:Is there any source that gives a clear explanation of what the imperial consorts/concubines actually did with their time? With 121 of them and only one Emperor, a typical concubine presumably wasn't spending much time with the Emperor. I haven't read about it in detail but I know at least when you get to some Chinese emperors with harems in the literal thousands+, a lot of them would be basically palace attendants. Wu Zetian attended to the emperor's bedchamber at first, which is one of the reasons she managed to get close enough access to him to leverage her way up the hierarchy. NikkolasKing posted:Really? I've never done an in-depth study of it but homosexuality was just a cool, accepted thing in East Asia so far as I know. In Japan at least it was a popular practice, similar in some ways to how it was in Ancient Greece, right up to the end of the 19th Century when Meiji tried to emulate Europe in most things, including hating the gays. I wouldn't be surprised if it was different in Japan (sexual norms were pretty different there), but it definitely way preceded Christianity as a bad thing in most of East Asia. In Joseon Korea, lesbians were punished with up to (iirc) 80 strikes with a cudgel, which is like the third most severe punishment given out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 16:13
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I wouldn't be surprised if it was different in Japan (sexual norms were pretty different there), but it definitely way preceded Christianity as a bad thing in most of East Asia. In Joseon Korea, lesbians were punished with up to (iirc) 80 strikes with a cudgel, which is like the third most severe punishment given out. Was there a punishment for male homosexuality in Joseon Korea, or just lesbianism?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 16:21
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:Shifus? Different word. Chinese is a language made entirely of homophones. It's real fun to try to learn. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 16:43
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:Shifus? That is 师傅 (師傅 in traditional). Different word
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 18:04
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:It is an entirely different word with the same transliteration. Grand Fromage posted:Different word. Chinese is a language made entirely of homophones. It's real fun to try to learn. Kangxi posted:That is 师傅 (師傅 in traditional). Different word Thanks! However, does someone know what the actual differences were between the various spouses? Like, were one type nobles, one type commoners and another type just where they shoved spouses derived from low priority political alliances?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Was there a punishment for male homosexuality in Joseon Korea, or just lesbianism? I'm not sure about punishment; I imagine it was less than for lesbians, but it was still viewed negatively, by later Joseon anyway. Here's an account from the head of a Korean embassy to Japan in the early 18th century: quote:[He] was also told that homosexuality was rampant in Japan. The love between men and women should follow the principle of natural harmony, as expressed in Yin and Yang, or heaven and earth. The Japanese people seemed to defy even the most basic principles human beings were supposed to honor. This could be a somewhat uniquely late-Joseon thing though, I'm curious what it was like in later imperial China. Joseon was actually not as viciously patriarchal as it's often portrayed, for the first part of its history--that transformation happened in large part as a reaction to the Imjin War and Manchu Invasions around the turn of the 17th century. Confucianism is in principle about reciprocity, and so a big part of the whole "man is better than woman" poo poo that goes along with it is that the men are also supposed to protect the women. The complete failure of the Korean elite to do so during the wars led to big questions in post-war discourse about how to skirt around what a frighteningly huge proportion of the Joseon elite's wives and daughters had suffered under the Japanese soldiers. The answer, of course, was to completely triple down on the patriarchy, conveniently ignore the whole reciprocity part of the Confucian social contract, and codify marriage much more strictly. It's at that time that most of the last trace of what had in ancient Korea actually been strikingly egalitarian gender relations ebbed away, and from cursory research it looks like that's when man-on-man homosexuality started to get condemned more universally too--it's possible to interpret Confucianism much more generously to it (as it looks like had been mostly done until then), but later Joseon didn't go in that direction. This all well preceded Christianity in Korea, incidentally. As an interesting contrast from a thousand years prior, the Silla kingdom's hwarang, their elite male youths, were famously gay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 19:30
|
|
|
I remember reading about European Jesuits traveling through East Asia and being like "These are basically perfect societies aside from the paganism and rampant homosexuality"
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 19:58
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:Is there any source that gives a clear explanation of what the imperial consorts/concubines actually did with their time? With 121 of them and only one Emperor, a typical concubine presumably wasn't spending much time with the Emperor. In Constantinople they spend their days doing choirs and killing rivals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 21:37
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:Is there any source that gives a clear explanation of what the imperial consorts/concubines actually did with their time? With 121 of them and only one Emperor, a typical concubine presumably wasn't spending much time with the Emperor. If the Tang dynasty is any guide they spent most of their time conspiring with foreign military leaders to overthrow the Empire. edit: Homosexuality in medieval China was okay as long as you were classy about it, as in you were a member of the ruling class. Wrt homophones Chinese syllable construction rules only allow about 400 possible syllables. With 4 tones that's 1600 possible words. Not really sure how they managed back when Chinese was a monosyllabic language but modern Mandarin embraces compound words so the problem isn't that bad. No one's really going around mistaking a lion for a rock. The real beast for learning Chinese is the writing system. It takes native Chinese speakers on average three years longer to become literate in Chinese characters than in Pinyin, the romanization system. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Sep 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
i actually read not that long ago that weaving was one of the most economically valuable trades in China, and this made women very valuable too. So I wouldn't be surprised if lower ranking imperial concubines ended up spending a lot of time on that.  According to wikipedia this painting is titled "Ladies making silk, early 12th-century painting by Emperor Huizong of Song (a remake of an 8th-century original by artist Zhang Xuan), illustrates silk fabric manufacture in China." One wonders if the Emperor watched the ladies of his own court making silk as he painted. Grevling posted:I've been interested in how people historically have made fabric so I've collected some nettles and want to try making thread out of them. I've taken the leaves off the stalks and now I'm soaking them in water, this part is called retting. I had to bend them to fit them in the tub though, I may have already hosed up. Interesting, have you seen this youtube channel, which has a series on processing nettles? It's very good, she puts a lot of effort into researching how to do accurate recreations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTGLUDEEWko
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 03:47
|
|
