|
Jaded Burnout posted:So it's pretty much that Scotland held out longer and then James I's ascension made for a less homogenous union? Gotcha. I wonder why Wales remained a sort-of independent country if it was so much under England's thumb. It didn't? Wales didn't have any administrative distinction in the UK till 1997 from any other part of England. It's just that prior to the 19th century states made no effort to stamp out local cultures (see France/Spain), and welsh identity survived the 19th century when say Cornish didn't due to being larger to start.
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2020 12:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:22 |
|
|
Dante posted:What are some other podcast except Tides of History that is good? I strongly prefer history podcast that drops the theater play fantasy reimaginations and focuses on academic work (no Carlin). Revolutions is all about the liberal revolutions [from English Civil War to Russian Revolution] and is done by Mike Duncan, the guy who did the History of Rome podcast so it hits the ground running with a podcaster who knows what he's doing.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2020 22:08
|
|
|
Squalid posted:only surviving example of a Roman scutum: That's a pretty decorative shield for something found in an active military site.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2020 23:44
|
|
|
Cetea posted:The international language of science is still Latin and Greek in many ways, in terms of classifications in biology and the like; most papers are currently written in English of course, but this is more or less temporary; usually the most powerful state on the international stage will publish the most papers, and you can never really guess who will be the most powerful state around in say, 300 years time. Latin has a huge advantage for classification because as a non-living (but not quite dead either) language, it doesn't change arbitrarily, and therefore is perfect for describing constants. Literally the only thing Latin is useful for is botany, and it's not perfect for the job - just a holdover of the early scientific elite all knowing Latin - try telling a Chinese botanist that Latin is actually good for classifications and not just a confusing nightmare making their job harder. You do not need to know anything more than English in modern science, unless you're treating mathematics as a language in it's own right. Being able to hear and decipher a latin name is a novelty at best anyways - you'll only see them when looking something up anyways. And it's utterly irrelevant to modern physics and chemistry - where everything has been in english for the past 50ish years (which does add barriers to many prospective scientists from non anglephone countries especially outside europe)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2020 12:21
|
|
|
Science and scientific advancement as we know them - the investigation of natural phenomena on the expectation they follow rules that can be harnessed for the good of humans - is a modern invention, about the 17th century in the west. While the greeks were big into philosophy, greek philosophy about how the world works was tied into their philosophy of ethics - how the world should be. They were also averse to experimentation to prove or disprove phenomena, and sharing results of such in a standard manner - again fairly recent inventions. The world is not Civilisation where scientific advancement happens over time naturally unless regressed by a "dark age" - science is a certain idelogy and philosophy of thought that would be alien to many intellectuals of the ancient world.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2020 13:25
|
|
|
Cetea posted:Yes, but the errors are far fewer than transmission in oral history. I find that it would be hard to argue that a culture with no written language could preserve knowledge as well as a culture with an oral history. We have no idea what happened to the people who built the Stonehenge for instance (even though the builders' DNA is found in the genes of modern Welsh individuals), but we certainly know a lot about Egyptian royal decrees, religion, and general cultural practices, even if they wrote in a language that is almost entirely unknown today save for a few Egyptologists. Well yes written artifacts are more resistant to genocide... but they also require an enviroment which can sustain them, and a centralised poltical authority who benefits from written records.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2020 14:02
|
|
|
Are you just goimg to ignore that science and its ideology are modern western inventions and the idea of any ancient civilisation being involved in scientific development is hilsrioudly anachronistic and sounds like a video game viewpoint of the world.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2020 14:34
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Experimentation in order to prove/disprove phenomena goes back way further, its just that they had dumb experiments that lead to weird results. Isolated experimentation does, yes. An dominant ideology that the workings of the natural world can all be discovered through experimentation, and that such experimentation can be useful to people's lives so should be wildly spread, no. In other ages, intellectuals found other problems as most worth investigation - theology in the middle ages (for if you could through reason be closer to god through theology to understand Him better, that was the highest good) or philosophy for the greeks and romans which primarily answered "how does a man obtain happiness?" and the answers to "how does the world work?" just came bundled in the same ideological package. Nothingtoseehere fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Sep 9, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2020 20:10
|
|
|
The intellectual histoty of the American revolution really ties back to 1650s England and the ECW than it does the classics (not that classics weren't also read)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2020 12:26
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Holy poo poo I’m taking a train to Rome. I can’t believe I’ll be walking the city in just over an hour Have fun! Hopefully it'll be a bit quieter at the moment, but it's a wierd experience. Plenty to see though, and in unexpected places - the vactian has a large display of mummies and other stuff from ancient egypt, for example.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2020 10:59
|
|
|
Having cheap coffee,sugar etc from slavery in the colonies is not the same thing - economically or socially - as having dominant amounts of slave labour Right Here as you see in the USA or Brazil, and conflating the two is just bad history.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2020 23:08
|
|
|
The original statement was that "everyone" had masses of slave labour in the 1700s. While most of europe profited off the backs of slaves, direct access to slave labour was very much limited to new world colonies - there was nowhere near the supply of cheap exploitable labour in Europe at the time.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2020 23:21
|
|
|
After a certain point, enough of the radioactive carbon has decayed that we can't measure how much ( if any) is left. Current techniques are accurate to measuring roughly 1/1000 of the normal carbon radioactivity (which is already tiny) but when you are at such small levels your dates are sensitive to how accurate your calibrations are, and better calibration is what the updates to carbon dsting standards is about.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2020 19:21
|
|
|
Cetea posted:Yes, slavery was absolutely one (out of many) of the causes of industrialization (I actually posted multiple journals above to back this). And industrialization was also one of the main causes of ending slavery, by making non-industrialized states not as competitive, thus forcing said states to industrialize (again, posted journal articles above). As a result, it went from slavery -> industrialization -> industrialized states surge ahead in power compared to non industrialized states (while no longer needing slaves within their own borders to function), causing others to follow in their steps. This does not mean that an industrialized state cannot profit off slavery, but that it offers incentives for states that still have slavery to industrialize. Of course a state could refuse to industrialize, but that would mean they got economically and militarily left behind, thus making them weaker and more prone to being defeated by their enemies who did industrialize. And then once most states reached that level of development, the slave trade suffered as a result, as there was simply less demand for raw, unskilled human labour. After all, we no longer need massive amounts of human labour to farm (yes, many states did farm without slavery even in the medieval era, but many also did, thus increasing demand for slaves in the agricultural sector), nor do we need them to cultivate sugar, quarry stone, or mine in dangerous areas (advanced tools require a level of training that you wouldn't want to invest into a slave). This is not to say that the reasons for abolishment were purely economical, there were also religious and ideological reasons for it as well; I simply support the side that says the economical reason was more important (as an economically advanced state also tends to have a more educated population, which leads to cultural shifts as well), but there are good arguments for all three factors (and presently there's still no consensus, so technically you can hold any position and be 'correct' as it were). If slavery directly leads to industrialisation, why was Germany one of the leading industrial powers and not Portugal or spain? They had plenty of slave capital heading home, unlike the germans. The industrial revolution is a unique event in human history, and probably the result of an conflux of causes together more than one element. Also... medieval europe abolished slavery quite effectly just by strength of moral authority - it was one of the big changes the normal invasiom brought to England. In general slavery is something you see as a romam holdover the catholic church puts a lot of time into fighting over the early mediveal period. Unless you're taking such a expansive definition of slavery that africans s being shipped over to sugar plantations and a noble marriage are exactly the same thing, in which case I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2020 08:52
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:I mean at least that's a name, most of my Chinese teachers chose... Unique western names. My favorites being Bark (as in the noise a dog makes) and Samanfer (she picked it before she knew English and just stuck with it because why not) Eh, the second one is close enough to Samantha I don't see anything wrong with it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2020 16:21
|
|
|
The French Revolution is a political gamechanger in europe - both in geopolitics and how much shift there is in ideological underpinnings of states. It's alot easier to assign to an event than the industrial revolution - which happens but is much more of a slow gradual process spanning before, during, and after the Napoleonic Wars. Wars are only a shifter of eras when they represent a shifting of the ideologies of the states involved, rather than mere possession.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2020 00:13
|
|
|
How do you deal with puralisation when the number of the plural subject is unknown in Chinese then?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2020 14:26
|
|
|
Just say Taiwan, it's easier for everyone to understand.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2020 15:40
|
|
|
There's a reason most of asia, even the uncolonized countries, switched to using a western calendar. Life is just easier when you're coordinated with the rest of the world by default, and don't have any silly mistakes of missing meeting due to getting days wrong (on either side)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2020 17:18
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:It’s a bit early and you may have seen it, but the 2010 Romance of the Three Kingdoms loving rules and is all on youtube (except for the episode where Sun Jian takes the imperial seal) Link? Can't see it easily.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2020 23:32
|
|
|
I think Cessena has posted in the MilHist thread about how armies today are debating getting rid of close order drill altogether for the reasons it's obsolete on the nodern battlefield, but even then it's got the benefits you mentioned.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2020 11:14
|
|
|
skasion posted:Can't say much about the specific comparison between Rome and Han, but Britannia was full of iron mines and probably shouldn't be treated as an average province in terms of iron production (I would guess it would be among the most productive, together with Iberia and Noricum). Was it more abundant in Iron, or was it just cheaper to run a mine there because you're already mining a bunch of Tin for bronze? I don't think of the UK having particularly more mineral wealth than the rest of Europe, but 2000 years is a long time to deplete easily available resources. Also - neat comparison on Roman vs asian metalworking. Given Brittanica was a relatively late addition the Empire, and it was later abandoned, I can't imagine it's outputs were hugely relevant in the roman Strategic production - but also as a frontier province it might have had a greater millitary industry? Would be interesting to try isotope tracing on roman metalwork from around the empire and see if eg - swords in Germania or Britannica were all made locally or not. Nothingtoseehere fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Jan 17, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2021 22:51
|
|
|
Taxes are big income when you start getting into population bases of millions. When ISIS was trying to be a state, for example, most of their income just came from taxing Mosul and other cities they ruled, more than just oil income.
Nothingtoseehere fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Jan 26, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2021 22:09
|
|
|
1500 gigatons of ice is nothing in the context of global oceans, by the way. We can helpfully plug it into wolfram alpha and get the answer that it represents 1.6x10^15 Liters of water, or 1/814000 of the total volume of the worlds oceans. Sea level rise doesn't actually happen because land ice melts - it happens because as water gets warmer it expands, and when you have an ocean of water get warmer by 1 degree the resulting 0.05% increase in volume enough to raise sea levels by centimeters. So even if this creator is caused by an impact at 12000 BC and does melt 15000 gigatons of ice, it wouldn't result in global flooding/flood narratives.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2021 18:52
|
|
|
I think it's just War Is hell. And being an island reduces how much war you're exposed to.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2021 13:53
|
|
|
There's plenty of antiques which aren't unique or important enough to be held in collections - items for which hundreds if not thousands of examples survive. There's nothing wrong with people collecting those (roman coins is a decent example) The problem is distinguishing between the two groups is left to the collectors themselves - although they can also collect things archivists are not yet interested in.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2021 00:10
|
|
|
There's definitely some periodisation - for one, most people will agree there was a shift in European history in the 16th centuryish, and we go into the "Early Modern" period. The "Medieval" Period ends sometime around the late 1400s and early 1500s. When it begins is a different question. "Late Antiquity" continues at least till the rise of Islam and usually a decent chunk after that, but then as you move away from Roman power structures to newer local ones it morphs into some kind of Early Medieval Period. Good luck putting a date on it though, and outside Europe it makes no sense.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2021 23:29
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Lol obviously, and the whole concept of "the middle ages" has little meaning outside of Europe, North Africa and Levant. At a administrative level, the byzantine state had much greater tax-raising ability than other contemporary medieval states - they regularly paid off or hired foreign invaders, because paying for problems to go away was easier and cheaper than raising an army. This isn't something we see elsewhere - getting mediveal lords to pay taxes is nigh impossible for many.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2021 08:26
|
|
|
We can spot the Roman empire in ice-core records from higher mercury and soot emissions, it's certainly a more industrially intense period than before, although deforestation is just a natural consequence of urbanisation - need fuel for cooking and heating somehow. Rome being so big for so long probably cost more fuel than all the iron production (although that undoubtly took a big chunk of wood aswell).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2021 19:17
|
|
|
Country conscripting citizens in-country to the army - perfectly OK. Country conscripting citizens travelling to the navy - utterly disgusting. Like, I get you probably also hate conscription in general, but it's not like the state forcefully removing liberties from their able-bodied male citizens is that unusual, whether it be at sea into the navy or from farms into the army.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:The whole point here is that by both British and what there was of international law at the time, British people who moved to America were still British. There was no method of renouncing British nationality at the time. Its still a massive pain to renounce either British or American nationality today btw and very few people do. See - Singapore, today. If you're a male who is a Singaporean citizen and hasn't done your two-year conscription term, you'll be arrested entering the country and made to take part even if you were born abroad.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2021 14:39
|
|
|
it's like arriving during the Plague of justinian or the Black Death, then bringing another plague with you.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2021 14:11
|
|
|
Tias posted:I work reconstruction iron/viking age interpretation, and just had a gig for the last week doing a viking market aid station, and when explaining the various antiseptic stuff we had like sloe thorns and linden honey, the number one question from guests in return was always "How did they figure it out?" People are pretty good of keeping track of large social structures anyways - but now we keep a web of celebrity gossip and social media memes in our heads where people used to keep family names and epic sagas. We don't remember as much as people used to because we developed crutches for memorization like writing stuff and having books. Instead we train other mental skills. Just because it's impressive doesn't mean it's superior.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 01:17
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Most wines now cut off fermentation with sulfates to leave some sugars. I’d imagine anything made before sulfates might be higher alcohol content because they’d get complete fermentation. It’s also be pretty dry unless one drank it early. Current wines are around 8%-12%, and complete fermentation is about 15%. So it's stronger than modern wine, but not a huge amount. Watering it down 4 parts to 1 would give you a 3% abv drink.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2021 11:20
|
|
|
Beer is a decent source of calories and easier to store than bread, especially the type they drank. But it's also just fun to be drunk. If you're looking for a reason for it beyond intoxication, food storage makes more sense than hydration.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2021 11:03
|
|
|
Weka posted:There's a heck of a lot of different compounds in most alcohols. Yea that's why they taste different. Ethanol is the psychoactive substance in all of them though, and ethanol is ethanol no matter what other flavourings or admiratives are present around it. Different alcohols can give you worse hangovers from impurity presences, but the psychoactive substance is the same. Much more likely is just social mediation. Ethanol depresses inhibition, but which inhibitions are very much determined by your beliefs and upbringing around alcohol and the environment you consume it in. People react differently to the same amount of alcohol in different environments, because how the inhibition release translates into behaviour is control by your brain, and brains are funky. It is a interesting thought though, when did people recognize beer and wine as the same thing, as opposed to say, booze and weed - being two popular drugs, but not ones people would expect to have the same effects.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2021 00:42
|
|
|
It's even present (to a lesser extend) in Tudor England. Elizabeth I made a habit of having a moving court, and obliging her unwilling noble hosts to take on the cost of hosting them - which was an effective way of both cementing her rule kingdom-wide and putting financial pressure on her opponents
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2022 18:30
|
|
|
Tulip posted:Where did you pick this up from?  I think he's being sarcastic
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2022 00:12
|
|
|
Also there's lots of antiques that are both impressive and not unique enough anyone wants to research them. Coins are a typical example, a roman coin collection might look museum worthy but hoards mean indervidual coins are abundant enough for you to buy freely. On the same note, I own some antique weapons - a 1780s french court sword, 1800s afghan musket, west african takoba - interesting weapons, but nothing so historically significant to belong in a museum or not already in the back rooms.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2022 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:22 |
|
|
No, orginal SARS was only transmissible when symptomatic, and also presented much stronger symptoms (basically all cases had strong fevers)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2022 02:29
|
|