|
sullat posted:Probably Victoria for both. Congress of Vienna FTW. Everybody was (A) sleeping with each other and (B) spying on each other.
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
nopantsjack posted:If you had the choice between loving a dirty Scandinavian or a hideous British person who has only bathed for medical purposes you'd gently caress the scando every time. Yeah, but you'd easily gently caress a Greek, Arab, Punjabi or Han, beforeeither of them. Northwestern Europe was quite probably the filthiest spot in the world until very recently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Congress of Vienna FTW. Everybody was (A) sleeping with each other and (B) spying on each other. So the Olympics?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Dreddout posted:Yeah, but you'd easily gently caress a Greek, Arab, Punjabi or Han, beforeeither of them. i would even now, when the filthy bog people allegedly do bathe
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
cargo cult posted:i thought carlin's mongol podcast was actually pretty reasonable and we just covered the same subject in a 300 lvl undergrad history of late imperial china course but idk. i listened to maybe forty minutes of it again recently and it sounded right about how their living their entire lives on horseback and the brutality of life on the steppe is what made central asians so lethal when they came into contact with sedentary civilizations. i guess its dece because there's no reason to contrive 'badassness' and excitement cause the history is legitimately insane I read an interesting argument that the standard history of steppe peoples should be reversed: that their history is more one of impoverished steppe nomads being slowly driven out of their lands by wealthier sedentary countries. At one point pretty much all of central inland Eurasia from Germany to Mongolia was nomadic peoples, and they slowly got driven back by rich coastal folk until the only vestiges of their independent societies were in the steppes of the deepest interior. He also claimed that the the average steppe warrior was not necessarily much more lethal than, say, a knight, unless they were led by a great commander.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:I read an interesting argument that the standard history of steppe peoples should be reversed: that their history is more one of impoverished steppe nomads being slowly driven out of their lands by wealthier sedentary countries. At one point pretty much all of central inland Eurasia from Germany to Mongolia was nomadic peoples, and they slowly got driven back by rich coastal folk until the only vestiges of their independent societies were in the steppes of the deepest interior. He also claimed that the the average steppe warrior was not necessarily much more lethal than, say, a knight, unless they were led by a great commander. Basically this. Steppe peoples in eurasia are one of the oldest Others we have, and they've been demonized by virtually every sedentary civilization they've come into contact with. This is not to say that the Mongols, as the most famous example, did not wreck poo poo; they absolutely did, were probably responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions, etc. But it's kind of like pointing at Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar to deduce that all agrarian civilizations are innately ferocious and warmongering, or whatever. The whole "harsh lethal steppe breeds invincible terminators" is also bunk. The average steppe nomad lived with both a higher quality of life and much greater freedom of personal choice and social advancement than any ancient or medieval peasant (for example, slaves and serfs escaping across the Danube into nomad lands was a major irritant to the later Roman empire), and the steppe itself was a loving gold mine of resources. The central asian khanates were rich af from trading pelts, amber, and horses to sedentary populations, not to mention owning the silk road. The real strengths responsible for their military success were the comitatus relationship between leader and followers, which enforces the same kind of fanatic discipline as the thane-king relationship behind the varangians, and the purely material fact that owning a horse or pony (as almost every male did) automatically grants you an enormous military advantage for most of history. I could rant more about this, but basically pastoral nomads own and im tired of them being discussed as poor dirty savages living on the outskirts of civilization
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
I think we read the same book. I like where he said nomad raids on sedentary countries weren't because they just LOVED BOOTY, but because sedentary countries periodically were assholes and decided to stop all trade with nomads. This kills the nomads, so the nomads take matters into their own hands. China was particularly bad at this
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
virgin agriculturalist chad steppe nomad
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
Yandat posted:virgin agriculturalist
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:I could rant more about this, but basically pastoral nomads own and im tired of them being discussed as poor dirty savages living on the outskirts of civilization
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
I was listening to the World War 1 series of Hard Core History, until Carlin cited Fergerson and I promptly turned it off because that's when I realized all I was getting was garbage and I still have fights with people I know about why Carlin is terrible. Ken Burn's Vietnam War documentary sucked as well. I had high hopes for it, but all it was was repeating myths. The utter gall to say it was started with the best of intentions. As for the Revolution podcast, how do you not do the Russian Revolution on its Centenary. That's a waste
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:I was listening to the World War 1 series of Hard Core History, until Carlin cited Fergerson and I promptly turned it off because that's when I realized all I was getting was garbage and I still have fights with people I know about why Carlin is terrible. he's going in chronological order I think he wants to do that one after he does the mexican revolution
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 11:49
|
|
|
Yandat posted:virgin agriculturalist
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 11:50
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:As for the Revolution podcast, how do you not do the Russian Revolution on its Centenary. That's a waste Because he's doing them chronologically and ended up doing far more episodes on everything than he expected but especially on the French Revolution? Skipping over 1848 and 1870 just for an anniversary would be doing 1917 a disservice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 11:52
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:Basically this. Steppe peoples in eurasia are one of the oldest Others we have, and they've been demonized by virtually every sedentary civilization they've come into contact with. This is not to say that the Mongols, as the most famous example, did not wreck poo poo; they absolutely did, were probably responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions, etc. But it's kind of like pointing at Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar to deduce that all agrarian civilizations are innately ferocious and warmongering, or whatever. The whole "harsh lethal steppe breeds invincible terminators" is also bunk. The average steppe nomad lived with both a higher quality of life and much greater freedom of personal choice and social advancement than any ancient or medieval peasant (for example, slaves and serfs escaping across the Danube into nomad lands was a major irritant to the later Roman empire), and the steppe itself was a loving gold mine of resources. The central asian khanates were rich af from trading pelts, amber, and horses to sedentary populations, not to mention owning the silk road. The real strengths responsible for their military success were the comitatus relationship between leader and followers, which enforces the same kind of fanatic discipline as the thane-king relationship behind the varangians, and the purely material fact that owning a horse or pony (as almost every male did) automatically grants you an enormous military advantage for most of history.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
cargo cult posted:temujin lost his dad by age 9 and spent like multiple years in capitivty, saw his wife taken and likely raped, killed his own brother in a dispute over a fish as a teenager, lived with his mom alone on the steppe, killed his own blood brother. his upbringing was undeniably rough lol and theres no reason to think his story was uniquely harsh As you say, the reason for which was his being of noble blood, the assassination of his father, and years spent in poverty and exile. It all sounds pretty "uniquely harsh," almost as if genghis khan was kind of a psycho with a really hosed childhood
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Yandat posted:chad steppe nomad quote:LOVED BOOTY
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:he's going in chronological order forkboy84 posted:Because he's doing them chronologically and ended up doing far more episodes on everything than he expected but especially on the French Revolution? That's true, Still you only get to be around for a major anniversary like that once
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Typo posted:to be fair though, when I was in my early teens this sort of stuff would have appealed to me a lot, and that was a period when my interest in history really started developing i mean i got into history because of rome total war, age of empires and civilization. theres room for the dumb fanciful stuff as a gateway yeah also history channel is way worse. its all aliens and paranormal poo poo these days
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
babypolis posted:i mean i got into history because of rome total war, age of empires and civilization. theres room for the dumb fanciful stuff as a gateway yeah Yeah, it's a split between redneck reality shows and aliens. Other than Vikings I can't think of a single current program they have worth watching. I got into history because we didn't have cable growing up so I caught Ken Burn's The Civil War when it first aired and that pretty much set me down the path I've been on ever since.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
i was overjoyed by how Vikings decided to tackle Ivar the Boneless 'was he a weird cripple, or was the 'boneless' thing a Cuchulainn ref describing a badass warrior that translated poorly from gaelic to old norse? why not both!??!'
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
With the discussion of Gibbons being outdated I'd like to share a history book on Augustus that I absolutely loved when I read it a few years ago: https://www.amazon.com/Augustus-Life-Romes-First-Emperor-ebook/dp/B000MAH5LU/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1508895590&sr=8-3&keywords=augustus+book Could people link their favorite books on Rome that are relatively up to speed on current academic research?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Gibbon's central thesis is that Rome declined and fell, itself a troublesome idea, due to internal degradations and eroding of civic virtue, in particular advancing the idea that Christianity especially weakened the martial heart of the Romans and made them softies, ripe for conquest by the rapacious barbarian hordes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:Its funny in retrospect that I wrote an 8th grade paper in Catholic School on how the fall of the Roman Empire was totally because of Christianity making the Romans weak and peaceful. This was because I got really into Roman history from playing RTSs and reading Greek Mythology. I never let go of my interest of the Roman Empire (hell I made sure to go to Rome and the Mediterranean as part of my high school graduation trip/cruise) though I'm far less of the opinion that Julius Caesar did nothing wrong and that the Roman Empire was good. Though the idea has been discredited academically, it does have a remarkable half-life in less developed conceptions of why the Empire collapsed, particularly among those with an axe to grind. I seem to recall former forums poster and GBS superstar LegoRobot included the idea of "Christianity ruined Rome" in one of this cartoons as he was descending into the New Atheist obnoxiousness that ruined what good will he had on the forums (and before he accidentally outed himself as a pedophile and got kicked off for good).
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
j. caesar was a genocidal mass murderer in gaul, but the land reform project he attempted as dictator (breaking up the big senator-owned, slave-staffed agricultural latifundia) would've been hugely important and beneficial both socially and economically to the long-term health of the empire. he deserved to get shanked in the senate house, sure, but it's a shame he didn't finish breaking the old senatorial families first
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
zeal posted:j. caesar was a genocidal mass murderer in gaul, but the land reform project he attempted as dictator (breaking up the big senator-owned, slave-staffed agricultural latifundia) would've been hugely important and beneficial both socially and economically to the long-term health of the empire. he deserved to get shanked in the senate house, sure, but it's a shame he didn't finish breaking the old senatorial families first so thats the real reason they murdered him? greed never changes
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:so thats the real reason they murdered him? greed never changes that and he neutered the establishment senators by using dictator's powers to appoint a bunch of new blood to the senate, including (to the old families' shock and horror) non-Roman Italians, and even representatives from subject peoples like the Gauls, all of them hand-picked supporters of his of course. they assassinated him to save their traditional authority and their precious, precious slave plantations. once octavian aka caesar augustus took the reins he let them keep the latifundia but left them only the pantomime of political power, though by that point the civil wars, and proscriptions between/during the civil wars, resulted in most of the senatorial families of the republic era dying out and getting replaced by new money from the equestrian class.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Caesar's slave was right, he should have used the proscription lists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
the portrayal of the relationship between j. caesar and his chief secretarial slave in the first season of HBO's Rome is worth the price of admission alone
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
Typo posted:revolutons podcast from the same guy who did history of rome robespierre ended slavery in the french empire in 1794 and IIRC still remains something of a hero in haiti to this day. then slavery came back when napoleon took over aka it's a shame max wasn't more pragmatic in holding onto power. the revolutions guy never mentions this, as many "historians" and historians don't, either because he didn't dig enough or because liberalism is now a reactionary force, which incentivizes depicting a revolutionary like robespierre as some sort of stalin-esque monster as an injunction against destabilizing change. he's a complicated figure and the characterization given by the podcast host was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
james purefoy portrays an absolutely all-star marcus antonius in the same show, incidentally.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Brother Friendship posted:With the discussion of Gibbons being outdated I'd like to share a history book on Augustus that I absolutely loved when I read it a few years ago: SPQR A general history, but very good and very much up to date, definitely worth a read. The World of Late Antiquity This dude basically invented modern study of late antiquity, and it has tons of great photos and images to boot Rome's Gothic Wars Much more academic than the two above, but great if you wanna dig deep into the relationship between Rome and its "barbarian" neighbors. zeal posted:james purefoy portrays an absolutely all-star marcus antonius in the same show, incidentally. Rome is fantastic, it really sucks that they didn't have a chance to go further with it. Antony is great and Hinds is definitely my favorite portrayal of Caesar
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
yeah, hinds is probably the best julius on film, but damned if he didn't need to be balder for the part the real guy was hugely self-conscious about his growing bald spot, and wore ceremonial laurels or helmets as much as he could to distract from it
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:I read an interesting argument that the standard history of steppe peoples should be reversed: that their history is more one of impoverished steppe nomads being slowly driven out of their lands by wealthier sedentary countries. At one point pretty much all of central inland Eurasia from Germany to Mongolia was nomadic peoples, and they slowly got driven back by rich coastal folk until the only vestiges of their independent societies were in the steppes of the deepest interior. He also claimed that the the average steppe warrior was not necessarily much more lethal than, say, a knight, unless they were led by a great commander. the average steppe society is simply much better at mobilizing its population for war, in ancient times even the most efficient empires (the Roman Republic and Qin China) was capable of mobilizing around 1/6 of its adult male population for war. Many nomadic societies can mobilize just about every adult male (plus some women and children as well) for war. Sure maybe a steppe horseman is about as lethal as a knight, but there aren't that many elite soldiers like knights in any medieval society. Also we forget in most years: nomads lose against the great empires, nomads tend to win when either 1) they are led by Genghis Khan or 2) more likely when they strike when the civilized empires are already weakened by plague, civil war, famine or all three quote:I read an interesting argument that the standard history of steppe peoples should be reversed: that their history is more one of impoverished steppe nomads being slowly driven out of their lands by wealthier sedentary countries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
stranger danger posted:robespierre ended slavery in the french empire in 1794 and IIRC still remains something of a hero in haiti to this day. then slavery came back when napoleon took over aka it's a shame max wasn't more pragmatic in holding onto power. He definitely did, he did an entire series on the Haitian revolution quote:the revolutions guy never mentions this, as many "historians" and historians don't, either because he didn't dig enough or because liberalism is now a reactionary force, which incentivizes depicting a revolutionary like robespierre as some sort of stalin-esque monster as an injunction against destabilizing change. he's a complicated figure and the characterization given by the podcast host was wrong. "podcast guy" goes into a lot about how Robespierre was actually pretty lenient on his political opponents and defended some of them against the more radical members of the Montagnards calling for their death, even while heading the committee of public safety, he even says the terror wasn't as bad in paris as oral history would have it his basic thesis is that in 1794 Robespierre had a nervous breakdown and start acting erratically: including executing his fellow radical revolutionaries. He executed both the Herbertists to his left; who were calling for radical economic redistribution and de-christinaization Then he turned on Georges Danton: who was the Lenin of the French Revolution (Lenin himself greatly admired him, a man who fought for and defended the revolution with every fiber of his being, who more than anyone else was responsible for the success of the left in taking power), to Robespierre's Stalin and had him arrested and executed on trumped up charges yes he was a complex figure, but he definitely commited his share of crimes but loving actually listen to the podcast and stop being triggered by every single perceived slight against your glorious marxist revolutionary hero you loving idiot tankie, that way you might actually learn something for once Typo has issued a correction as of 06:35 on Oct 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:As you say, the reason for which was his being of noble blood, the assassination of his father, and years spent in poverty and exile. It all sounds pretty "uniquely harsh," almost as if genghis khan was kind of a psycho with a really hosed childhood It's also further proof of Chapo's thesis "Behind every great man, there's a brutal cucking"
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
Typo posted:He definitely did, he did an entire series on the Haitian revolution you'll notice that this is a separate podcast lol. not that it really changes anything because ending slavery is immensely good even if he went nuts on some french dudes so hating robespierre is dumb. also i'm not a communist, but liberalism being the status quo and a reactionary force is plainly obvious and you should try not to get """""triggered"""" by your assumptions of what people think
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
stranger danger posted:you'll notice that this is a separate podcast lol. not that it really changes anything because ending slavery is immensely good even if he went nuts on some french dudes so hating robespierre is dumb. Listen to the podcast again he constantly references the French revolution in the Hatian series. Lawman 0 has issued a correction as of 13:22 on Oct 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
zeal posted:yeah, hinds is probably the best julius on film, but damned if he didn't need to be balder for the part That's a minor point considering how Hinds nailed even the smallest of facial features and vocal tones for the complex situations the show thrust on him. Virtually every scene with him is my favorite but one of the best is when Caesar is holding a party to build support for himself after his return to Rome and Antony starts mocking the high priest ("It's positively Syrian!") and Caesar hits him with a second of stink eye and a hiss then uses a soft voice to distract the priest before bribing him. They certainly touched on Caesar's vanity well enough and even included the seizure plot line.  Fuligin posted:Books All ordered. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Though the idea has been discredited academically, it does have a remarkable half-life in less developed conceptions of why the Empire collapsed, particularly among those with an axe to grind. I seem to recall former forums poster and GBS superstar LegoRobot included the idea of "Christianity ruined Rome" in one of this cartoons as he was descending into the New Atheist obnoxiousness that ruined what good will he had on the forums (and before he accidentally outed himself as a pedophile and got kicked off for good). even Hitler thought Christianity destroyed rome I'm serious btw
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 20:14
|
|