|
cheetah7071 posted:Rome fell in 1204. Final answer. 1870
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:30 |
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:fact check: new jersey is in fact only 34% catholic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUAaFavh8sA&t=39s
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 01:13
|
|
|
packetmantis posted:The Roman empire still exists, it's called Catholicism. Finland 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 01:43
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:The word "western" is carrying a lot of weight in your post Lol obviously, and the whole concept of "the middle ages" has little meaning outside of Europe, North Africa and Levant. It just felt like, in a conversation contrasting the logistics of the ancient Roman Empire at its peak to the average European mediaeval state, it doesn't make much sense to be grouping the Eastern/Byzantine Roman Empire with the ancient one. I'd be curious to know to what extent Byzantium retained the same level of logistics as ancient Rome. That shipwreck chart with the huge trough during the heyday of Byzantium might suggest not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 01:47
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Lol obviously, and the whole concept of "the middle ages" has little meaning outside of Europe, North Africa and Levant. I was just sort of snarkily saying that rather than operating on a different definition of "medieval", as you supposed, they were operating on a different definition of "roman". The eastern roman empire is an example of a medieval, (partially) european state that maintained a standing, professional army rather than relying on conscription and levies (though even that varies wildly by century, I think). So relevant to the discussion, if only to say "that style of army didn't disappear everywhere", though obviously not a direct answer. I'm not really an expert on Byzantine military organization though and wouldn't want to overstep my knowledge in this post by saying too much more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 01:57
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Lol obviously, and the whole concept of "the middle ages" has little meaning outside of Europe, North Africa and Levant. It's naturally a bit arbitrary and there are other--perhaps better--ways to distinguish the periods, but for East Asia the period from the reunification of China at ~600 up until the fall of Yuan ~1400 marks a fairly clear difference from what came before and what came after. Especially with how the Mongol Empire explicitly connects it with the regions up to Europe, I think it's totally reasonable to talk about Ancient/Medieval/Early Modern East Asia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 02:01
|
|
|
And of course the beginning of transoceanic voyages is of worldwide importance and coincides with what we consider the early modern era
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 02:03
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:And of course the beginning of transoceanic voyages is of worldwide importance and coincides with what we consider the early modern era Transoceanic voyages started in the Pacific well earlier. But I broadly agree. Anyway my newest hot take on the end of the Roman empire is 324, coincidentally the date of the beginning of the Byzantine empire.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 06:45
|
|
|
Weka posted:Transoceanic voyages started in the Pacific well earlier. But I broadly agree. I almost said transoceanic shipping, which would have been much more accurate, and more to the point of why it mattered.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 06:57
|
|
|
2020 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 07:45
|
|
|
 Hasn't ended yet
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 08:17
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Lol obviously, and the whole concept of "the middle ages" has little meaning outside of Europe, North Africa and Levant. At a administrative level, the byzantine state had much greater tax-raising ability than other contemporary medieval states - they regularly paid off or hired foreign invaders, because paying for problems to go away was easier and cheaper than raising an army. This isn't something we see elsewhere - getting mediveal lords to pay taxes is nigh impossible for many.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 08:26
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:At a administrative level, the byzantine state had much greater tax-raising ability than other contemporary medieval states - they regularly paid off or hired foreign invaders, because paying for problems to go away was easier and cheaper than raising an army. This isn't something we see elsewhere - getting mediveal lords to pay taxes is nigh impossible for many. Elsewhere in Europe, China did it too. e: forgot about danegeld
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 08:41
|
|
|
Nessus posted:
Everyone knows the Encyclopedia isn't canon
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 08:46
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:I almost said transoceanic shipping, which would have been much more accurate, and more to the point of why it mattered. This also seems completely arbitrary and cherry picked. Why shipping specifically and not colonization? Ah, cause you happened to be talking about boats. And it's in strong contradiction to this: cheetah7071 posted:attempting to assign hard boundaries to historical periods is hopelessly oversimplifying. which I very much agree with in case that wasn't clear. The hard boundaries apply to inventions and events as well, at least with this specific time period. I think it's interesting to think about the 535-536 climate events as the beginning of the medieval. That was definitely an event the contemporary people noticed, it's not simply an arbitrary delineation somewhere in a few centuries of complex change. It had impacts all over the globe. But it's not very useful to say that all human culture affected by it was officially medieval afterwards, or that being unaffected by it meant you weren't medieval. Koramei posted:It's naturally a bit arbitrary and there are other--perhaps better--ways to distinguish the periods, The secret trick is that if it's hard to distinguish the period, you don't really need to distinguish it. A certain quality can exist in different periods. Roman armies looted? Medieval armies looted too? That's great. Oranges have wedges, pies have wedges. Therefore pies are fruit? Not so great. Obviously most of academia consists of bickering over classification, so it's a real bottle of worms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 09:06
|
|
|
Ola posted:This also seems completely arbitrary and cherry picked. Why shipping specifically and not colonization? Ah, cause you happened to be talking about boats. And it's in strong contradiction to this: what
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 09:10
|
|
|
Ola posted:This also seems completely arbitrary and cherry picked. Why shipping specifically and not colonization? Ah, cause you happened to be talking about boats. And it's in strong contradiction to this: The massive transfers of people involved in colonization and the african slave trade were some of the momentous consequences of the rise of long-distance sea voyages. I think "shipping" is a better word (for a one sentence something awful dot com post, rather than a dissertation) because it evokes the importance of being able to carry large quantities of goods and people on routine, well-trodden routes. And the rise of long distance ocean voyages from the 15th century onward is an extremely fuzzy, soft boundary. The columbian exchange (and related trading networks) happened over centuries. Not a hard boundary at all. Ola posted:which I very much agree with in case that wasn't clear. Then I really have no idea what the point of your previous posts even was
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 09:19
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:
Disagreeing with the Roman state being a medieval state.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 09:33
|
|
|
A Roman state was a medieval state. Or perhaps if you want to be technical, a few were.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 09:48
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin is a valid Roman sovereign even though he hasn’t formally received an Imperial crown.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 13:14
|
|
|
Nessus posted:
i don't know what this is but im actually surprised they left the timeline as it was and did not have space romans in 1500 or something
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 13:37
|
|
|
The Holy Roman Empire was roman in every meaningful sense. Also, I think nearly two years ago there was news that finds showed the polynesians got to Peru? Has anything more come of that? It seems more likely than not to my layman's mind. It seems kinda silly that they'd get all the way to Rapa Nui and then just... stop sailing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 13:45
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:The Holy Roman Empire was roman in every meaningful sense. They did. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/science/polynesian-ancestry.html We have confirmed via DNA that there was some intermixing between Polynesian people and American natives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 15:05
|
|
|
There's also extremely pre-Columbian evidence of ... was it taro? some Polynesian crop anyway, in North America
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 15:20
|
|
|
Ola posted:Disagreeing with the Roman state being a medieval state. at least three Roman states were medieval states
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 15:22
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:
I think the Polynesian visits to the Americas fall into the same category as Lief Erikson's - it's a neat piece of historical trivia, but it doesn't matter. It didn't have any impact, it didn't change the courses the respective societies involved. The very fact that modern historians have to tease out whether it happened at all from shreds of evidence is proof of that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 16:37
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:I'd be curious to know to what extent Byzantium retained the same level of logistics as ancient Rome. That shipwreck chart with the huge trough during the heyday of Byzantium might suggest not. It was much more similar to the classical empire than any of the contemporaries. The ERE remained a centralized state, it never got into vassalage or any of that poo poo. Soldiers were paid professionals supported by state taxes and logistics. The decline in shipping is more because the geography of the empire after the Arab conquests meant the Mediterranean was no longer under Roman control and most of the places they were fighting weren't really able to be supplied by sea. It was mostly just the territory in Italy that you had to do that for. Kylaer posted:I think the Polynesian visits to the Americas fall into the same category as Lief Erikson's - it's a neat piece of historical trivia, but it doesn't matter. It didn't have any impact, it didn't change the courses the respective societies involved. The very fact that modern historians have to tease out whether it happened at all from shreds of evidence is proof of that. Yeah. Travel to the Americas prior to 1492 is super interesting, but the results of Columbus' journey are incomparable to anything that happened prior unless you're going all the way back to the migration of humans to the Americas in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
"ancient" => "medieval" is a real thing (in a Europe/Mediterranean context) but it's messy and centuries-long and hit different places at different times so we all argue about it. "medieval" => "modern" around 1500 seems a lot easier with colonization of the Americas/printing revolution/the reformation all getting going within decades. I imagine being born around 1480 in Europe means seeing some wild changes in your lifetime. (And being born around 1480 in the Americas is getting one of history's rawest deals).
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
Also consider the pure safety of the Med under the full empire. We go from Cicero moaning about being sent to suppress pirates to virtually every port on the sea being under Roman control
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 17:22
|
|
|
Yep. It's just a totally different situation when there are effectively no human threats anywhere in the Mediterranean, and the entire thing is a single state. Also, the Roman state provided massive subsidies to sea trade. For example, if you were doing grain shipment for the state, they would cover all of your maintenance and operating costs for the entire year. You're not shipping grain the entire year though, there's a quota you have to meet and that takes maybe half or 2/3 of your time. After that, you're available to do other trading just for yourself, with all those operating costs taken care of so it's super profitable. That goes away and Mediterranean trading is a lot less profitable and way more risky. Lots of factors that result in the drop.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 17:28
|
|
|
Marine logistics are way, way, more efficient than moving anything over land, both historically and now. The free marine movement in the med was a huge deal for Rome. Mahan talks about Rome in part of The influence of Seapower on World History. It’s been a long time since I’ve read it but I remember he uses about Rome to build the case for the elements of Sea Power before going on to analyze 1660 to the 1780’s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 18:04
|
|
|
Lots of ships means pretty severe deforestation. Combined with everything being fired by wood, that makes you wonder how they organized reforrestation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 18:30
|
|
|
Power Khan posted:Lots of ships means pretty severe deforestation. Combined with everything being fired by wood, that makes you wonder how they organized reforrestation? That I don't know. I know Romans didn't like forests, the spirits there were considered very dangerous. And sometimes a bunch of Germans in there would kill you too.  There was a sacred forest a bit... north? Of Rome that was left untouched because of the spirits in it, and you were supposed to avoid ever going there. That's about the end of my Roman forest knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
Kylaer posted:I think the Polynesian visits to the Americas fall into the same category as Lief Erikson's - it's a neat piece of historical trivia, but it doesn't matter. It didn't have any impact, it didn't change the courses the respective societies involved. The very fact that modern historians have to tease out whether it happened at all from shreds of evidence is proof of that. Yeah it did, the polynesians got taro and they all eat it now
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 18:35
|
|
|
Power Khan posted:Lots of ships means pretty severe deforestation. Combined with everything being fired by wood, that makes you wonder how they organized reforrestation? There were a whole lotta trees in Europe at the time. There were local issues of deforestation causing excessive soil erosion near ports, but that was primarily due to clearing land for agriculture. There isn't much evidence that ship building was a significant factor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
I think you get the deforestation due to ships in premodern and modern sail vessels. Edit: and I know things like live oaks are planted in the americas for ships hulls. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Jul 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:I think you get the deforestation due to ships in premodern and modern sail vessels. Yeah, in the 17th century, Britain was having trouble finding trees tall enough for masts. General deforestation of the island led to burning coal for heat, which then led to the steam engine and the industrial revolution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 18:52
|
|
|
I'd be surprised if shipbuilding beat out iron production for sheer deforestation power, though I'm not familiar with Rome being an ecological catastrophe as an argument. The mesopotamian states, who had far longer and worse soil, did denude the area pretty badly from prehistoric coverage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
We can spot the Roman empire in ice-core records from higher mercury and soot emissions, it's certainly a more industrially intense period than before, although deforestation is just a natural consequence of urbanisation - need fuel for cooking and heating somehow. Rome being so big for so long probably cost more fuel than all the iron production (although that undoubtly took a big chunk of wood aswell).
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:30 |
|
|
One of the secrets of British and then later American ships was live oaks. With the right live oak a curved keel can be a single piece of wood rather than several process of wood. All the coastal oaks in the south are one of the reasons a ship like the USS Constitution gets called old Ironsides. Basically they could select specific trees to make hull timbers single pieces. Timber for masts was also something shipped back from the American colonies. I guess what I’m saying is that shipbuilding is also very specific trees and not just a general deforestation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2021 19:17
|
|