Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 2925. page

>>1602070
Relly makes me tink which scientific advancements can be attributed to them.

>>1602077
*really
*think

They were a necessary punching bag

Bump for interest

>>1602034
Medieval Europe was rather diverse anon, the only mainstay seems to be that shit always seemed to be worse in the lands of the Rus

>>1603827
Absolutely incorrect, Rus before the Mongol Conquest was one of the best areas in medieval Europe. Novgorod in particular had a literacy rate that was only typical in monasteries during that period.

Greece with Constantinople

>>1602013

Most likely like Greece today, but even more megalomaniac

Turkey with Greeks instead of roaches.

>>1601955
USA

File: Screen Shot 2016-08-25 at 6.41.12 PM.png (782KB, 1335x387px) Image search: [Google]

782KB, 1335x387px

the de medici family, renaissance Florence

mixed with a little Snow White/Sleeping Beauty Disney art design

>>1601969
Wow that looks accurate thanks

I remember taking a historical theory class where the professor crammed "nothing is real it's all a social construct" down my throat for a semester. I think she took it too far but the principle is interesting, and it's good to get at least slightly redpilled on "history is like 40% fact and 60% interpretation of those facts."

I know a lot of people grow up on the delusion that history is purely factual. "x happened, we know it happened 100%." when it's usually "so this guy from 1500 years ago tells us x happened and we believe him because we found a piece of sword in the place he said it happened."

>>1601935

Not to mention that fact/interpretation ratio tends to skew harder the further back you go. There are some things where we have barely any evidence and we just do our best to construct a narrative around what we have.

>>1601935
>I know a lot of people grow up on the delusion that history is purely factual. "x happened, we know it happened 100%." when it's usually "so this guy from 1500 years ago tells us x happened and we believe him because we found a piece of sword in the place he said it happened."

I always enjoyed studying ancient Rome as an undergrad for this reason.

A number of elements most people take for granted as "things we definitely know about the Romans" are based on a mixture of logical reconstruction owing to archaeological evidence and good solid reading of ancient sources, but also quite a bit of it is based on such flaky supposition as to be laughable at times (if it weren't for the fact that often it's our best educated guess).

For example, in the entirety of the ancient sources available to us, there's only one textual reference that directly attributes Hadrian's Wall to Hadrian. Only one. And it's only a short passage. It doesn't even give a clear explanation as to what the Wall is meant to do, and it is a secondary source in terms of contemporaneousness.

If I remember correctly, the only way we are reasonably certain that the Colosseum is indeed a Flavian construction as attested by various inscriptions and later sources is via numismatic inferring of coins that happened to be minted in at the time (and happened to be found later, of course).

The idea that history is this inky mass, with only tiny fractions of it illuminated to us, I still find exciting.

File: 1460469304659.jpg (12KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 250x250px

>tfw arianism hasn't succeeded
>and it's the truth

File: image.jpg (68KB, 529x498px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 529x498px

>>1601916
>Unironically supporting Arius

>>1601997
>Mark 10:18
>"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.

File: 035ab76bcdb5a495dba093f9d9e1a5cf.jpg (176KB, 1017x679px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1017x679px

>>1601780
Also did they have qts like pic related?

>>1601780
>What is know about these guys?
That they are essentially the same as Persians who might have spoken a slighty different language but we know next to nothing about the Median language and what do know is that many common words in Old Persian are derived from Median. They have in fact been the same people, just that the Medes prospered and became fully sedentary while the Persians remained semi-nomadic and pastoral in comparison.
>How are they different than Persians
They weren't ultimately. They like I said above, settled down and became more sedentary a century or two before the Persians did. They spoke basically the same language that was in all liklihood only different on a local dialect level (which is to say not very different like how Tajik Persian compares to proper Persian or Afghan Persian aka Dari).
>What advantages did they have over the Assyrians?
They were a newer and young tribe of people, the Neo-Assyrian Empire was weakened from a series of inept and weak rulers for the last two or three centuries, constant wars with the Babylonians, Elamites, and others further reduced their military and the Medes with the Neo-Babylonian Empire defeated them. They likely used similarily heavily armored warriors on horseback and foot who wore scaled and leather armor, preferred archery and and short swords.

Ultimately though the Persians themselves would do the same to their Median brothers and the Median Empire continued directly through the Persians considering the last Median ruler was the maternal grandfather of Cyrus the Great, whose mother was his grandfather's daughter. Anyway by the point of the Parthian/Arsacid dynasty's empire, the Medes were probably speaking Middle Persian and probably almost if not totally indistinguishable from Persians.

>>1601808
So shouldn't they technically be considered the first Iranian dynasty?
Like the Parthians were quite different from Persian yet they are considered just another dynasty in Persian history rather than a separate empire

yes!

What's so hard about comprehending that God established the governing dynamics of nature?

Have you never heard the term "act of God" to describe a natural disaster?

>>1601681
The latter

File: image.jpg (39KB, 390x220px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 390x220px

>>1601681
Well, atleast Bookchin inspired an actual fighting force

>>1601769
Kek

>>1601647
>Why did they go away
State centralization and industrialization, mostly

>>1601647
City States mostly.

Well, any medieval euronig city not run by a lord.

Guilds often get to sit in urban councils and their heads can get elected as mayors.

>>1601647
>Why did they go away?

Trademarks and patents require full disclosure so cartels based on parceling out knowledge such as the Guilds could no longer compete.

File: image.jpg (233KB, 900x656px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 900x656px

"La Belle Dame Sans Merci" by Frank Dicksee

c. 1904

File: image.jpg (882KB, 2000x1305px) Image search: [Google]

882KB, 2000x1305px

"The Black Prince at Crecy" by Julian Russel Story

1888

very specific fetish OP

wtf I hate fascism now

>>1600946
Nope, Italians always enjoyed a bit of the old faggotry. Mussolinis party should have been called the faggotinist party.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEbNOcWDO8g

> Why do you guys think it took so little time for humanity to not only get over monarchism

There needs to be enough decentralization of wealth that a wider segment of society can begin demanding political status consummate with their wealth.

This is how you get the transition from monarchy to capitalism.

You can also have a revolution, which is where the country is so badly run or the common folk so oppressed that they rise up and destroy the monarchy.

This second kind very often leads to horrible totalitarian dictatorships or to failed states, because there is no stable locus for power to transition to.

>>1600925
It's not that people got over monarchism; the mechanisms behind monarchism, such as feudalism, honour culture, etc, got covered up.

I mean, these systems have been the prevailing systems for majority of human civilization. Self-interest and individualistic forms of government came into power and it became a perpetual thing. Because of democracy and capitalism, leadership and politics became progressive rather than social. It's no longer about "Who gets what", but about what everyone gets. As a result, we hit a peak, and now we're going back down, because this lifestyle and form of government is unsustainable; this is what happened to Rome inevitably after it lost its monarchy, it grew out of self-interest, spreading, providing more technologies and better science, and then it became too big, and people wanted a slice of the pie; Rome dissolved into many nations, and those nations further dissolved, being replaced with dictators and kings.

>>1600925
>WE SHALL HAVE NO KING
>DOWN WITH TYRANNY
>then fetishize monarchy snd aristocracy and cosplaycas them

America in a nutshell

>>1600859
You know Jesus was named Jesus because it's just a name, right?

>>1600861
His real name would be more akin to Joshua in English from the Greek

>>1600881
>Joseph

>>1600792
By being the son of a knight and turning 14

>>1600792
There were a number of isolated cases in which individuals were knighted without serving as a squire first. Particularly in the early middle ages when Knights were more important as the lowest tier of landowner rather than as direct retainers of lord. Several individuals were knighted to either give them a title or in order to allow them to serve the court in some military capacity.

In some extraordinary cases individuals were knighted for extreme valor on a field of battle or for momentus accomplishments, the most famous being Joan of Ark.

I wouldn't call it common but yes, it was (and in the case of England, still is) possible to be knighted without first serving as a squire.

>>1600792
>Was being a squire the only way to become a knight?
No. The only requirement to become a knight was for another knight to anoint you.
>How would one become a squire?
Be son of noblemen and get sent into pagedom to another court.
Be son of a wealthy merchant and bribe a noble to take you in as a page.
Be lucky son of a bitch and distinguish yourself in battle in front of a very generous class blind knight in need of a squire.

This goes for knights and squires as in chivalry and shit. By the end of feudalism none of this applies anymore.