The Portoguese plop up alot in Asia, and you get a decent handle on what they were doing abroad.
But i haven't really read much about what happend within the nation itself. Any good reads to suggest there Chrior?
History enthusiasts
-
-
The Portoguese plop up alot in Asia, and you get a decent handle on what they were doing abroad.
But i haven't really read much about what happend within the nation itself. Any good reads to suggest there Chrior?
You want a good book to sum up portuguese History? I will ask a friend of mine who is an actual History buff. I haven't read much since I got sick of it in school.
It's a pretty straightforward thing, though. Visigoths settle Roman Spain, rule a more or less cohesive kingdom until 711(?), Arabs conquer Gothic Spain, rule a more or less cohesive "golden age" emirate/caliphate for a while, Latin European (mainly Frankish) military monastic orders arrive to crusade against the muslims, the peninsula is split religiously north/south for a while, but both sides are split in petty kingdoms/counties/duchies/emirates, whatever. Slowly, the northern christians win out over the muslims. One day, a burgundian knight by the name of Henrique earns the county of Portucale, a name which would degrade into Portugal (former name of the city of Porto where I live, then given to the county that stretched from the Minho to the Douro rivers, in southern Galicia). His son eventually leads a revolt and breaks away from the kingdom of León, elevating himself to king of Portugal. He sets out to fight the muslims, gets lucky with the circumstances, with the big Moroccan power being crushed by united christian fronts in Spain. Basically conquers the entire territory of modern Portugal in his lifetime (only the Algarve was left for his son to conquer). After that, the kingdom stayed basically the same. A small backward rural corner of Europe. Somewhere in the 1400s, the royal family patronaged sea voyages, rounding Africa to reach India and establishing the first big european commercial empire. The small population of the country didn't allow it to project its power adequately, and along with mismanagement, led to the golden age being stolen by Spain and Holland. The rest of this country's significance is tied to general european History. Except Brazil. I forgot that.
But I'll see if I find a good book for you. Can you recommend a good one for Sweden? I don't know much about Scandinavia, actually. Was surprised when I found Sweden built an empire and deeply involved itself in mainland politics somwhere in the modern age.
-
Latin European (mainly Frankish) military monastic orders arrive to crusade against the muslims
I never made the connection that the Reconquista was mostly thanks to the frankish empire, spanish history lessons barely talk about pre-sucession war stuff and the reconquista part was simply taught to me as "spain was conquered by muslims but they didn't completely conquer Asturias so there insurrections started and the land was taken back and many new kingdoms appeared". Well at least that's how they teach here in Galicia, I guess in Aragon, Cataluña,.. they talk more about the frankish empire.
-
You want a good book to sum up portuguese History? I will ask a friend of mine who is an actual History buff. I haven't read much since I got sick of it in school.
Oh please do. Books about specific events or general overview, as long as it's interesting i'm up for it.
It's always interesting to read in-depth about the big events of each nation.
But I'll see if I find a good book for you. Can you recommend a good one for Sweden? I don't know much about Scandinavia, actually. Was surprised when I found Sweden built an empire and deeply involved itself in mainland politics somwhere in the modern age.
Well most of the stuff that gets translated is revolving about the Swedish empire or Gustavus Adolphus, which, to be fair, is pretty interesting stuff really. Voltaire wrote a pretty good biography about Carolus Rex which by extension covers Peter the great, August the strong, the great nordic war, the exile in Istanbul and the fall of the empire.
Personally i've found the age of liberty to be quite interesting. It's back in 1718 when the monarchy was replaced by a parlament represented by the four estates of nobility, burgesses, peasant and clergy. Pretty interesting stuff, but it's probably hard to come by English language sources.
But for an overview i think a concise history of Sweden by Neil Kent gives you the gist of it all.
-
I never made the connection that the Reconquista was mostly thanks to the frankish empire, spanish history lessons barely talk about pre-sucession war stuff and the reconquista part was simply taught to me as "spain was conquered by muslims but they didn't completely conquer Asturias so there insurrections started and the land was taken back and many new kingdoms appeared". Well at least that's how they teach here in Galicia, I guess in Aragon, Cataluña,.. they talk more about the frankish empire.
Well France is right above the Iberian peninsula, that they would contribute (or some among them rather) to a neighboring war against something they definitely saw as invasive is really not very surprising if you think about it.
France has always intervened in Spain throughout history. -
the exile in the Ottoman empire
I always found this one pretty hilarious. It's basically a way too confident for his current means king Carl XII mooching of and badgering Achmed III to start a war with Russia, he kept doing this for like four years until the latter had enough of him and tried to forcibly expel him and his cossacks. At which point they and a couple of hundred Turks duked it out in something similar to a large, fortified farmhouse.
But eh, i guess it's not as fun if you don't get to watch the play.
-
I don't have that much knowledge on history, but this thread has been an interesting read so far!
What's everyone's favourite historical sites/monuments? I've had a big book on world heritage sites since I was a child and I've always loved the Derinkuyu underground city, located in Turkey. Basically a massive Fallout vault that housed 20,000 Christians persecuted by Muslims. People do some amazing stuff for their religion sometimes.
-
Can someone put a summary of Japanese History, citing the eras and daimyos?
-
Another thing I like in history is those "mysteries" about historical events, and the thrill you feel to investigate the past to know the answer, reading books or researching old materials.
In my country, Who killed Vladimir Herzog, Ulisses Guimarães and PC Farias, events that happened in the past but we still don´t know the answer. At least we know what really happened to JK.:ninja:
Monuments/historical sites I like ? When I was a kid I had a book about monuments from the world and I really liked Taj Mahal, the statues from easter islands and the Stonehenge.
-
Can someone put a summary of Japanese History, citing the eras and daimyos?
-
Man, compared to Europe, Japan was kinda having a good time during the Dark Age.
-
Man, compared to Europe, Japan was kinda having a good time during the Dark Age.
Yeah because the Dark Age was soley a Western European concept and in fact a fair amount of the world was doing just fine or even undergoing a golden age.
-
Middle Times was always the most depressing subject in History Class.
-
My middle/high school had some awesome history teachers. In 8th grade modern US history we spent much of the second half of the course writing an 8 page research paper on any topic following a certain theme (I think it was "multiple versions of history depending on whose side it is?") while also doing fun in-class activities such as simulating the White House response to the Cuban Missile Crisis. My paper was on Sacco and Vanzetti so I know all about how much of a clusterfuck that trial was. We also had a research paper during the first half of American History in 11th grade which I did on the Marshall Plan. I enjoy learning about history, although the fact that essays are still my biggest nightmare is why I'm majoring in Comp Sci or Math.
I haven't done much with looking into history stuff nowadays besides reading things online but my dad is the big history nut in the family so I might take a look at some of his books. It's kind of embarrassing that a lot of random tidbits that I DO know are from this forum and Wikipedia articles while huge books are just so intimidating to sit down and read right now.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Oh yeah, also learned about the Moors and Muslim Spain during the Spanish class I took in 7th grade. Doesn't sound like it would be a bad place to live tbh (before the conquistadors came at least...)
-
@Mr.:
Oh yeah, also learned about the Moors and Muslim Spain during the Spanish class I took in 7th grade. Doesn't sound like it would be a bad place to live tbh (before the conquistadors came at least…)
It's kind of strange to see how chill and science minded early Islam was.
-
It's kind of strange to see how chill and science minded early Islam was.
I believe it was only during the mid 1900's the concepts of Salafi Jihadism and Wahhabism were introduced. They were quite okay before that
“When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."
-
As a maths nerd I am eternally grateful to ancient Arab civilisations laying down the groundwork in the areas of trigonometry, algebra and number theory. My religious background be damned.
-
@xan:
I believe it was only during the mid 1900's the concepts of Salafi Jihadism and Wahhabism were introduced. They were quite okay before that
It's true that the 1900s were the big turning point that gave us the kind of Islam we see today, but the religion had already set on a path of conservatism and more close mindedness much earlier. It had to do as much with religious developments per se as with social/economic/political developments, with the centre of Islamic civilization being basically devastated by steppe peoples (can't remember if Turks or Mongols or what have you). Still, the Ottoman Empire wasn't half bad and it's dismemberment and subsequent European interventions were crucial to what happened last century to muslim peoples (mostly arabs, but not only). I think Zephos could explain this better than I did, but yeah.
-
It's true that the 1900s were the big turning point that gave us the kind of Islam we see today, but the religion had already set on a path of conservatism and more close mindedness much earlier. It had to do as much with religious developments per se as with social/economic/political developments, with the centre of Islamic civilization being basically devastated by steppe peoples (can't remember if Turks or Mongols or what have you). Still, the Ottoman Empire wasn't half bad and it's dismemberment and subsequent European interventions were crucial to what happened last century to muslim peoples (mostly arabs, but not only). I think Zephos could explain this better than I did, but yeah.
The Ottoman Empire was pretty bad by the time it died though. It became a clusterfuck of ethnic cleansing and genocidal events from first Sultans then the Young Turks.
And while that was mostly aimed at Christian subjects (Greeks, Assyrians, Armenians), even most non-Turkish Muslim peoples were also agitating to be free.
Albanians had their mountaineer pride and history of stubborn independence, so they didn't cry to see the empire fall, and much of the Arab population was already semi-independent or agitating for something better.
The Ottomans genuinely saw themselves as more European oriented, they seriously neglected the Middeastern provinces and it's no surprise the British were able to rally Arabs to fight the Turks in WW1 because of that.
Aside from that, Egypt had basically been independent through most of the 19th century, much of North Africa had always been more vassal than province.
Yemen had barely been held by the Turks and they had to keep sending armies down there to try and tame it.
And the Nejd (from which the Saudi's sprang) was never truly conquered for the same issue.Some of the major problems that have lead to modern fundamentalism include the social clashes in modern Arab states where the older more normal religious authority has been either crushed by dictators, or co-opted by dictators. The old religious social order in effect has been crushed in many of these countries, leading to a spiritual vacuum that wild eyed conservative modernist crazies have filled up. Remember how after a certain societal upheaving state crushing war in Europe mixed with domestic misfortune lead to wild eyed conservative modernists?
Also the rise of the Saudi state is a big problem.
A bunch of backwards uber-hicks from the middle of nowhere Arabia (Nejd) were allowed to take over the cosmopolitan center of Islam (Hejaz), and impose their insane fundamentalism (Wahhabi) on it and from there the whole Muslim world. And then they got Scrooge McDuck rich off of oil, further advancing their ability to spread their influence. -
@xan:
I believe it was only during the mid 1900's the concepts of Salafi Jihadism and Wahhabism were introduced. They were quite okay before that
Eh it had been going downhill quite a bit before that too. The Ulama had been busy codifying and narrowing down what was religiously acceptable for a long time, and their attempts at regulating what was proper intellectual, social and religious behaviour seriously cramped the style of the scientists and scholars. A far cry from the ecumenical, progressive ways of the Abassidian caliphate.
-
Eh it had been going downhill quite a bit before that too. The Ulama had been busy codifying and narrowing down what was religiously acceptable for a long time, and their attempts at regulating what was proper intellectual, social and religious behaviour seriously cramped the style of the scientists and scholars. A far cry from the ecumenical, progressive ways of the Abassidian caliphate.
Islam isn't really centralized enough for that to matter quite that much though.
Nothing like the Catholic church even in the vaguely Catholic/Orthodox Shia form.
Ulema I'm pretty sure function more like scholarly authority rather than straight up "WE SAY SO, WERE THE BOSSES" type people like the Vatican is supposed to be regarded as.
And the Ulema aren't like one guy or thing either, so you'll have em' disagreeing with eachother. Potentially night and day disagreements. This is human beings interpreting a book. So of course it ends up like that.The thing going on in modern Islam is really more that these traditional (yes quite possibly conservative old stuffy fellows) sources of spiritual authority are disregarded largely. They've been co-opted or crushed by dictators, losing life or credibility depending.
And the more extreme ones have gained credence also as a result, because when in crisis it's rarely the Gandhi esque figures people run to. Quite the opposite.Younger hot-headed less educated movements are filling that gap in Sunni Islam. Al-Qaeda took inspiration not from any contemporary religious scholars but from this guy.
While the wellspring of poison eminanting from the Saudi state did have I guess technically an Ulema behind Wahabbism…it was some coocoo from the middle of nowhere. Basically rural xenophobic ultra-conservativism unluckily getting broadcast around the globe.Shiism has it's own situation going on though kind of. With the scholars actually essentially taking control of Iran and all. But hey, tough as it can be to perceive Iran all and all is more measured in it's lashing outs than the young hothead fountains that is Salafism, Al Qaeda, and ISIS.
WITHIN Iran we have disagreements from their scholars. There have been some high ranked guys who have mentioned "Hey guys, you think maybe having religion become the state is actually poisoning and corrupting the religion and turning people against it? I think this Iranian Revolution thing might be the worst idea EVER!".
-
I feel like the reason the Byzantine Empire is sort of swept under the rug is because it doesn't really add up to the incredibly masculine and glorious ideals of the roman empire. Especially in conjunction with the period of time the italians started glorifying ancient culture.
The downtrodden, weakened and battered nation with the shrinking towns, dirt roads, fluctuating economy and constant losses in the battlefield didn't really live up to the marble palaces and statues of ancient Rome. Even though it survived up for almost a thousand years, I feel like the glorious aspects of the romans had already been claimed by the german emperors. And the fact that the late reign of Constantinople had almost nothing in common at all with Rome's glory days, not even language or the title of their leader puts them even further from their supposed right to carry the roman legacy. The byzantines should rather than just being the Eastern roman empire ( although it's technically correct ) be viewed as a unique, standalone successor kingdom of Rome.
-
0A8gTsawu&index=10Can someone put a summary of Japanese History, citing the eras and daimyos?
4bil7bnGi0A8gTsawuI feel like the reason the Byzantine Empire is sort of swept under the rug is because it doesn't really add up to the incredibly masculine and glorious ideals of the roman empire. Especially in conjunction with the period of time the italians started glorifying ancient culture.
The downtrodden, weakened and battered nation with the shrinking towns, dirt roads, fluctuating economy and constant losses in the battlefield didn't really live up to the marble palaces and statues of ancient Rome. Even though it survived up for almost a thousand years, I feel like the glorious aspects of the romans had already been claimed by the german emperors. And the fact that the late reign of Constantinople had almost nothing in common at all with Rome's glory days, not even language or the title of their leader puts them even further from their supposed right to carry the roman legacy. The byzantines should rather than just being the Eastern roman empire ( although it's technically correct ) be viewed as a unique, standalone successor kingdom of Rome.
I really love this series. It doesn't cover everything, but it's great short history.
-
As much as I love extra credits and their history series I really recommend to watch the last episode, the disclaimer (or "Lies"-episode), of every segment beforehand. I don't like it when wrong stuff hits the brain first. It's more difficult to get it out again.
-
-
@Monkey:
Islam isn't really centralized enough for that to matter quite that much though.
Nothing like the Catholic church even in the vaguely Catholic/Orthodox Shia form.Back during the golden age they mattered alot though. And when they gradually started to narrow the confines of what was deemed acceptable to suggest, debate about, or claim, (for instance there's their claim that the previously favoured Greek philosophy was against Islam) it made life harder for scholars, philosophers, sufists, branch offs and just anybody in general who wasn't totally in favour of literal scriptural study.
Though you could argue that they never stopped being important 'til like the early 1800's. Since most of the figures who laid the foundations for modern Islam based their thoughts on opposing the lack of reform and stagnation that the Ulama stood behind. I mean Afghani, Abduh, Khan and Iqbal, different though they may be, all kick of from the unresponsive, backwards, stifling atmosphere that was supported by the Ulama.
Ulema I'm pretty sure function more like scholarly authority rather than straight up "WE SAY SO, WERE THE BOSSES" type people like the Vatican is supposed to be regarded as.
And the Ulema aren't like one guy or thing either, so you'll have em' disagreeing with eachother. Potentially night and day disagreements. This is human beings interpreting a book. So of course it ends up like that.Yeah that was how it was supposed to be, and for a while was. Didn't stay that open for too long though, i think even around 900ish the ability for Joe scholar to argue outside of the confines that were set by the ulama were somewhat limited. And they didn't really get all that more keen on open debate and "outsider" knowledge as time went on either, especially not when it was unfiltered Christian knowledge that didn't even go through the Arabization/Islamization process that the Greek works had done around 700ish.
The thing going on in modern Islam is really more that these traditional (yes quite possibly conservative old stuffy fellows) sources of spiritual authority are disregarded largely. They've been co-opted or crushed by dictators, losing life or credibility depending.
And the more extreme ones have gained credence also as a result, because when in crisis it's rarely the Gandhi esque figures people run to. Quite the opposite.Yeah most of the modern reforms are from people rebelling against the traditional authority.
It's too traditional, we need to Islamize science again, it's god's punishment for not being literal enough etc.
The lines of reasoning are pretty varied. But most seem are in some form a reaction to being "beneath" Christianity/colonialists.
-
I feel like the reason the Byzantine Empire is sort of swept under the rug is because it doesn't really add up to the incredibly masculine and glorious ideals of the roman empire. Especially in conjunction with the period of time the italians started glorifying ancient culture.
It does for a good chunk of it's first half though. With that one emperor who nearly reconquered the whole old empire.
Seriously it's really just that it's (largely) outside of Western European historical and religious development, so Western Europeans and their former colonies neglect it.The downtrodden, weakened and battered nation with the shrinking towns, dirt roads, fluctuating economy and constant losses in the battlefield didn't really live up to the marble palaces and statues of ancient Rome.
That sounds like Western Rome. And Eastern Rome in the previous Millenia.
But Eastern Rome was super powerful on all those fronts for the roughly 500 years after West Rome died.Even though it survived up for almost a thousand years, I feel like the glorious aspects of the romans had already been claimed by the german emperors.
Roman glory split with the two halves.
The Franks eventually claimed Roman continuity of a sort, which passed into the cultural memories of all the area around that. And much more literally with the Holy Roman Empire.
The Frankish Empire being the nexus from which all Western European cultural memory passed.Meanwhile the glory of the Eastern half gets claimed by Russians, Serbians, Greeks, and even kind of some Turks.
So much of this is informed as well by the split in the church. Catholic can be understood to be the same as being plugged into that Frankish originated western world. Dragging in eastern peoples like the Poles and Croats.
While Eastern Orthodox peoples are ones who were plugged into the narratives that came from and from the ruins of Byzantium. At least in Europe since Georgia and Armenia have their own histories of Christianity separate from any Roman anything. Same with Ethiopians.And the fact that the late reign of Constantinople had almost nothing in common at all with Rome's glory days, not even language or the title of their leader puts them even further from their supposed right to carry the roman legacy.
Orthodox Europeans don't care about Latin. Greek = Roman to them. Cyrillic script was devised largely to accodomate the spread of Christianity among Slavic people, and the process of creating it involved building off some aspects of Greek writing. The Greeks who had never been subsumed by the Romans, and had always spoke Greek during the entire period. Much like Latin also made no inroads in other Roman provinces that had long histories of civilization before the Romans. Egyptians didn't adopt Latin, and neither did the Levant. Latin remained in Rome and the wilder areas of Europe that the Romans took over. Which incidentally is pretty much all of Western Europe that they touched.
When Russians were talking about recapturing Constantinople in the 1800's it was because of it's heavy legacy as Roman to Russians. Which is how Greeks perceive it as well, as their golden age city. Not Athens, the ugly has been that got turned into a huge metro areas from a sickly ancient provincial town.
This is just a really big fundamental divide between the halves of Europe.
The byzantines should rather than just being the Eastern roman empire ( although it's technically correct ) be viewed as a unique, standalone successor kingdom of Rome.
Why? There is direct continuity and absolutely nobody in those times doubted it. It would essentially be historical revisionism in favor of a specifically western viewpoint to deny it that title.
Rome was a state entity, then several state entities. It isn't defined as being glorious and powerful, it's defined by being the same state.
Should we not count 1700's USA as the USA because it's not a world superpower? It just doesn't make sense.
The closest thing you have to a point is trying to paint the East as a rump state, but it became a rump state hundreds of years after the west was dead. I can understand trying to say that say… the reconstituted Byzantine Empire after the 4th crusade shouldn't entirely count. But that was waaaaay late in it's lifetime. -
Just saw a book that made me realize i've missed a whole interesting subsection.
It's about the history of African cuisine. Now i just need to collect the whole global set lol
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
I of course assume that someone already did a book about the potato. The spud that saved Europe
-
Back during the golden age they mattered alot though.
In which states? Where were they based?
By the point you're talking, with the collapse of things to Mongols and Timurs we have dozens of states just in areas now considered Arab. Many of them at eachother's throats. With differing approaches to Islam to begin with. Where was there a center of Ulema conservatism that was clamping down on such things and simultaneously holding enough influences at all the different courts, while also agreeing with each-other across space? I just have a hard time believing that a time where disunity was a part of the problem…also had unity as part of the problem.
If we were starting to see conservatism ramp up after the nomadic apocalypses then what seems the case then is a constant sense of crisis and stress that would have been evident on all levels of society rather than just random religious scholars.
So pointing to them seems to be missing the larger issue.Not that peace = progress exactly (see: Tokugawa Japan). But severe crisis and shifting fragmentation seems the real culprit of not to much building conservatism as stagnation.
-
@Monkey:
In which states? Where were they based?
I don't belive they were based anywhere particular, anywhere a state claimed to ahere to mainstream sharia there were members of the Ulama present. But i think the oldest madrasa school is located in Medina, if i'm not remembering incorrectly. But most of the groups who took over worldy power still kept members of the Ulama on staff, since they were not only the authority on matters of the faith, but also in practice the only educated members of society that could handle their growing need for buerocracy. And since the ulama were pretty much the de facto clergy, even if people sometimes claim that there is no such thing in Islam, it's not that strange that they moved and maneuvered Islam in a path that favoured them.
By the point you're talking, with the collapse of things to Mongols and Timurs we have dozens of states just in areas now considered Arab. Many of them at eachother's throats. With differing approaches to Islam to begin with. Where was there a center of Ulema conservatism that was clamping down on such things and simultaneously holding enough influences at all the different courts, while also agreeing with each-other across space? I just have a hard time believing that a time where disunity was a part of the problem…also had unity as part of the problem.
The fracturing that had taken place within the Islamic world was part of the reason why the Ulama started to standardize in the first place. To safeguard the purity of the faith against the random whims of sultans and emirs. As for how it kept a similar trajectory all over that probably have to do with how the ulama as a class were pretty much all about safeguarding their own privilegies and by extension the status quo.
If we were starting to see conservatism ramp up after the nomadic apocalypses then what seems the case then is a constant sense of crisis and stress that would have been evident on all levels of society rather than just random religious scholars.
So pointing to them seems to be missing the larger issue.Not that peace = progress exactly (see: Tokugawa Japan). But severe crisis and shifting fragmentation seems the real culprit of not to much building conservatism as stagnation.
Oh it's absolutely not the only reason for their decline, not by a long shot. The Europeans by-passing them in their trade with east Asia, the crusades, the mongols and the total destruction of lots of their scientific legacy probably factored in a whole damn lot. But i'd say that the restraints placed on free thought, for religious reasons, and the subsquent mental stagnation was a factor too.
-
@Monkey:
It does for a good chunk of it's first half though. With that one emperor who nearly reconquered the whole old empire.
Seriously it's really just that it's (largely) outside of Western European historical and religious development, so Western Europeans and their former colonies neglect it.Sure. At least until the arabs came.
@Monkey:
That sounds like Western Rome. And Eastern Rome in the previous Millenia.
But Eastern Rome was super powerful on all those fronts for the roughly 500 years after West Rome died.During the great migration period it was West Rome that basically disintegrated into jack, so that's true. But in the middle ages, the population of Byzantine fluctuated greatly. Constantinople dropped from half a million to just over 50.000 inhabitants during the arabic wars and a lot of the nation would grow to be more ruralized and more reminiscent of the average east european nation than some antique, civilization built on marble.
@Monkey:
Why? There is direct continuity and absolutely nobody in those times doubted it. It would essentially be historical revisionism in favor of a specifically western viewpoint to deny it that title.
Rome was a state entity, then several state entities. It isn't defined as being glorious and powerful, it's defined by being the same state.
Should we not count 1700's USA as the USA because it's not a world superpower? It just doesn't make sense.
The closest thing you have to a point is trying to paint the East as a rump state, but it became a rump state hundreds of years after the west was dead. I can understand trying to say that say… the reconstituted Byzantine Empire after the 4th crusade shouldn't entirely count. But that was waaaaay late in it's lifetime.I think a more sound analogy would be ''if the US split into two countries and one of these states would as time progressed change their style of government, change their customs, change their language, with the borders shrinking and growing left and right, could you still consider it to be the United States a thousand years later?'' '' I mean, there are way too many things that are different about the Byzantine Empire than it was from the start, and in particular what it was before it become an independent state. I think calling Byzantium a successor state makes for a fairer description, since that is what we tend to call other kingdoms that have broken off greater empires.
-
Sure. At least until the arabs came.
No after that too. The point where they really became moribund was after the Catholics came and smashed them to pieces for awhile.
During the great migration period it was West Rome that basically disintegrated into jack, so that's true. But in the middle ages, the population of Byzantine fluctuated greatly. Constantinople dropped from half a million to just over 50.000 inhabitants during the arabic wars and a lot of the nation would grow to be more ruralized and more reminiscent of the average east european nation than some antique, civilization built on marble.
Again you're defining Rome as "positive stereotypes of Rome". Talking about Rome as a romantic concept rather than an actual state(s).
If the point you're trying to make is about peoples romantic memories of Rome that still doesn't work.
Western Europeans still talk about the "fall of rome" and mean the dessicated corpse empire that got offed by Odaecer.
And Eastern (and yeah some Western even) Europeans talk about the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans as a big end, even to the extent as considering it one of the major points that ends the middle ages. Not any earlier point.So either factual or romantical, it doesn't work.
I think a more sound analogy would be ''if the US split into two countries and one of these states would as time progressed change their style of government, change their customs, change their language, with the borders shrinking and growing left and right, could you still consider it to be the United States a thousand years later?
Half of that is change that occurred by just time passing, and that same half is entirely applicable to Ancient Rome. Especially the matter of government style.
Explain to me for instance why considering the Roman Republic and Roman Empire the same Coke Classic brand is sensible, but considering the basically the same government style of the Roman Empire pre-split and the two empires after that and yet they're different?'' '' I mean, there are way too many things that are different about the Byzantine Empire than it was from the start,
That's…everything ever.
I think calling Byzantium a successor state makes for a fairer description, since that is what we tend to call other kingdoms that have broken off greater empires.
It is technically, Eastern Rome. And also Western Rome. But not on the basis of anything you're saying. But on the legal basis of a split of the empire into two entities.
This is also a silly argument because you're arguing against contemporary views on the matter. People actually saw the East as the true inheritor of the spirit, especially after the West died. The schism in the church accounts for much of the West's failure to recognize this.
The only way you're going to hold up this view by the way would be also admitting Western Rome was a successor state, not on "cultural" basis but as soon as the split became reality. -
@Monkey:
No after that too. The point where they really became moribund was after the Catholics came and smashed them to pieces for awhile.
Not really, I mean sure, the byzantines would reclaim some lost land through the years, but never even close to what it was like under Justinian I. Every century of byzantine rule after that was extremely difficult and unpredictable with land lost and won, civil war and political reforms in a society that was highly unstable.
@Monkey:
Again you're defining Rome as "positive stereotypes of Rome". Talking about Rome as a romantic concept rather than an actual state(s).
If the point you're trying to make is about peoples romantic memories of Rome that still doesn't work.
Western Europeans still talk about the "fall of rome" and mean the dessicated corpse empire that got offed by Odaecer.
And Eastern (and yeah some Western even) Europeans talk about the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans as a big end, even to the extent as considering it one of the major points that ends the middle ages. Not any earlier point.So either factual or romantical, it doesn't work.
The initial point was to delve a bit into my own mind of why I don't think people in the west consider year 1453 the official fall of Rome. Then of course, there are other reasons, such as religious animosity between the catholic church and the patriarchs of the east, political strife between the east and west that have painted history the way it did. East Europe and orthodox christians seem to have a far more glorified view of them than we do (in the west).
@Monkey:
Explain to me for instance why considering the Roman Republic and Roman Empire the same Coke Classic brand is sensible, but considering the basically the same government style of the Roman Empire pre-split and the two empires after that and yet they're different?
I'm a bit on the fence about this, there are many historical accounts to take into consideration and the sheer semantics about how we define states, cultures and so on and so forth. But I will try my best:
The difference is how we tend to speak about states and succession. If the kurds would break free from Turkey tomorrow morning, we wouldn't consider their new state a ''continuation'' of Turkey. Likewise, other empires that have broken into fragment states and established new dynasties, may have historically squabbled about who is the true successor, as was the case with Alexander's generals and The mongol empire. But we don't generally consider for instance The Seleucid Empire or Ptolemaois Egypt to be the Alexandrian empire. They were successor states though, despite being states that were created by people who Alexander rubbed shoulders with and was basically indistinguishable culturally. East Rome was quite distinguishable from West Rome however, since the people living there spoke greek.
Likewise, the Byzantine empire was a region in the roman empire, where the people were greeks and established themselves as a unique culture that was different from West Rome.
-
Good thread.
My main interest has been the Ancient Near East up until Alexander's conquests (but mainly the early history of Mesopotamia, c.3400-1595 BC) since I was in high school, which is sadly a very underrepresented period in history classes. I think all we learned about the ANE was 'writing was invented there by the Sumerians and that the Persians had a big empire for a while but were defeated by Alexander, now on to three months of talking about the Greeks and Romans.' Thankfully I was already really interested in language back then and was intrigued by the invention of writing, so I bought a book about the Sumerians. I became completely fascinated by their history and culture and began looking up all sorts of things about the ANE. Reading about all these different cultures, kings, wars etc. blew my 15 y/o brain, and I've been completely hooked ever since. I'm currently studying Assyriology and focusing on the Third Dynasty of Ur (c. 2112-2004 BC), though mainly the language.
-
Not really, I mean sure, the byzantines would reclaim some lost land through the years, but never even close to what it was like under Justinian I. Every century of byzantine rule after that was extremely difficult and unpredictable with land lost and won, civil war and political reforms in a society that was highly unstable.
What does any of this have to do with being Roman or not.
The initial point was to delve a bit into my own mind of why I don't think people in the west consider year 1453 the official fall of Rome. Then of course, there are other reasons, such as religious animosity between the catholic church and the patriarchs of the east, political strife between the east and west that have painted history the way it did. East Europe and orthodox christians seem to have a far more glorified view of them than we do (in the west).
Considering how much basis of their cultures and histories are tied to the Byzantines..
The difference is how we tend to speak about states and succession. If the kurds would break free from Turkey tomorrow morning, we wouldn't consider their new state a ''continuation'' of Turkey.
That's not in any way comparable to East/West Rome dividing up.
Likewise, other empires that have broken into fragment states and established new dynasties, may have historically squabbled about who is the true successor, as was the case with Alexander's generals and The mongol empire. But we don't generally consider for instance The Seleucid Empire or Ptolemaois Egypt to be the Alexandrian empire.
We do however often consider the Yuan Dynasty to be a continuation of the Mongol empire.
East Rome was quite distinguishable from West Rome however, since the people living there spoke greek.
I don't see why you think this is a big deal.
Those people spoke Greek before Rome, during Rome, during East Rome, and after Rome to this day.
Rome only linguistically changed regions that had weaker state systems (or no state systems). While those that had strong ongoing civilizational roots went on with their old linguistic ways.
Greeks kept speaking Greek. Levantines kept speaking Aramaic (most of them). And Egyptians kept speaking Coptic.
Meanwhile the disorganized bands and slightly more organized tribal federations of Celts, Ilyrians, Dacians, etc were much more susceptible to being made to speak Latin. Which is how we got Romance languages in France, Iberia, the whole of Italy, and various places in the Balkans that survived the Slavic/Magyar migrations that came later.This was all as true during the height of unified Rome as it was at any point after.
The only difference was that while the East started out using Latin in formal places, eventually that practice died out over time.
It's not like Greek culture was some super alien creature to Rome anyway, they stole half their shit from the Greeks and constantly had a love/hate relationship with them based on an inferiority complex. They much more intertwined than Romans were with the toothless Gaulish spearchuckers they taught Latin.Likewise, the Byzantine empire was a region in the roman empire, where the people were greeks and established themselves as a unique culture that was different from West Rome.
That's not how the split happened at all.
It was a political agreement by the Roman emperors meant to better manage the whole thing and keep it from collapsing.
Constantinople in the process was founded as "Rome 2" as a city.
Eventually one of the emperors straight up had his two sons inherit the title of emperor on different halves, and the split became essentially two separate entities from thereon.
It would be like if the USA figured it was getting too hard to control and split into East and West USA, with Sacramento becoming the Washington DC of the west.And this was all way before the whole system of the east became explicitly hellenized. That was just an inevitable fact. Had the Arabs not kicked the Romans out of the Levant and North Africa perhaps that wouldn't have happened, given a more diverse basis with other poles of power (Egypt). But since that did happened, it left the remaining Empire heavily dominated by Greek lands.
-
@Tijnn.:
Good thread.
My main interest has been the Ancient Near East up until Alexander's conquests (but mainly the early history of Mesopotamia, c.3400-1595 BC) since I was in high school, which is sadly a very underrepresented period in history classes. I think all we learned about the ANE was 'writing was invented there by the Sumerians and that the Persians had a big empire for a while but were defeated by Alexander, now on to three months of talking about the Greeks and Romans.' Thankfully I was already really interested in language back then and was intrigued by the invention of writing, so I bought a book about the Sumerians. I became completely fascinated by their history and culture and began looking up all sorts of things about the ANE. Reading about all these different cultures, kings, wars etc. blew my 15 y/o brain, and I've been completely hooked ever since. I'm currently studying Assyriology and focusing on the Third Dynasty of Ur (c. 2112-2004 BC), though mainly the language.
That's some hardcore shit right there. I don't think i know anyone else who learned a whole new language for their history studies. I do know a gal who learned hebrew for religious studies, but that also fall into the massive respect category i'm throwing you into lol.
But i guess English only takes you so far. I really need to truly master a third and start on a fourth language already.
-
Oh, the Crusades are soooooo fun.
When my father took me on a father-daughter trip to Scotland, a lot of it involved finding old ruins and historical shit, which included crusader graves. Fun times. Well, not always. (No, I don't want to go trekking all over the fields, Dad. Can't I just go shopping in Edinburgh?)
-
Everyone loved studying the Tudor Dynasty…. /sarcasm.
Other than that, I do regard History as one of my favourite subjects to study about.
-
When AP used to be good:
NEVER FORGET !!
-
As a flag enthusiast as myself I came across this one and I noticed that nowadays it has a bad omen around it, much like the confederate flag, why is that ?
Tea Party and sovereign citizen groups have unfortunately appropriated it as a symbol of their "struggle" against the "tyranny" of the Federal Government.
-
Didn't find a better place to ask this, so, sorry to revive this thread.
As a flag enthusiast as myself I came across this one and I noticed that nowadays it has a bad omen around it, much like the confederate flag, why is that ?
In America, if you see that flag on a pickup truck's bumper sticker, it's a good chance that the driver is the kind of person who goes to Trump rallies, calls all Hispanics "Mexicans", and owns an NRA shirt. It's become one of the big symbols of the American conservative/small-government movement. It used to be a naval jack (and a variant is still used by the navy) and was using the rattlesnake symbolism that Benjamin Franklin made part of the revolutionary struggle with his famous JOIN OR DIE cartoon.
I had a professor in community college who wore it on a shirt every other day. He was…exhausting.
-
@Cyan:
In America, if you see that flag on a pickup truck's bumper sticker, it's a good chance that the driver is the kind of person who goes to Trump rallies, calls all Hispanics "Mexicans", and owns an NRA shirt.
I may have relatives with that sticker on their truck… and your assessment was very accurate. sigh
-
More or less like these guys?
-
I think I am a history enthusiast as well. :P Currently my favourite subjects the Great War (1.WW), the transition of Spaceflight from science fiction to science and are the origin of writing.
I'm been following a Youtube Channel that looks at the ongoings of the 1.WW on a week by week basis exacly 100 years after it happened: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB2vhKMBjSxMK8YelHj6VS6w3KxuKsMvT&ab_channel=TheGreatWar Obviously the war has been going on for 85 weeks already. But I'm sure we will be home by Christmas! :ninja:
I've heard multiple lectures on the spaceflight thing on the side in a past few years. The sources are not always easy to find. Luckly I know English, German and a bit of Russian so I can read most of them. I started out with Jule Verne and I'm now at the switch from private to state sponsored spaceflight in the year 1932. Basically the mirror point from where we might be today.
I've been interested in the origins of the concept of writing since I first heard that the idea to put the fleeting spoken word into a permanent form had only been developed independently three times in the history of mankind. Obviouly this is a very different kind of history as I have no chance to understand or even get any primary sources. So it's mostly a wikipedia and youtube kind of thing. If you are interested in ancient languages in general you might like this: https://www.youtube.com/user/Xidnaf/videos?&ab_channel=Xidnaf
-
Thought I'd share this interesting tidbit.
[hide]My husband has taken a sudden interest in coin collecting, and purchased an authentic dirham (silver coin) from the year 701 CE (82 AH), which was 71 years after the death of Muhammad (pbuh). It was minted during the caliphate of 'Abd al-Malik bin Marwan in Basra, present day Iraq.It's an interesting thing to have since dirhams (silver coins) and dinars (gold coins) were the unit of currency during the time when the sayings of the books of Hadith were recorded (albeit minted under the name of the Persian King), and there's one or two mentions of them in the Quran as well.
Here's one such mention in a hadith:
[hide]Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:Do you know who is poor? They (the Companions of the Holy Prophet) said: A poor man amongst us is one who has neither dirham with him nor wealth.
He (the Holy Prophet) said: The poor of my Ummah (nation) would be he who would come on the Day of Resurrection with prayers and fasts and Zakat but (he would find himself bankrupt on that day as he would have exhausted his funds of virtues) since he hurled abuses upon others, brought calumny against others and unlawfully consumed the wealth of others and shed the blood of others and beat others, and his virtues would be credited to the account of one (who suffered at his hand). And if his good deeds fall short to clear the account, then his sins would be entered in (his account) and he would be thrown in the Hell-Fire.[TL;DR This is explaining that a poor person is one who outwardly prays, fasts, gives in charity but still causes harm to others, and they will be bankrupt of their good deeds on the day of judgement, as their good deeds will be given to those whom he or she abused.][/hide]
Main things written on the coin:
Obverse Center:
لا اله الا
الله وحده
لا شرك له
There is no deity except |
(the one) God alone |
He has no equal
.
Obverse Margin:
بسم الله ضرب هذا الدرهم بالبصرة في سنة ثنتين و ثمنين
In the name of God, This Dirham was struck in Basra the year Two and Eighty (82AH).Other text is various statements of faith.[/hide]
Dunno, I just think it's pretty cool owning such a piece of history that's pretty relevant to me :DHidden:
-
Thought I'd share this interesting tidbit.
[hide]My husband has taken a sudden interest in coin collecting, and purchased an authentic dirham (silver coin) from the year 701 CE (82 AH), which was 71 years after the death of Muhammad (pbuh). It was minted during the caliphate of 'Abd al-Malik bin Marwan in Basra, present day Iraq.It's an interesting thing to have since dirhams (silver coins) and dinars (gold coins) were the unit of currency during the time when the sayings of the books of Hadith were recorded (albeit minted under the name of the Persian King), and there's one or two mentions of them in the Quran as well.
Here's one such mention in a hadith:
[hide]Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:Do you know who is poor? They (the Companions of the Holy Prophet) said: A poor man amongst us is one who has neither dirham with him nor wealth.
He (the Holy Prophet) said: The poor of my Ummah (nation) would be he who would come on the Day of Resurrection with prayers and fasts and Zakat but (he would find himself bankrupt on that day as he would have exhausted his funds of virtues) since he hurled abuses upon others, brought calumny against others and unlawfully consumed the wealth of others and shed the blood of others and beat others, and his virtues would be credited to the account of one (who suffered at his hand). And if his good deeds fall short to clear the account, then his sins would be entered in (his account) and he would be thrown in the Hell-Fire.[TL;DR This is explaining that a poor person is one who outwardly prays, fasts, gives in charity but still causes harm to others, and they will be bankrupt of their good deeds on the day of judgement, as their good deeds will be given to those whom he or she abused.][/hide]
http://s11.postimg.org/v3ucv4dpv/10400325_889350137830431_6710705658752266912_n.jpgMain things written on the coin:
Obverse Center:
لا اله الا
الله وحده
لا شرك له
There is no deity except |
(the one) God alone |
He has no equal
.
Obverse Margin:
بسم الله ضرب هذا الدرهم بالبصرة في سنة ثنتين و ثمنين
In the name of God, This Dirham was struck in Basra the year Two and Eighty (82AH).Other text is various statements of faith.[/hide]
Dunno, I just think it's pretty cool owning such a piece of history that's pretty relevant to me :DI'm confused. These are Sassanid Persia coins with Islamic sayings on them?? Do I have that right?
-
@Monkey:
I'm confused. These are Sassanid Persia coins with Islamic sayings on them?? Do I have that right?
Nah, the Sassanian coins existed before and after this one. This one's from the Ummayyad period.
The "standing-caliph" coin was only minted for three years (74-77 AH / 693-697 CE) before giving way to a wholly aniconic form, that is, engraved only with words and no images at all;
So what I have is the aniconic coin.
Hidden:
-
Nah, the Sassanian coins existed before and after this one. This one's from the Ummayyad period.
So what I have is the aniconic coin.
Damn, that's really cool. I really love that period of History, the Last Great Roman-Persian War and the subsequent Arab conquest and the transformation of society due to that. It's really great to explore those times, since the descriptions we mostly have today are a picture painted by Arab-Muslims of later times trying to project their own society into the past. Digging to find actual primary sources from those times and discovering who really were the first Arab conquerors and how things actually happened in those times is really fascinating! ^^
-
Going to recommend you guys the best historical drama series I've ever seen, called the '3 kingdom', which looks at the late Eastern-Han dynasty - Three kingdom era.
Here's all 95 episodes in a Youtube Playlist;
Enjoy. -
Going to recommend you guys the best historical drama series I've ever seen, called the '3 kingdom', which looks at the late Eastern-Han dynasty - Three kingdom era.
Here's all 95 episodes in a Youtube Playlist;
Enjoy.Romance of the Three Kingdoms is a famous bit of Chinese literature, so this is based off that.
But no I haven't taken any Chinese literature classes so I don't know much more than that :3
I've taken ancient Chinese philosophy though.Obligatory repost:
-Confucianism is pretty good statecraft stuff, but lousy personal stuff for modern times (though it had a revival later that changed things which I'm not familiar with).
-The Art of War was boring to me though. Like it had good points…but like it was mostly kinda common sense stuff that was written about in yeah cool form I guess. But not really much to think about overall.
-Daoism in its basic philosophical form....actually is awesome (so not with the strange folksy magic crap that attaches later). Its all about getting the basic idea of it, then reading all the writings with that in mind. It owns hard. Like it can seem like meaningless jibber jabber real easy? Which is what they mock in the video? But its not written like a philosophical guidebook (in terms of the collected writings in the Dao De Jing). Its written in creative writing form, like poems and stuff like that. Like I said, grasp the basic idea and all the riddles actually work and serve their point. All them ancient Chinese philos were almost all about how to run a kingdom, written for rulers and stuff with personal morality thrown in that rulers could trickle down to average subjects. But Daoism ain't like that. Its real advice for real folks.Of course probably none of those three guys actually existed lol. Sun Tzu maybe, but the other two almost definitely not. The writings are real and really from the Warring States period (475-221 BC), but its likely they're collected writings of various thinkers attributed through semi-legend to one guy who may or may not have been based on a real guy.
There's other major philosophies from the time not covered in the video.
-Mohism is the great forgotten one, like it was a peer to the others but you'll never hear about it unless you take a class like that. Like everyone's HEARD of Confucious, Daoism (Taoism), and the Art of War. And Legalists come up in basic Chinese history as being sort of nasty fuckers involved with Chinese Hitler (the first emperor).
But Mohism? lol. Kind of for good reason. Because it feels a bit hodgepodged of elements of others, but there's some cool aspects to it. Like if you just sort of think "Man those ritual and status obsessed East Asians amirite?" Well the Mohists hated that crap. Like the writings are all bitching about elaborate rituals and shit, and have these almost psuedo socialist type positions on helping people equally etc. Mostly though they come off as people who didn't like Confucians and so it has a more "We exist because of them" feel. Confucianism became the dominant philosophy in China, so you can see how these guys got kinda pushed under the rug.
-LEGALISTS. Hohoho. The authoritarian philosophy. I approached it knowing that description from basic Chinese history? And started thinking I might be treating them cartoonishly. And it was way more complex than just "EVIL BAD GUY PHILOSOPHY" obviously, they were still fuckers honestly. Fuckers of their time I suppose, since this was a crazy anarchic warzone period where everyone was desperately seeking order and peace at any means they could. These guys provided the Akainu approach for leaders to think about, absolute justice, absolute rule. And the regional lord who had them at his side did actually end up winning and uniting China under one ruler for the first time…but that lasted like a couple emperors before being toppled by a new dynasty. And these guys became demonized by the Confucian lovin' subsequent Chinese dynasties. And honestly while the writings aren't like "BE MEAN" exactly, they're soulless. Like the others are all writing about how to be a good ruler and good person, this is just straight up RULE AND BE PARANOID OF EVERYONE for the most part. Especially the deeper in you go. They're cynical fuckers. Authoritarians to the core. Because yeah everyone kind of was back then sure? But the other philosophies talked about how rulers should listen and pay attention to the needs and morals of the people. And they're usually holistic about society, ruler as part of the overall picture. Legalism doesn't have time for that shit. It's all ruler focused all the time.
 
