Just how and why did Europeans come to hold lions in such high regard? How did a animal not native to the continent end up being the symbol for kings and royalty?
Lions historical range was pretty large so I'd imagine lions would have been relatively well known since prehistoric times
Because they were an apex predator and look majestic
Lions used to roam over southern europe until the Greeks and Romans exterminated them
Lions have lived in Europe since prehistory
Truthfully, the bear was more highly revered until the early middle ages
But lions in Europe were extinct by the time western Rome fell, and there is no proof that the lions in your picture look like the ones found in sub Sahara.
Wolf and bears are also apex predator,they also look majestic.
wolf was a turkic thing since 4th century and bear was a slav thing since 15th century
also lions have that royal look about them that other creatures of colder climates just can't pull
They are big guys, and pretty cute
and they like cardboard boxes just like house cats
Just because you don't know what a lion really is didn't stop anyone from using them as symbols.
Case in point when some Swedish king took home a dead lion and the one stuffing it had no idea what he was doing because all he had to go after was the emblems and shit that had lions on them.
Cause Lions have been related to royalty since Ancient times, and medieval people had the Ancient stuff in high regard. And royal regalia comes from that age.
Pic related, made in the XVIII Century, the throne has lions at both sides, just like the throne of Solomon.
yes, that is canterbury under roman rule
a backwater it might have been, but romans brought their luxuries with them to wherever they went
even in their garrisons there was running water, toilets, baths and temples. in roman colonial cities they built forums, libraries and theaters. they also had roads running from these cities all the way into rome and a working mail system.
colonial cities were built as such because rome planted retired veterans in these cities (to use them as garrisons in the fronties) and they were administered as small romes with their own senates and laws.
after the romans left anglos (being anglos that they are) dismantled most of these buildings to use the stones in their huts.
How much of the Roman population actually left Britain, and why would they leave if they've already planted roots and made it their home? Were these soldiers and politicians promised land back in Italy to get them to come back?
A complex question I'm sure, but am curious.
i don't know how many returned to rome, but here is how the roman rule ended in britain
>in early 5th century the roman emperor tells the british colonies that they are on their own due to increasing barbarian threats in the main land
>some roman-brits move back but some choose to stay
>the ones that choose to stay face barbarian invasions from saxons
>they hire some other barbarian tribes to fight them
>these mercenary barbarian tribes turn on them and sack&invade eastern britain
>romans slowly pull back to farther forts as the barbarian hordes advance
>finally all roman occupation is ended in britain, remaining romans were either enslaved, killed or integrated
>by late 6th century nearly all signs of roman occupation in britain were erased
picture related, probably faces of romans that stayed in britain to protect their homes
The Romans couldn't go home because they were home. Since 212/3 AD and the Constitutio Antoniniana, every freeborn man and woman in the empire was a Roman citizen. It is an oft repeated fallacy that the Romans 'left' or 'withdrew' from Britain c.410.
In 400 AD Augustine of Hippo noted that the Romans had made it such that all were now Roman - who could tell a Celt or an African apart, and who would want to? All were Roman.
As for the end of Roman Britain, c.410 so Zosimus (a late 5th/early 6th century pagan Greek historian in Constantinople - should give some idea of reliability) tells us that the emperor Honorius wrote to the poleis/civitates(?) of Britain telling them to look to their own defences.
Archaeology tells a very different tale - it seems that the ending of Roman Britain was a long and drawn out affair - some parts of Britain would still have been recognisably Roman as late as the 470s.
Gildas - conventionally dated c.540 but more likely (see Lapidge on his Latinity and Dumville for the destruction of the basis for the 540 date) in the late 5th century - tells us that a 'proud tyrant' (conventionally identified as Vortigern, but as easily Magnus Maximus or Constantine III) hired 'Anglo-Saxon' foederati to bolster the skeletal defence forces left in place after the continental adventures of Magnus Maximus and Constantine III, who revolted. Most probably Gildas is relating a famous episode of barbarian treachery which suits his narrative, when in reality much evidence suggests peaceful interactions between migrants and Romano-British (see the British names Cerdic and Cynric preserved in the early generations of the genealogies of the Kingdom of Wessex).
This bullshit map is lacking the amphitheatre of Nora, Sulky and Olbia in Sardinia, the one of Nora can still be seen in good shape even nowadays.
Do the people who make these tard maps even bother?
How the hell are there such a small number of amphitheatres in Iberia?
Thats lacking information for sure. Iberia was one of the most populated and romanized regions of the empire outside Italy, next to Northern Africa and Southern Gaul
Iberian Lynx in 1980
Iberian Lynx in 2003
Distribution of Cheetah subspecies:
The minor ones outside of Southern Africa all have less than a thousand individuals, which is less than Akbar the Great used to hunt with back in the 16th century.
My bad, still there is a roman amphitheatre at Nora but it's not been excavated yet:
Verosimilmente oltre a queste tombe dovevano esistere strutture
funerarie più consistenti, se possiamo assegnare a questa funzione i
resti di un edificio in opus testciceuin. Certa è invece la presenza di
un anfiteatro, alla base del rilevamento della “Casa della Guardiania”,
le cui fondamenta misuravano m 34,50 x 28,50.
> How did a animal not native to the continent
Lions were native everywhere, except Australia and Antarctica.
Any neat books on the history of lions or any other animal species?
I'm interested in the history of human interaction with cats and dogs, specifically.
Because, as is usually with white men, the female lion does all the hard work while the male lazes around. Thus the lion is the perfect symbol of patriarchy and oppression of women, which came so natural to the kings of old.
>the female lion does all the hard work while the male lazes around.
Funnily enough, in Chinese and by extension, East Asian Bestiary, the Tiger is the King of the beasts.
This is due to
1) Mythological reasons
2) According to the Chinese, it literally says "King" on its forehead. The Chinese character fir King (Wang) is "王" is often depicted on traditional Chinese depictions of Tigers.
Leader in lion skin an archetype. Stone age classic.
and African archetype
Because elder should care about junior, strong should care about others.
Humanity is not a virus, we should care about Fauna and Flora, we, humanity remember we was (or is?) part of Fauna too.
who the fuck gives a shit about dumb shit animals you liberal cuck pussy?
I bet you're the type of liberal bitch that idealized living in huts and being a hunter-gatherer like Natives.
because they're lazy, they do nothing all day, their females do all the work and in the end they come up to eat what they caught... they're only good to fight other animals.
so they're pretty much all the principles of imperialism embodied in a single animal.
believe it or not, life was as wife or childrenn was as bad as those working down under.
it was probably the worst time to be poor in england - you and your whole family (including the kids as soon as they could walk properly) would pretty much be enslaved and work all day in miserable conditions just to get enough money to buy some bread and not starve at least for another week.
They keep herbivores in check, which prevents soil erosion that could threaten agricultural land. Agricultural land can be used to grow food or cash crops to sell for money. Money can be exchanged for goods and services.
THANK YOU BACK-SNAP GORILLA
>Because, as is usually with white men, the female lion does all the hard work while the male lazes around. Thus the lion is the perfect symbol of patriarchy and oppression of women, which came so natural to the kings of old.
You mean the male lion does all the hard work, protects and leads his pride, has invented nearly everything if import and use in the Sahara, created the codes for for the law, order and safety of any successful civilization as well as the foundations and principles atop which all successful civilizations are created, run and built, etc. While all the female lion has to, at most, do is birthe and raise and take care of a couple of cubs for the few beginning years of their lives. But yeah that's so 'oppressive' and 'patriarchal'. Get out of a history and humanities related lion taxonomy board withh your historically inaccurate and debunked/disproven victim olympics