WoodrowSkillson posted:

"Hey Coemgenus in can you pay me in silver this month instead of with grain? I'm doing my yearly visit to the in-laws in Trier and need a new sword and some of those fancy spices we use for the holiday feasts"

skasion posted:

Butter is a Germanic fad. Will all blow over any century now

Nessus posted:

I have a friend who wants a custom tombstone that will be optimally positioned for goths to gently caress on. He is a wise man

A_Bluenoser posted:

I would push back against that characterisation on the basis of precision if nothing else. The term "fundamentalism" does not appear as a defined thing until the 1920s and it is largely a North American movement (at least to start with). If I recall properly the term actually originates with a series of pamphlets published in the 19teens called "The Fundamentals: a Testimony of Truth". We should be very cautious about backporting terms that develop in a specific context to earlier contexts or to different cultures because it can obscure what was actually going on and what people actually thought they were doing. It is the same problem as when people describe Medival peasant groups as "Marxist": that philosophy just does not exist in that context and trying to apply it ignores the very real (and often very well thought-out and sophisticated) concerns that the real historical people had and to be honest really devalues them.

The Puritans in the 17th century certainly believed that Biblical scripture as they received it was the sole basis for correct religion and was completely "true" in some sense but they did not necessarily mean the same thing when they said that as someone would when they said it in the early 20th century. I don't think it is clear that there is any line to be drawn between Puritan iconoclasm and young earth creationism: they don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.

This is getting rather beyond the topic of ancient history but I think it is important to remember that our current concepts don't necessarily map to what historical people were doing or thinking: just because thing X in history looks like modern thing Y to us on first glance does not necessarily mean they are actually similar or that the comparison is valid.

Thanks for listening to my TED talk

Kylaer posted:

I acknowledge the existence of the term Early Modern and I absolutely hate it and think they should find any other name for that period. Early Modern is so devoid of meaning.

Brawnfire posted:

we have not yet left.. THE AGE OF FIRE

zoux posted:

*Eagle flying north shot out of the sky by skilled bowshot, also has my exact face*
*turns to harsupex* Is that bad

soviet elsa posted:

Reading a translation of Gallic Wars and giggling at Caesar's cognomen.

Kyle I. Baldy presents: The French Wars.

MeatRocket8 posted:

Movies never show barbarians with moustaches. Probably because it would look too modern. But moustaches were definitely popular among them.

Halloween Jack posted:

Why shouldn't the Visigoths look like Hawkwind?

MeatRocket8 posted:

Don’t think i’ve read any ancient roman historians give specifics, just passing references.

But here’s some ancient rear end staches:

The Dying Gaul of course



The Ludovisi Battle Sarcophagus



Barbarian chieftain mosaic in the great palace



Coin of Odoacer:

Banana Canada posted:

Orbs posted:

It would make sense for boats to have names, especially big, important ones like triremes. Ships take a lot of effort to build and maintain, and that effort is usually toward a specific intentional purpose. That's the kind of endeavor that always seems to make humans want to go "we should name this thing, this great complex endeavor we're doing."

Orbs posted:

I wonder what the original name of that monument was, I don't think it was Stonehenge iirc. I bet the original name was way more rad.

Mad Hamish posted:

Actually, while I'm thinking of it, the pyramids in ancient Egypt also had names. The Great Pyramid's proper name is Khufu's Horizon, and the name of Djedefre's pyramid (Khufu's successor) is Djedefre's Starry Sky.

CrypticFox posted:

I haven't read the book but the basic premise doesn't seem too wild, enslaved scribes/copyists were fairly common in the Roman empire, so its not a big leap to think that New Testament authors would have made use of them. Also, the author seems to be a perfectly legitimate academic with the necessary background to dictate the book to a scribe.

Carillon posted:

Danton got got, so there was something wrong in that chain of events.

cheetah7071 posted:

The metric calendar should have caught on

Judgy Fucker posted:

It's still valuable as literature, though. And if nothing else it's really drat exciting to get access to previously-lost ancient texts.

Safety Biscuits posted:

How old is leather polish, for boots and so on? And what did people use before that, animal fat?

XavierAlexander posted:

I see you've also dated a mainlander.

Nessus posted:

For some reason I do not comprehend apparently learning how to swim has, historically, been loving rare throughout the world, including in places like England or Ireland where if your little fishing coracle capsized you might well have a reasonable chance of making it to shore.

Like I can see the reasoning for blue ocean sailors -- it's not like they're going to be able to easily turn back for you, so you might as well get it over with quickly. Even so!

Grand Fromage posted:

In Livy's words:

"A Gaulish man and a Gaulish woman and a Greek man and a Greek woman were buried alive under the Forum Boarium. They were lowered into a stone vault, which had on a previous occasion also been polluted by human victims, a practice most repulsive to Roman feelings. When the gods were believed to be duly propitiated, Marcus Claudius Marcellus sent from Ostia 1500 men who had been enrolled for service with the fleet to garrison Rome."

It's an instance of "moral" and "effective" being different concepts. The Roman religion had a lot of room for this--foreign gods were real, they just weren't our gods and ours are better. Similar to how early parts of the Bible are explicit that there are many gods, you're just only allowed to worship Yahweh. Human sacrifice works, you're just not supposed to do it.