|
"Renaissance" gets used in lit studies as a kind of superimposition on or subdivision of "Early Modern." I'm most comfortable using it when discussing the fifteenth and sixteenth century humanism which constructed "The Renaissance." So I sometimes call Tottel's Miscellany "Renaissance Poetry," Shakespeare and Marlowe "Renaissance Theatre" and I'll discuss "the conventions of the Renaissance sonnet," but I won't call just any Early Modern lit "Renaissance."
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 00:39 |
|
|
CommonShore posted:"Renaissance" gets used in lit studies as a kind of superimposition on or subdivision of "Early Modern." I'm most comfortable using it when discussing the fifteenth and sixteenth century humanism which constructed "The Renaissance." So I sometimes call Tottel's Miscellany "Renaissance Poetry," Shakespeare and Marlowe "Renaissance Theatre" and I'll discuss "the conventions of the Renaissance sonnet," but I won't call just any Early Modern lit "Renaissance." also: are you discussing italy
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
Historians will still be calling 1500-2000 or so modern era hundreds of years from now when it isn't remotely modern anymore
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Ligatures will make everything work out, given long enough time. 2000+ is the postmodem era
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Naw, when the future History Men give the tell they will just condense most history before the Deluge of Fire into a single era.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Do we know the main social differences between the Bronze and Iron age in and around the Med? I am not talking technologically I am more meaning stuff like whether there were Empires or wider social structures. Would Cyrus I count as an iron age monarch, and would the rise of empires be considered a shift point between the iron age and the classical age? I realise all of these terms are subject to revision and change and are as inexact as you like, I just wanted to ask quickly. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:also: are you discussing italy Sometimes, or early modern English translations of Italian texts, or English lit that is influenced by those Italian texts etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Do we know the main social differences between the Bronze and Iron age in and around the Med? I am not talking technologically I am more meaning stuff like whether there were Empires or wider social structures. Would Cyrus I count as an iron age monarch, and would the rise of empires be considered a shift point between the iron age and the classical age? There were massive social and political upheavals around the Mediterranean at the cusp of the Bronze/Iron ages. There's a pretty sharp transition at 1200 BC. The Hittites were completely wiped out, the Assyrians nearly so. Even the Egyptians were permanently weakened by it and were never the same. Empires existed long before the Iron Age. The Akkadians are recognized as one of the first in Mesopotamia, being established about 2300 BC. Cyrus (ca. 500 BC) is most definitely Iron Age.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:Sometimes, or early modern English translations of Italian texts, or English lit that is influenced by those Italian texts etc etc. edit: nice av. i've seen you around and wondered when we'd show up in the same place
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Do we know the main social differences between the Bronze and Iron age in and around the Med? I am not talking technologically I am more meaning stuff like whether there were Empires or wider social structures. Would Cyrus I count as an iron age monarch, and would the rise of empires be considered a shift point between the iron age and the classical age? It's hard to say because a couple hundred years separate the end of the Bronze Age from the start of what we'd recognize at the Classical Age. The Mycenaean Greeks were very different from the later Classical Greeks. Look up the Bronze Age Collapse. Sussing out the details on why the Bronze Age empires collapsed reveals some of the details that characterized their structures/societies. I think you're a bit confused too. The Iron Age is a catchall term for the period between the Bronze Age Collapse and the rise of Classical civilizations. It's characterized by the loss of the things that made the Bronze Age so prolific (writing, large polticial entities, cities, etc) rather than its own thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Do we know the main social differences between the Bronze and Iron age in and around the Med? I am not talking technologically I am more meaning stuff like whether there were Empires or wider social structures. The ages are originally determined by technology so it's hard to not talk about that at all. But the primary social difference is bronze age culture was interconnected and urban, while the iron age was not nearly so much. Egypt was the only major bronze age state to survive the collapse and it never recovered the kind of power it had before. The post-collapse world is one of smaller, independent city-states slowly recovering and rebuilding the networks and larger structures that were lost.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:Really wierd to think about how future historians will think of now. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:meanwhile, reformation history is the same time period, when you're talking about germans and religion Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:It's hard to say because a couple hundred years separate the end of the Bronze Age from the start of what we'd recognize at the Classical Age. The Mycenaean Greeks were very different from the later Classical Greeks. Mycenaean Greece was Minos and the like, if I remember correctly? I knew about the Bronze Age Collapse, but after being told that it went to the Iron age and then the classical age, that the Iron age must have had some stuff written about it/dug up by this point? Or was it a relatively short amount of time (and/or lack of sources) unlike the later Classical period. Grand Fromage posted:The ages are originally determined by technology so it's hard to not talk about that at all. But the primary social difference is bronze age culture was interconnected and urban, while the iron age was not nearly so much. Egypt was the only major bronze age state to survive the collapse and it never recovered the kind of power it had before. The post-collapse world is one of smaller, independent city-states slowly recovering and rebuilding the networks and larger structures that were lost. Got it, and as it looks as if there was a lack of written sources for that time period too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Most of the "Classical Period" is part of the European/Mediterranean/Asian Iron Age. It's just that you mostly only talk about places as being part of the Iron Age before mass-quantity writing survives again when it's some place we don't tend to have much writing from. Like you might see someone talking about Classical Romans versus Iron Age Germans and be referring to the exact same time period.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Mycenaean Greece was Minos and the like, if I remember correctly? Minos was contemporaneous with the early Mycenaeans (other than being a myth and all), but was part of the Minoan civilization(s) based on Crete, which was a different thing from the Greeks at the time. For Mycenaean Greece, think the Trojan War.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Like you might see someone talking about Classical Romans versus Iron Age Germans and be referring to the exact same time period. Got it, I think this might be where my confusion is coming from. Thank you. Koramei posted:Minos was contemporaneous with the early Mycenaeans (other than being a myth and all), but was part of the Minoan civilization(s) based on Crete, which was a different thing from the Greeks at the time. For Mycenaean Greece, think the Trojan War. Other than bull jumping, was there much to seperate the Minoan from the Mycenaean? They both had those big temple/palace complexes? Sorry I am being really pig ignorant here I just wanted to ask.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Got it, I think this might be where my confusion is coming from. Thank you. Minoans were Cretan in origin, unlike the Mycenaeans who came from the Peloponnesus. Unlike the Mycenaeans they were probably not natively Greek-speakers. They wrote in Linear A and the Cretan hieroglyphs as opposed to the Mycenaean Linear B. They substantially predated the Mycenaeans and exerted an economic cultural and probably political influence on their early development; around the second half of the 2nd millennium BC the Mycenaeans turned around and came to dominate Crete and a lot of the Aegean.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
I think future historians will put the start date for our age in the late 18th to mid 19th centuries. We talk about the industrial revolution as something that happened six generations ago but from a foreshortened, 500+ years from now perspective I think we're still in it. We've only begun to think about it seriously in the last 50 years, but everything since the 1840s has been inextricably bound up with burning fossil fuels. In the future that's going to form a very neat narrative with the drastic changes the world will experience in the next 300 years. Everything from industrial warfare to nuclear weapons to the population explosion to computers to space travel to the internet can be seen as an extension of the fossil fuel industrial complex. In the last few millennia it wouldn't have been too hard to predict what most people's daily economic activity would consist of 500 years later. Now it isn't clear whether economic activity as we know it today will cease to exist within the next 200 years, and whether that will go in a good (automation) or bad (climate collapse) direction. I'm not kidding when I say we may be living through a bigger change than the invention of metallurgy. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Sep 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Yeah I personally think 1860-1880 or so But that's just from reading novels from that era
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I think future historians will put the start date for our age in the late 18th to mid 19th centuries. We talk about the industrial revolution as something that happened six generations ago but from a foreshortened, 500+ years from now perspective I think we're still in it. Yeah, I think the modern era will always be "now," whenever that is. Historians will occasionally lop a few centuries off the beginning to define a new era preceeding it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
I mean when you think about it, in 1800 by sea you could go maybe 15 mph reliably across ocean with favorable winds for your whole trip (about what could be managed for a few hundred years prior), by 1900 you could do 40 mph under your own power. And 1900 by land speeds had reached a little over 80 mph (by rail, of course, autos could still only manage about 40 mph) as well versus the about 10 mph that could be sustained long distance with horses around 1800. And while a message from one side of the world to another would take 3 or 4 weeks in 1800, by 1900 it could be under 5 minutes on some particularly well connected pairs, and still under an hour for many others. Hell in 1800 ice was usually massively expensive out of season or simply not available at all in a lot of hot areas, by 1900 you could generally get pretty inexpensive ice shipped around the world and things like ice cream could be made so cheaply due to this that it was a treat for the working class. Now of course, nobody needs to send ships around full of ice cut out of some pond, but only because we found a better way for that. A lot of these things really tick over around like 1850-1880 or so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 22:57
|
|
euphronius posted:Yeah I personally think 1860-1880 or so If you're English, earlier. England's already producing half of world steel and cotton in 1850. Weird poo poo is afoot and people had noticed.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:"Renaissance" gets used in lit studies as a kind of superimposition on or subdivision of "Early Modern." I'm most comfortable using it when discussing the fifteenth and sixteenth century humanism which constructed "The Renaissance." So I sometimes call Tottel's Miscellany "Renaissance Poetry," Shakespeare and Marlowe "Renaissance Theatre" and I'll discuss "the conventions of the Renaissance sonnet," but I won't call just any Early Modern lit "Renaissance." "Renaissance" begins with Wyatt and ends with Milton. That's what EngLit taught me, and that's all I need to know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
The Renaissance began on a Tuesday at about two o'clock in the afternoon. Actually all the Renaissances started on a Tuesday. The Carolingians one and the 12th century one, the whole loving lot.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Carolingians
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
The Industrial Era actually started when Ug first found a sharp stone and jammed it into a thick branch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
Welcome to the Smartphone Age
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
ChaseSP posted:The Industrial Era actually started when Ug first found a sharp stone and jammed it into a thick branch. The spear was literally invented before the species Homo Sapiens existed. Humankind was born with spear in hand
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I'm not kidding when I say we may be living through a bigger change than the invention of metallurgy. If civilization gets through this period I think it's going to be a historical break like the invention of agriculture. I think it's possible that if human civilization survives in 500 years it's going to be utterly unrecognizable to anyone who came before. Think of the technology changes already. Transport a farmer from 2000 BC to 1500 AD. There's a lot of changes but I think that farmer would basically recognize what was going on and be able to adapt without too much trouble. Imagine now going from 1500 to 2017. Hell imagine going from 1800 to 2017. And it keeps accelerating. I was just thinking yesterday about this tablet I got. Cost about a hundred bucks used and is literally thousands of times more powerful than the first computer I owned. I'm not that old but I remember the world before anyone but us turbonerds had computers and internet access and it was so different it's hard to even remember what things were like. I think all this makes the "what will future historians think" question really hard right now in a way that it wouldn't be in other situations. You can see some obvious stuff like the World Wars being compressed into a single event but on the larger scale I have no idea. But I know this isn't going to be one of those centuries that just vanishes and you barely ever read about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:But I know this isn't going to be one of those centuries that just vanishes and you barely ever read about. the 1200s would like to inform you that they were very eventful, thank you very much 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I think all this makes the "what will future historians think" question really hard right now in a way that it wouldn't be in other situations. You can see some obvious stuff like the World Wars being compressed into a single event but on the larger scale I have no idea. But I know this isn't going to be one of those centuries that just vanishes and you barely ever read about. I actually think it's fairly plausible that the 21st century is so revolutionary the 20th gets mostly skipped over in pop history. I could even conceive of a world where the 22nd is so crazy the 21st gets second billing, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:the 1200s would like to inform you that they were very eventful, thank you very much The only event I can name off the top of my head from the 13th century is the fourth crusade
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:I actually think it's fairly plausible that the 21st century is so revolutionary the 20th gets mostly skipped over in pop history. I could even conceive of a world where the 22nd is so crazy the 21st gets second billing, and so on. It's possible. I can see everything from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution up through whatever the gently caress end point will look good in the 21st century being compressed into a single transition from agricultural to post-human society or whatever. I don't think the 20th century will be ignored, if nothing else the invention of flight, electronic computers, and satellites will be too important. And, hopefully, WW2 will remain the deadliest war of all time. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Sep 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
the 1200s are not to be confused with the 600s, 700s, and 800s which vanish in the sense that they didn't happen and are a papist plot
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
My great grandma died just short of reaching her 100th birthday back in 2010,and she was still able to handle things like cell phones, computers, even smartphones (though she never owned one herself, she'd use relatives smartphones plenty). When she was a kid telephones were still pretty rare and expensive even in Paterson where she was raised, sure as poo poo weren't any TV, and she could vaguely remember when they banned having radio sets (for pulse messages of course, no voice) for the duration of the American effort in World War 1. The one thing she never bothered to do for most of her life was to learn to drive, but she finally got around to it before my great grandfather died in 1993, just in case I guess my point is the changes from about the early 1900s to now aren't that hard to handle as a real person, and hell if you dragged some guy from 1830s England to know he could likely understand things well enough if you gave him a few hints. Probably he's unemployable now, but he could cotton on in a way that I just don't think a Mr 1650 dude would handle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
On a vaguely related concept, I know the general consensus in medieval Europe was that the world was getting worse with each successive generation, but I don't really know how far back that goes. I assume we have enough philosophical works preserved to know whether Greeks and Romans, at least, thought the world was generally getting better, getting worse, or in a general stasis, but I don't actually know for sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:On a vaguely related concept, I know the general consensus in medieval Europe was that the world was getting worse with each successive generation, but I don't really know how far back that goes. I assume we have enough philosophical works preserved to know whether Greeks and Romans, at least, thought the world was generally getting better, getting worse, or in a general stasis, but I don't actually know for sure. It's hard to say. The medieval belief stems from two main places. First was that Christianity did not believe in progress and was quite explicitly against it for most of its history. Man was perfect originally and had fallen, and innovation was heretical. There would be no improvement until the second coming. Second was that you had people living in and among the ruins of the Romans. When you're some dirt farmer in a hut and can see a massive multi-story arena or aqueducts or whatever it's pretty easy to think wow, the past had their poo poo together. There has been a rightful re-evaluation of the idea of the medieval era being poo poo and backwards, but there is some truth to it and it's hard to argue in particular fields like architecture and engineering that things were just as great in 900 as they had been in 100. I have read ancient authors who believed in progress, believed in a general stasis, and who believed in things getting worse. There's certainly more variety of opinion than the middle ages. I do not know if we can say for sure which of these was most widely accepted. I'm not sure there even is a single answer to that. Plato and the Epicureans both wrote about progress and believed humans were improving, and you can see myths like that of Prometheus reflecting those beliefs. The Stoics seemed to have arguments both for progress and for stasis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
There's actually a counterpoint out there that we're actually coming out of a long phase of productivity growth, and while modern innovations like smartphones are changing the way people live moment to moment, they haven't actually increased the standard of living or productivity of society in the same way as innovations in the past did, like electricity or cars or planes. There's decreasing acceleration of growth. A guy wrote a book about it. It's an interesting counterpoint to a lot of futurist ideas about singularities and whatnot. Of course, if we were really on some kind of huge turning point, we may just not have good metrics on it now, but I'm not really an optimist about the whole idea of everything suddenly changing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 00:39 |
|
|
Yeah it's a valid argument. I don't think economic growth itself is necessarily the best measure for societal change. Also I'd say we are in a huge turning point that hasn't manifested yet--the removal of the need for humans in the vast majority of work. We've had labor-saving technology for a long time but technology entirely eliminating the need for it is a huge change that we're only at the very beginning of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 06:24
|
|