|
lol.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 09:18 |
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 02:08
|
|
|
Real hurthling! posted:it belongs in a museum
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 05:13
|
|
|
PawParole posted:lol. I appreciate the map of Rome showing only the important parts of the empire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 09:46
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNjgltkqTzc
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 20:34
|
|
|
hell yeah i guessed one of the channel islands
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 20:42
|
|
|
Didn't watch but all land in England is held enfeof, as in as a grant from the crown.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 20:49
|
|
|
some guy probably spent a decade figuring that out sometime later and went and looked it up in alexandria and went fuuuuuuck
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 02:55
|
|
|
doing research can be a pain in the rear end now, I can't even imagine digging through centuries of sources in multiple languages to figure out that 300 years ago they calculated that the solstice would be on June 22 this year
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 03:02
|
|
|
Antonymous posted:some guy probably spent a decade figuring that out sometime later and went and looked it up in alexandria and went fuuuuuuck Yeah, that's why they burned it
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 03:33
|
|
|
I'd be more surprised if the Library of Alexandria hadn't burned down, storing all those papyrus scrolls in a world without fire extinguishers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 03:51
|
|
|
indigi posted:doing research can be a pain in the rear end now, I can't even imagine digging through centuries of sources in multiple languages to figure out that 300 years ago they calculated that the solstice would be on June 22 this year Thing is, there just wasn't that much stuff to read 3000 years ago compared to now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 04:13
|
|
|
Something like 10% of all the humans who have ever lived has seen a james bond film
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 04:42
|
|
|
20% of humans were born after 1850. so I'm off but it might be more than a percent at least https://www.prb.org/articles/how-many-people-have-ever-lived-on-earth/ edit: an important consideration is probably half? of the people born before 1850 died as infants/young children too. total lived human hours must be very heavily weighted on the last 200 years. so maybe I can say 10% of human adults (18+) have seen a james bond film Antonymous has issued a correction as of 04:55 on Feb 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 04:48
|
|
|
Isn't that historical infant mortality rate heavily skewed by victorian psychos thinking everyone else must be just as bad at birth and child rearing etc?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 06:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/eduardo_garcmol/status/1626907832875352069?s=46&t=dc2kgLZIKcMAx-3xRKHQTQ
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 06:09
|
|
|
I do always wonder if those "how many humans lived at X moment" stats include the amorphous mass of doomed infants. Either option makes sense in its own way. Re: Victorian childbirth, afaik the maternal mortality rate was especially bad under 19th century medicine conditions (yes, worse than before), but I'm not sure if the same is true for infant mortality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 07:39
|
|
|
the numbers I found do include an assumption about dying as a baby etc. people probably had 3-4 kids until agriculture but there wasn't many humans until agriculture. Then you had to have 5-10 I guess. Agriculture&animal husbandry lead to an extreme rise in childhood mortality People traded isolation, constant migration, the need to be active and find food every day for living next to a bunch of other people, their poo poo, their animals, their animal's poo poo, eating a low yeild monocrop which was extremely labor intensive at certain times of year which necessitates big families. You could make beer but have to defend yourself from raiders. that was the big trade off 10,000 (depending on where you live) years ago and right now is the second time mortality/fertility are shifting dramatically Antonymous has issued a correction as of 08:26 on Feb 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 08:11
|
|
|
pidan posted:I do always wonder if those "how many humans lived at X moment" stats include the amorphous mass of doomed infants. Either option makes sense in its own way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 11:09
|
|
|
Antonymous posted:the numbers I found do include an assumption about dying as a baby etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 16:16
|
|
|
War and Pieces posted:there was a couple hundred years at the start before anybody invented raiding and another couple decades where an 8 foot mud wall was an impenetrable barrier that would've been pretty cozy
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 16:19
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Isn't that historical infant mortality rate heavily skewed by victorian psychos thinking everyone else must be just as bad at birth and child rearing etc? Living in dense cities without knowledge of waterborne diseases is a huge killer. So yeah, the pre-enclosure infant mortality rate was much lower than the rate during the Industrial Revolution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 16:42
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:i'm pretty sure raiding predates agriculture Opportunistic violence does certainly but you need a population of settled people before you can get a populations who live primarily off of stealing crops from people instead of hunting and gathering. You also need a shitton of capital before anyone can make weapons that are significantly better than a sharpened stick. At any rate the remains of earliest cities show staggeringly low levels of violence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 16:48
|
|
|
mycomancy posted:Thing is, there just wasn't that much stuff to read 3000 years ago compared to now. yeah but how do you even find all that poo poo, there was no ILL or card catalogue
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 17:14
|
|
|
indigi posted:yeah but how do you even find all that poo poo, there was no ILL or card catalogue https://open.spotify.com/episode/7lLHgFkaiZr6kApyFy0Qca?si=WYyXOUr9RxKu7TpXcFgTZg ILL consists of writing a letter to someone you know who may or may not have that book or a similar one and offering to pay for a copy to be made.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
War and Pieces posted:Opportunistic violence does certainly but you need a population of settled people before you can get a populations who live primarily off of stealing crops from people instead of hunting and gathering. You also need a shitton of capital before anyone can make weapons that are significantly better than a sharpened stick. something that I don't know if it is possible to get at but which would be interesting to know is how much of this would be because of the massive population booms in the settled cities vs. the much lower population of hunter gatherers im sure the hunter gatherer groups would steal what they could when they could, but when the people you're stealing from have 10x (or whatever) your numbers and you don't have horses to effect a fast getaway, there's a very real risk that they might just chase you down and murder you all because they're sick of your thieving asses once cities start to be near enough to each other that they start competing for the same resources, the dynamic changes of course, but before the domestication of the horse it's hard to see how the dedicated raider dynamic works out
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 17:50
|
|
|
If you had metal weapons (probably stolen) and an YouTube tier diet you could victimize beer bellied villagers armed only with ceramic sickels pretty well, even without a horse. Tho you probably need a wagon and donkey to cart it all away. Horseless nomads called the Cassites took over city states and established their dynasties but only after those cities were already collapsing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 18:05
|
|
|
the virgin melee weapon vs the chad atlatl
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 18:24
|
|
|
Antonymous posted:the numbers I found do include an assumption about dying as a baby etc. So unless there have been extreme breakthroughs in archaeology in the last 6 months that hasn't hit the news, a lot of this is very speculative. Stone age human remains are thin on the ground, not at the level where we could assess something as finicky as infant mortality. What we know is that nomadic groups today are able to sustain low birth rates, including stuff like the post-partum sex taboo, and that settled agricultural societies have high birth rates (and high infant mortality!) up until pretty recently, and then we speculate that as soon as agriculture came about, the changes in family structure came about based on the evidence of 19th-21st century observations. The first trouble with this hypothesis is that you don't have to settle to be agricultural. There are nomadic agricultural groups. The supposition that as soon as agriculture hit all of the things we associate with roughly medieval society came at once doesn't really add up. There's thousands of years between agriculture becoming a recognizable thing and things like cities, organized religion, and writing arising. The time between early farming and the first uncontroversial city (Uruk) is long than the time between Uruk's founding and today. The idea that everything was one way during the paleolithic, then as soon as people got into farming they went from "paleolithic" lifestyles directly to basically iron age farming and just stayed that way until like the industrial revolution, doesn't really match the evidence we have and doesn't even really make a lot of sense. Like there's an at least as credible theory that the high-birth rate, high-infant mortality standard we suffered for much of human history is not the result of agriculture as a secular force, but the political structures that have followed with mass urbanization - notably kingship and similar highly hierarchical structures that create a demand for a disposable workforce.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 19:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/1627296393634226177
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 19:56
|
|
|
i hadn't considered horse domestication, or just how recently we started using them. it's crazy to think that in mesopotamia and (very) ancient egypt, horses weren't a thing yet
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:horses weren't a thing yet choosing to interpret this literally as in they were still ponies not big enough to be called horses by a modern definition
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 22:27
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:choosing to interpret this literally as in they were still ponies not big enough to be called horses by a modern definition basically. the reason chariots were invented before cavalry is cause horses weren't strong enough to carry people let alone people+weapons+armor for distance or speed yet, but they could pull a wheeled vehicle singly or in tandem
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 22:45
|
|
|
It's a shame we never got to see a parallel development path happen with alpacas
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 23:06
|
|
|
was that theoretically in the cards? idk poo poo about alpacas or how their physiology might adapt to being ridden
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 23:07
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:i hadn't considered horse domestication, or just how recently we started using them. it's crazy to think that in mesopotamia and (very) ancient egypt, horses weren't a thing yet I think I remember it from The Horse, the Wheel, and Language but somewhere I read a point that domesticating horse and other animals that could carry goods or pull wagons carrying goods also opened up travel in some surprising ways. Before that innovation, most travel in the northern parts of Eurasia followed rivers because lugging the necessary food and in particular water across the vast open distances of the steppe was impractical to impossible depending on distance, but once there were beasts of burden to do it, far more direct routes to various places became possible. It's easy to forget just how much water weighs and how absent animals, we had to lug that poo poo ourselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 23:11
|
|
|
indigi posted:was that theoretically in the cards? idk poo poo about alpacas or how their physiology might adapt to being ridden With enough time and breeding you can make anything into anything We turned useless weeds into carrots, animals that will kill the gently caress out of you for looking at them funny into milk factories, I'm sure you'd get there eventually with alpacas Geography is probably what held them back tbh
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 23:20
|
|
|
It’s probably not quite right to call the equids that pulled the earliest chariots ‘horses’ as they probably had more in common with the zebra or onager than today’s horses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 09:18 |
|
|
Pfft how can a horse be descended from a catapult
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 23:23
|
|