|
There was definitely a turning point somewhere around the year 1000 where the bishop of rome went from being "just" the most important latin bishop to being the actual boss who got to tell other bishops what to do (at least in theory)
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
feedmegin posted:Never has been, check out the Investiture Controversy. Before that the Pope doesn't have much influence. In particular when the Western Roman Empire was still around you had better believe they did what they were told just like their Byzantine equivalent did. I was just shooting an off the cuff answer, but yeah, Papal centralization was a thing that took centuries of time to happen as cheetah7071 pointed out. I was just using the anti-popes as a way of saying that sufficiently strong kings have been known to effectively appoint their own pope when disagreeing with Rome so the Anglican church wasn't treading new ground. None of the ideas of the Reformation were new and several of them were centuries old.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 23:49
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:
This is missing the point a bit IMHO. Every single idea that has ever been at the center of any conflict has had some time to brew hot. Of course Luther didn't invent them fresh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 23:57
|
|
|
Ola posted:This is missing the point a bit IMHO. Every single idea that has ever been at the center of any conflict has had some time to brew hot. Of course Luther didn't invent them fresh. Fair enough, once again though, I'm bringing it up because we're talking about the length of time from Edward III to the Anglican church, which means that someone who crossed that time period would probably adapt fairly quickly to the new status quo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:Fair enough, once again though, I'm bringing it up because we're talking about the length of time from Edward III to the Anglican church, which means that someone who crossed that time period would probably adapt fairly quickly to the new status quo. Yeah, his response would be more bemused that it actually happened, since he'd seen the seeds of it in his own time. He might be slightly surprised that it took 300 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 00:21
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:Fair enough, once again though, I'm bringing it up because we're talking about the length of time from Edward III to the Anglican church, which means that someone who crossed that time period would probably adapt fairly quickly to the new status quo. I think a time traveller from our time with our knowledge of their political situation would still struggle to make good use of it. There would just be too much short term stuff going on and he wouldn't have any leverage with his "trust me in seven hundred years this will make sense". Which could perhaps be an interesting plot consideration? Edward III to the Anglican church is a very long time though, particularly in terms of ideology.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 00:22
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Wait - is this the origin of Swedish "fitta"? A loan word from Finnish? Nah, the Finnish people learned about the female genitalia from the Swedes. It saved them from extinction, since they all had the same mullets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 00:31
|
|
|
Ola posted:I think a time traveller from our time with our knowledge of their political situation would still struggle to make good use of it. There would just be too much short term stuff going on and he wouldn't have any leverage with his "trust me in seven hundred years this will make sense". Which could perhaps be an interesting plot consideration? I don't know the specifics of the time-travel question in particular, but sure I agree that there is a lot going on in terms of how the ideology changed. I'm just saying that the ideas can be understood by the people in the 14th century without too much difficulty given the events of that time period and prior.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 01:07
|
|
|
Ola posted:This is missing the point a bit IMHO. Every single idea that has ever been at the center of any conflict has had some time to brew hot. Of course Luther didn't invent them fresh. I’ve always like the word kairos. Absolutely there were a bunch of people before Luther who had the same ideas. But it wasn’t the time. I think the thing that made it kairos for Luther was Frederick the Wise. It’s almost like there had to be the very start of modernity and nation-states for the reformation to happen. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Jul 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 01:19
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:It’s almost like there had to be the very start of modernity and nation-states for the reformation to happen. This is a thing that I often think about in history generally. What separates Luther’s Reformation from other reform movements? What made it click to become a major European event that is worthy of study? Or any momentous historical event, for that matter? Or, to put it another way, what separated, say, the successful American revolt against British rule from the multiple unsuccessful Irish revolts. Is there some factor or combination that would’ve resulted in the current chapter titled “The American Revolution” into becoming just the mid-paragraph blurb: “an uprising was put down in 1776 by a combined British and mercenary force.” (as is so often the case with other regions)
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 04:35
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:This is a thing that I often think about in history generally. It's always a fortuitous combination. Lighting a match doesn't start a fire unless there's combustible material nearby ready to be lit. Luther required Frederick and a general sense of German nationalism to succeed. There were others elsewhere that protested against Rome who didn't spark a Reformation because they didn't have the support needed to pull it off. The Americans would never have succeeded without French help. They were willing to do so because of other international stuff that had nothing to do with the Americans. They were just in the right place at the right time to get it. For Irish revolutions to succeed, for example, they would have needed help from another source to arm them and distract the British long enough to gain an upper hand. Unfortunately for them, such circumstances never materialized. It's pretty interesting how much of history is just dumb luck. One random thing morphs into something else because of a third thing completely unrelated to the others and suddenly the world turns upside down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 04:45
|
|
|
Groda posted:Nah, the Finnish people learned about the female genitalia from the Swedes. It saved them from extinction, since they all had the same mullets. Lies. Finns are actually a type of fungus that reproduces via spores when exposed to significant heat hence the saunas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 05:00
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:Or, to put it another way, what separated, say, the successful American revolt against British rule from the multiple unsuccessful Irish revolts. It -was- a long shot, the exact reasons for which are still being debated today. Several historians call it US victory 'almost a miracle' and 'almost up to chance' and say luck, placement and even the weather may have tipped the balance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 05:34
|
|
|
I'm struggling to think of another example of a province firmly under imperial control (i.e., held for decades, not a recent conquest which they have a tenuous grasp on) breaking away from their empire without it being indicative of extremely deep problems in the imperial homeland and cascading into widespread losses e: Greece getting independence from the ottomans is one I just thought of cheetah7071 fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Jul 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 05:38
|
|
|
Depends on how you define Deep problems and widespread losses, but Algeria gaining independence from France might count. And gives me the chance to once again recommend the excellent film The battle for Algiers
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 05:52
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:I'm struggling to think of another example of a province firmly under imperial control (i.e., held for decades, not a recent conquest which they have a tenuous grasp on) breaking away from their empire without it being indicative of extremely deep problems in the imperial homeland and cascading into widespread losses British control over America wasn’t that firm and America wasn’t a conquest of Britain exactly. The part that Britain really HAD recently conquered, French Canada, is precisely the part that didn’t break away in the revolution. The trans-Atlantic settlement of the early modern period was quite weird — I hesitate to say unique but imo it can’t really be compared to traditional land empire building. You see the same sort of thing kicking in all over the Latin Americas in the next few generations, where all the local elites who run the place day-to-day anyway are like “wait, why do we need to be ruled from overseas again”?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 12:37
|
|
|
The settlement system in the english and spanish empires is also a bit different, no? North America's population density was such that the east coast was depopulated enough from the plagues that the english would build full on settler colonies. Puritan exiles and former cavaliers would rule New England and the south, and the underclass was largely transported poor people and african slaves. Essentially founded by rando english that England didn't want. In Spain, for a variety of reasons, the colonies got a lot less settlement from Europe. And Spain didn't send the unwanted, they sent good and loyal catholic spaniards. So you had a small white european aristocracy ruling over a mass of slaves, indigenous, and mixed-race folks. So while the revolutions may have started the same, the US had enough white anglos who wanted to keep the status quo but it's OUR guys in charge, while in the former spanish empire, you see a lot more radical ideas being tried.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 16:09
|
|
|
You are forgetting France too which did try some settlements but mostly stuck to furs in what is now America Here is an example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ste._Genevieve,_Missouri euphronius fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Jul 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 16:17
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:There was definitely a turning point somewhere around the year 1000 where the bishop of rome went from being "just" the most important latin bishop to being the actual boss who got to tell other bishops what to do (at least in theory) Way earlier than 1000 arguably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_I
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 16:29
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Depends on how you define Deep problems and widespread losses, but Algeria gaining independence from France might count. And gives me the chance to once again recommend the excellent film The battle for Algiers You could maybe consider that a cascade after the loss of Indochina. If not, then you could also count the British finally letting go of India. Other candidates could be Ireland, the Netherlands, and Switzerland.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 16:33
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:You could maybe consider that a cascade after the loss of Indochina. If not, then you could also count the British finally letting go of India. I'm biased but Algeria feels like a unique case to me. It wasn't (theoretically) a colony. Britain by comparison never, ever had the impression or desire that India would be integral and british. The cruelty of the algerian war was partially fueled by the desire that they become french. Simply stop using your language and definitely stop being muslim, and we won't even ask about your ethnicity. euphronius posted:You are forgetting France too which did try some settlements but mostly stuck to furs in what is now America I'm an american whose native language is french, I didn't forget we just didn't do poo poo compared to the other two. Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Jul 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 18:34
|
|
|
Tias posted:It -was- a long shot, the exact reasons for which are still being debated today. Several historians call it US victory 'almost a miracle' and 'almost up to chance' and say luck, placement and even the weather may have tipped the balance. Also, y'know, France.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 21:01
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:I'm struggling to think of another example of a province firmly under imperial control (i.e., held for decades, not a recent conquest which they have a tenuous grasp on) breaking away from their empire without it being indicative of extremely deep problems in the imperial homeland and cascading into widespread losses Worth noting that the Greeks also required massive foreign aid. The British, French, and Russians sent a joint fleet to Greece that helpfully destroyed basically all of the Ottoman Empire's ships in the region. Ultimately, Russia even sent troops to invade the Ottomans. Also, I think one can safely say that the Ottoman empire of the mid 19th century was dealing with extremely deep problems. The situation could have easily cascaded into widespread losses if the British hadn't been working to prevent Russia and France from carving up the Ottomans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 21:07
|
|
|
euphronius posted:You are forgetting France too which did try some settlements but mostly stuck to furs in what is now America And Russia, they had a pretty sizeable investment in California and the fur trade around sea otters and such. California is very interesting from a colonization perspective because you basically had 3 different countries all doing 3 different things before the Spanish become dominant. Telsa Cola fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Jul 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 21:34
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:And Russia, they had a pretty sizeable investment in California and the fur trade around sea otters and such.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 22:52
|
|
|
Eh, Spanish colonization and mission practices really set the stage for a lot of the issues that impact native communities and is arguably a major reason why California is constantly on fire currently. This isn't to say that American policies (and Russian and English) policies didn't have huge impacts and continuing impacts. Telsa Cola fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Jul 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 22:57
|
|
|
California is supposed to be constantly on fire, and we've spent the last century putting them all out so fuels pile up and then when a fire escaped it's a mega fire Natives definitely did intentional burns but in California specifically you don't really need them. Lightning will ignite plenty of fires to keep a healthy ecosystem
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 23:10
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:Eh, Spanish colonization and mission practices really set the stage for a lot of the issues that impact native communities and is arguably a major reason why California is constantly on fire currently. It's more that I don't really think the English were competing directly with the Spanish in California. By the time they're messing around in the northern Pacific in significant numbers, their main rival is the United States. I know that Drake visited California and planted a flag or three, but it didn't have any impact as far as setting up a colonial presence. If you wanted to say that three nations were competing over California, the three nations would be Russia, the US and Mexico, and realistically the Russian presence was fairly minimal compared to the US and Mexican presence (although all those tribes they genocided would probably disagree).
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 23:20
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:What separates Luther’s Reformation from other reform movements? What made it click to become a major European event that is worthy of study? Or any momentous historical event, for that matter? The printing press, which was invented a few decades before Luther put up his theses, and which allowed them to be spread widely before they could be suppressed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 00:23
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:California is supposed to be constantly on fire, and we've spent the last century putting them all out so fuels pile up and then when a fire escaped it's a mega fire Fire supression efforts basically started the moment Spanish missionaries began bringing in livestock so a bit longer than century. sullat posted:It's more that I don't really think the English were competing directly with the Spanish in California. By the time they're messing around in the northern Pacific in significant numbers, their main rival is the United States. I know that Drake visited California and planted a flag or three, but it didn't have any impact as far as setting up a colonial presence. If you wanted to say that three nations were competing over California, the three nations would be Russia, the US and Mexico, and realistically the Russian presence was fairly minimal compared to the US and Mexican presence (although all those tribes they genocided would probably disagree). I never really made any claim about competition? Just that there were three countries loving around the region and they had significantly different ways of doing so. Granted the English basically showed up and hosed off outside of some long distance fur trade entanglement poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 01:13
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:California is supposed to be constantly on fire, and we've spent the last century putting them all out so fuels pile up and then when a fire escaped it's a mega fire Invasive eucalyptus trees are also an issue. Very oily wood and nothing eats em
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 01:19
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Invasive eucalyptus trees are also an issue. Very oily wood and nothing eats em That sounds like an argument for bringing in koalas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 03:52
|
|
|
I know your joking but bringing in Invasive species to combat another invasive species has historically been an absolutely awful idea
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 03:56
|
|
|
Also koalas are goddamn useless. Terrible animals. Almost as bad as pandas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 03:58
|
|
|
Both koalas and pandas are completely fine at exploiting a food source which humans are busily destroying
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 03:59
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Both koalas and pandas are completely fine at exploiting a food source which humans are busily destroying bamboo is super invasive in a lot of places, bringing in pandas sounds like a great solution
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 04:01
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:I know your joking but bringing in Invasive species to combat another invasive species has historically been an absolutely awful idea Koalas barely move, they'd be terrible as an invasive species.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 04:02
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Also koalas are goddamn useless. Terrible animals. Almost as bad as pandas. Some of them yes, but there are some higher koala-ty ones available
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 04:04
|
|
|
Pandas will also absolutely murder and eat the gently caress out of small animals, they just don't do it super often.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 04:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Koalas barely move, they'd be terrible as an invasive species. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 05:08
|
|