|
I'm still about 10 pages behind as I've been reading the thread on and off over the past few months; lucky too, as one of my students this year is nuts about Ancient Rome and frequently asks me questions like "Why did the Assyrians conquer Egypt?" However, I finally have a chance to post this. So I visited my parents-in-law in China, and they thought "What better place to take our 3-year-old and toddler grandsons than a culture museum showing the greatness of Chinese history?" (I had been told we were going to the railway museum as my oldest son is nuts about trains, but I digress. Inside was a goldmine. If the numbers about age are to be trusted, some Neolithic people made a city, but then it was depopulated, buried and forgotten. This is proof of the continuous 5000 years of Chinese civilisation. The pics are not too good as the inside was dark, but funny (or enraging).  We don't know how our mythological dynasties are linked to this settlement, but they are.  Here you can see that all ancient civilisations are dead and buried except CHINA.  From top to bottom on the chart:China: From 3000 BCE till now Egypt: 3000 BCE till 332 BCE Minosian: 3000 BCE till 1450 BCE India (the map says Indus River though): 2500 BCE till 1500 BCE Mesopotamia: 2350 BCE till 700 BCE  "Module 1: The world and China in the Liangzhu period Around 5000 years ago, the birth and growth of cities signified the dawn of civilization in various parts of the world. In China, civilization emerged with the appearance of cities of the Liangzhu Culture and other cultures. Those cities were political, military, religious and cultural centers. Some of them became capitals that combined political and religious authority. While the western civilization was signified by economic elements such as trade and technology, China developed a continuous civilization characterized by cities serving as political centers."   OK this bit seems on the level except for the "It's the first Chinese city!" crap. Too bad it came out all blurry.  I certainly remember being shocked when the discovery of this site made headlines worldwide   Pottery that proves the site is as old as they say it is (disclaimer: they could very well be right)  Ancient Liangzhu culture is "still tightly connected" with the traditions of post-Cultural Revolution China, even though we have no surviving written records from them This is modern Chinese archaeology, or at least the interpretation of it. All must fit the narrative.
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
Oh, China. You are so adorable sometimes.  And this is also why nobody trusts Chinese archaeology unless it's verified independently.The last couple China History podcasts have featured Lazlo Montgomery using the much more accurate figure of ~3,800 years for China's beginnings. I don't remember him saying that before and I'm wondering exactly how much nationalist hate mail has come because of it. Speaking of nationalists, I saw this article floating around: http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/egypt-archaeologist-could-have-discovered-the-tomb-of-alexander-the-great/ A quick look over the site will tell you this is bullshit, but if you want to read an absurd amount of insane nationalist frothing, scroll on down to the comments.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
Imperialist Dog posted:Egypt: 3000 BCE till 332 BCE Does the Ptolemaic Kingdom no longer count as Egyptian? I would think that if having foreign rulers means a civilization has ended, then China ceased to be after the establishment of the Yuan Dynasty.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Yeah that's basically
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:Does the Ptolemaic Kingdom no longer count as Egyptian? I would think that if having foreign rulers means a civilization has ended, then China ceased to be after the establishment of the Yuan Dynasty. The whole thing is dumb and driven by an inferiority complex. Egypt and India count as continuous civilizations as much as China does. But China has invested a huge amount of its nationalist rhetoric in being the world's oldest continuous civilization, which is not true. Using the rather loose standards China does, Egypt would win that contest no problem. Their written records go back at least a thousand years further than China's. But that goes back to the basic point: who gives a poo poo. "My civilization is older than your civilization so it's better" is just the standard six year old on a playground level of China's diplomatic policy.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:30 is not really late for a career change. It's a bit more difficult when you're in your 30s with a family and a job that pays the bills, and you decide you need to go spend a few (tens of?) thousands of dollars for a degree to get an entry-level job in a new career.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
One of the numerous reasons that Xi'an got shot down as the host for the 2016 Computer Applications in Archaeology conference. There was one in Beijing in 2011, and hardly any Chinese archaeologists showed up. China is putting tons of money into universities, but there's no emphasis on humanities research, and when there is research of this nature, there's no intellectual freedom.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
At this point you would be hard pressed to find a Chinese who doesn't believe that China is the oldest continuous civilization in the world. It's no longer propaganda and it's simply something everyone knows to be true. I've said it before but with the dire state of history education in China, most Chinese don't even understand the difference between the past and history. (Rote learning and Marxist theory do not make for the best curriculum.) I really doubt that any Chinese history class below undergraduate level even touches on what history is.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
I mean, to be fair, China does have an extremely impressive and long legacy, and it's not like the title of oldest continuous civilization should actually be particularly important. should be
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
I think it's just bugs people who live in East Asia not because it's super important but because it's taken as just such an obvious fact. Telling Chinese people that actually Chinese history is 3800 years long is like telling them that The Sun rises in the West and the moon is made of cheese. First they think you're a moron and then they think you're insulting them. People should be aware of that while I talk about the record of the grand historian being inaccurate in terms of the Xia dynasty it is a great work of history that covers 2000 years with accuracy. Any book that a guy was willing to get his balls cut off in order to be allowed to finish better be pretty drat great. It was literally too good to believe until they found the Oracle bone records that confirmed the stuff that was 2000 years old at the time of writing. There's just the slight problem of the 3000 year old stuff having Kings that live for 300 years and share their names with mythical figures.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I think it's just bugs people who live in East Asia not because it's super important but because it's taken as just such an obvious fact. Also it's a lie used to bash other people over the head. It encourages other countries in the area to lie. Korea claims 5,000 years of history simply because China did first, and it's an even more laughable claim than China's. It bothers me because it also diminishes the thing you're lying about. China doesn't need to lie about how old it is, it does actually have a very long, interesting, and impressive history. That is a fact. Spinning loads of bullshit about it makes it less impressive, not more. Same poo poo here. There is so much nonsense spit about I Sunsin, a Korean admiral who fought during the Imjin War. He was possibly the greatest admiral of all time. Ever, in the entire world. If not the greatest, he'd at least be top five, no question. But they lie about what he did, and they lie about his ships, and they lie about the Japanese fleets, and all these lies diminish a figure who needs no embellishment. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 04:41 on May 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
How was history taught in Rome anyway? I know that those who could afford it were tutored (read: Forced to memorize everything), but how did the common Roman learn about his country's history? Did they just dedicate days to reenacting historical battles in the coliseum like some kind of ancient history channel, or did everyone just memorize Virgil and other authors?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
Here's a question: Did your average Roman think that all that business about Romulus and Rermus was literal historical fact, or were they aware it was legendary?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:And I suppose Augustus drank only melted snow from the Apennines and so avoided the endemic lead poisoning everyone else had? It's plausible that some wine manufacturers adulterated their product with lead acetate to make their wine a bit sweeter and more palatable. So that might be a contributing factor for Nero's insanity. But lead poisoning takes a while to manifest, so the more likely issue was that Nero was a raging alcoholic.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
Rincewind posted:Here's a question: Did your average Roman think that all that business about Romulus and Remus was literal historical fact, or were they aware it was legendary? Flip that question. How many modern American politicians think that God is fact? I know that doesn't answer the question, but people haven't changed at all in 2000 years (witness all the penis graffiti) so I imagine there would be a spread from those wanting the peasant farmer vote claiming it was literal fact to those in urban areas who were more pragmatic. Although I'm sure everyone was publicly a believer around election time or religious festivals. People haven't changed.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Flip that question. How many modern American politicians think that God is fact? I think a better question would be how many modern average Americans think that Columbus proved the world isn't flat and Washington never ever lied. Probably quite a lot.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
After months and months of reading for my Honours thesis and having possible topics and questions rejected by my supervisor, I've finally landed on something he's really happy with. My topic doesn't much resemble what I originally wanted to do, but you could trace the evolution if you looked hard enough. Now I have five and a half months to read and write 20 000 words, plus give a presentation to the department in September. I feel for you Grand Fromage. You're going to be facing a lifetime of this kind of thing, albeit without the supervisor.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
Rincewind posted:Here's a question: Did your average Roman think that all that business about Romulus and Rermus was literal historical fact, or were they aware it was legendary? Livy presents Romulus as if he were a Real Historical Person who did Real Historical Things, though he offers alternative explanations for the more obviously legendary parts of the story. Of course, he also hedges his bets by arguing that the stories from that period are so old and so unverifiable that anything's possible -- so in the absence of proof to the contrary you might as well believe the most patriotic version of ancient history. Since Rome is a big awesome city, and even little cities have impressive stories about their founders, it's not disgraceful to believe patriotic stories about Rome and Rome's founders. (I don't have the text handy for an exact quote, so I might be missing some nuance, but that's what I remember the gist of it being.) So I think we can conclude that there were people who supported the legend as such and people who thought it was bullshit and that Livy thought it was important to give at least lip service to both sides. (This suggests to me that it was a question that was being debated during Livy's life -- he was writing during the reign of Augustus and I can imagine stories about Romulus fitting into the paradigm of the budding imperial system.)
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:Livy presents Romulus as if he were a Real Historical Person who did Real Historical Things, though he offers alternative explanations for the more obviously legendary parts of the story. Of course, he also hedges his bets by arguing that the stories from that period are so old and so unverifiable that anything's possible -- so in the absence of proof to the contrary you might as well believe the most patriotic version of ancient history. Since Rome is a big awesome city, and even little cities have impressive stories about their founders, it's not disgraceful to believe patriotic stories about Rome and Rome's founders. (I don't have the text handy for an exact quote, so I might be missing some nuance, but that's what I remember the gist of it being.) I believe Dionysius of Halicarnassus does much the same, presenting the patron-client system as derived from Romulus.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:Livy presents Romulus as if he were a Real Historical Person who did Real Historical Things, though he offers alternative explanations for the more obviously legendary parts of the story. Of course, he also hedges his bets by arguing that the stories from that period are so old and so unverifiable that anything's possible -- so in the absence of proof to the contrary you might as well believe the most patriotic version of ancient history. Since Rome is a big awesome city, and even little cities have impressive stories about their founders, it's not disgraceful to believe patriotic stories about Rome and Rome's founders. (I don't have the text handy for an exact quote, so I might be missing some nuance, but that's what I remember the gist of it being.)
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 12:07
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:I think a better question would be how many modern average Americans think that Columbus proved the world isn't flat and Washington never ever lied. Probably quite a lot. Or take all the popular myths about the Puritans, which are basically all wrong but believed by nearly everyone.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
It presents an interesting viewpoint, however, that a culture's mythology can describe and define certain truths about it, even if the individual facts are incorrect. That is, truth does not (necessarily) equate to factual precision, and even things which are factually inaccurate can provide meaningful value to a society.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
If Romulus and Remus weren't nursed by a wolf, I don't want to live on this planet anymore. Also, if I recall correctly, isn't the famous wolf statue almost certainly Etruscan?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Also, if I recall correctly, isn't the famous wolf statue almost certainly Etruscan? That is the conventional view, but there is some evidence to the contrary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitoline_Wolf
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Decius posted:Or take all the popular myths about the Puritans, which are basically all wrong but believed by nearly everyone. They actually did know the proper use of a belt buckle?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:They actually did know the proper use of a belt buckle? You're more likely to find someone wearing a belt buckle on their hat in the modern U.S. around Thanksgiving than you would around Plymouth Rock back in the day. Basically the whole belt buckle hat was the equivalent of a business suit in England back in the day. Considering that the Puritans were known for being hard workers, literate, and sober, they were usually seen as pretty good employees, as long as they weren't too busy proselytizing. When the Puritans came to the U.S. to start colonies, they brought more sensible clothing appropriate to working on a farm. But the people doing the paintings of Puritans farming in the U.S. based their paintings on what they knew of the local Puritans, who didn't leave to go start a new colony, so as far as they knew, Puritans always wore suits. It's about like saying that because there are a lot of Jews who wear black wool suits, therefore all the Jews working in a kibbutz in Israel must wear black wool suits. Common sense says that nobody wore a suit to go farming, but that's what got painted, so that's what got taught. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 09:29 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
I'm going to be in Naples for one week, and besides the obvious Pompeii / Herculaneum, has anyone been to Paestum? It's pretty close and looks interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Jeoh posted:I'm going to be in Naples for one week, and besides the obvious Pompeii / Herculaneum, has anyone been to Paestum? It's pretty close and looks interesting. It's beautiful. Go go go.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Paestum is pretty neat but there's not quite as much to see as Pompeii and Herculaneum. I wouldn't skip either of the latter for the former, but it's worth seeing if you like Greek stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Jeoh posted:I'm going to be in Naples for one week, and besides the obvious Pompeii / Herculaneum, has anyone been to Paestum? It's pretty close and looks interesting. Paestum is rad. It's one of the oldest decently preserved Greek towns anywhere, and has a great collection of tomb paintings. Not many of those still exist. Also don't forget the national archaeological museum in Naples, which is one of the best in the country. Has stuff like the original Alexander mosaic from Pompeii, and like half the art from the opening credits of Rome is all in one room there.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:That is the conventional view, but there is some evidence to the contrary: I wonder why it is taking so long to publish the latest findings. They did the tests in 2008. It is a major revision to art history to redate the wolf. Could it be political? (For those that don't know, archaeology is more political in Italy than most other European countries.)
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
From some cursory reading it seems to me that Eastern conquest of the Hellenic kingdoms went easier for the Romans than their campaigns in the west. Why is that? I would guess that there was some internal strife and instabilities to be exploited, and maybe a more urban east made fighting easier or easier to assimilate, maybe less guerilla tactics and such. But still, on paper Eastern militaries seem pretty formidable too and more numerous, why where they more of a pushover than the troublesome tribes in say, Iberia? It's kind of is suprising to me how the former armies of Alexander were beaten more easily, and parts of Greece has some tough terrain too. Or is this a false assumption, and the East wasn't won as easily as i've interpreted it? edit: I'm going to Portugal this summer to visit relatives, anyone know of some interesting Roman ruins left one can visit? I've already been to the most famous one, the ruined town of Conimbriga, and i've also seen the ruined theatre in downtown Lisbon, is there anything besides those that are significant? Otherwise i'm thinking of taking a day trip to Merida to see the ruins of Emerita Augusta in Spain, which is a 3 h drive away from Lisbon. Falukorv fucked around with this message at 08:24 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 08:15
|
|
|
Falukorv posted:From some cursory reading it seems to me that Eastern conquest of the Hellenic kingdoms went easier for the Romans than their campaigns in the west. Why is that? I would guess that there was some internal strife and instabilities to be exploited, and maybe a more urban east made fighting easier or easier to assimilate, maybe less guerilla tactics and such. But still, on paper Eastern militaries seem pretty formidable too and more numerous, why where they more of a pushover than the troublesome tribes in say, Iberia? Urbanized kingdoms with central power structures are easy to take over- especially in pre-nationalistic days. Just take out the top of the structure, co-opt the local nobility and you're done. A bunch of people in the foothills of bumfuck nowhere though...
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
The Romans pushed into the east at the perfect time. The Successor kingdoms had been slogging it out since the death of Alexander for the most part, and were completely unprepared for a credible threat from Italy. Rome had just finished the second Punic War, and had a huge veteran army with the largest manpower reserves in the Mediterranean. Over the next 150 years, the Romans conquered the east piecemeal. Greece was a total clusterfuck between Greece proper and Macedonia squabbling and infighting, and Rome was able to divide and conquer them easily by playing the city states against one another, absorbing allies and conquering the others. Macedon put up a fight, but the Roman army was just straight up better then the Macedonian army, and once the Romans got the Macedonians to commit to a pitched battle on uneven terrain, they destroyed the Macedonian army and annexed Macedon. Western Turkey was ceded to Rome when the king of Pergamum died, and Pontus gave Rome a decent fight but was eventually overwhelmed. The Seleucids in Syria were exhausted from fighting their own numerous wars, especially against the Ptolemies in Egypt, and were in no shape to stop the Roman army. Egypt was in the middle of a civil war when Caesar showed up, and he pretty much ended it by backing Cleopatra's side, and the following civil war with Antony and Augustus saw Rome officially take Egypt. Also for the common person in these cities, changing rulers from the Selucids to the Romans really was not all that bad comparatively. You were exchanging one corrupt set of tax collectors for a different set of corrupt tax collectors, but hey, the new ones are building these awesome roads and aqueducts and poo poo and maybe they are not all that bad really. The Romans were far more brutal in their conquest of the "barbarian" lands, and it meant the end of those peoples entire way of life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE WoodrowSkillson fucked around with this message at 12:58 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 12:55
|
|
|
Yep. The Romans got quite lucky in the east. It's similar to how the Macedonians rolled Greece so easily after Athens and Sparta had beaten each other into bloody pulps. The same thing happens to Rome later when the Muslims come flying out of Arabia right after Rome and Parthia finished a solid 30 years or so of hardcore warfare.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The same thing happens to Rome later when the Muslims come flying out of Arabia right after Rome and Parthia finished a solid 30 years or so of hardcore warfare. Wasn't that Sassanid Persia rather than Parthia?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:Wasn't that Sassanid Persia rather than Parthia? Ah, yeah. I always forget when it's Persia and when it's Parthia, they swap around.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
Please tell me about tax farming. I cannot imagine anyone but the tax farmers hearing about it and thinking it's a good idea. Why eould any government do this? It just sounds like selling the right to shake down people; what were the limits on the tax farmers?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:Please tell me about tax farming. I cannot imagine anyone but the tax farmers hearing about it and thinking it's a good idea. Why eould any government do this? The alternative would be to appoint a tax official, and given that it's Rome, that tax official was probably going to steal as much as he could get away with stealing anyway. Selling the rights to collect taxes in some area for $X guarantees that the state is going to have revenues of $X regardless of how much extra the tax farmers collect. It also lets the government shield itself from abuses by allowing people to make an argument like "the government's taxes are fair, but those rotten tax farmers, you see..." Tax farming was used as recently as the French Revolution, where the famous chemist Antoine Lavoisier was arrested and executed for abusing the system. (Of course, these were probably trumped-up charges made by his enemy, Marat.)
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
It's a good idea because you don't have the resources to do anything else with it. That's why it sticks around for so long until states get centralized and powerful, but yeah, it's selling the right to shake people down. You try to keep that under control when the peasants are getting revolt-y. Limits vary so much you can't really say. It goes from no limits to lots of regulations about how much you can take, as time goes on and people get pissed.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 02:28
|
|