What is Reddit's opinion of
Ancient History Encyclopedia?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
➔ Ancient History Encyclopedia website
By popularity on Reddit, this Service is:
100 reviews of this app found across Reddit:
Persian leader Cambyses II used cats to defeat an Egyptian army. He had his soldiers paint cats on their shields and brought hundreds of cats and other animals that the Egyptians held sacred to the front lines. The Egyptians refused to fight the "cat army" and were easily defeated because of it.
The Persian leader Cambyses II used cats to defeat an Egyptian army. He had his soldiers paint cats on their shields and brought hundreds of cats and other animals that the Egyptians held sacred to the front lines. The Egyptians refused to fight the "cat army" and were easily defeated because of it.
Alternative version with much less fictional urban sprawl. Both illustrations were made by Rocío Espín Piñar.
Here's a brief account on the history of the myth (including some passages from Plato), which has survived and thrived for two and a half millennia.
EDIT: Hello everyone! Welcome to /r/papertowns! I didn't expect this to blow up to the second page of /r/all. It's already the most upvoted papertown ever, only 4 hours after posting it. We've got many gorgeous illustrated maps here, so go on and explore the sub to see for yourself, hope you'll enjoy! (Check the sidebar for some quick examples of what you can find here.)
The Persian leader Cambyses II used cats to defeat an Egyptian army.
He had his soldiers paint the goddess Bastet, who was cat-like in appearance, on their shields and "ranged before his front line dogs, sheep, cats, ibises and whatever other animals the Egyptians hold dear."
The Egyptians, seeing the shields and sacred animals refused to fight out of fear of injuring the them. Because of their refusal to fight they were easily defeated and actually massacred to where their bones were still scattered across the sands years later.
Boudicca: Queen of the Iceni, Scourge of Rome
Her army would hang..." up naked the noblest and most distinguished women and then cut off their breasts and sewed them to their mouths, in order to make the victims appear to be eating them; afterwards they impaled the women on sharp skewers run lengthwise through the entire body"
"Bad" here is entirely subjective. You are equating greater ~~photorealism~~ realism to "good". I'd also ask you to pin down what you mean by "medieval", since art in 14th C Germany is significantly different than say 11th C Byzantium. This is a cultural consideration.
But to answer your question, at least in so far as Western Europe goes, we are going to have to head back to Rome. The Romans had in deed valued greater ~~photorealism~~ verisimilitude their art. example However, with the collapse of the Western Empire, a new aesthetic model, brought in by the Germanic peoples would come to dominate.
Germanic arts were highly geometrized (is that a word?) and abstracted. They were not attempting ~~photorealism~~ realism at all. Human and animal forms were often woven into complex compositions in which sytlistic concerns were much more important than ~~photorealism~~ verisimilitude Here or Illustrated detail from a Staffordshire Pressblech
Germanic conceptions of art would fuse with the lingering traces of Roman aesthetics in to the newly developing medieval Christian aesthetic. This aesthetic simply didn't value ~~photorealism~~ verisimilitude
So its not that they were "bad" or less refined because Medieval artist were just dumb or unskilled. It was a lingering trace of the larger shifts within Western Europe in the wake of the collapse of the Western Empire.
(Byzantine Art and the East are a whole other thing, and no coffee yet so not gonna cover it. Maybe in bit I'll come back...)
A thousand times this. And I believe the whole exercise is redeemed because it's really just the same thing the Greeks did with representations of war, but in movie form. Ancient heroes were often depicted as fighting naked, not because anyone in their right mind would actually do that (Gauls were not in their right minds imho), but because it better shows off the beauty of their bodies. Same reason the movie 300 is full of scanty armor and photoshopped abs.
For example, compare the statues of the Tyrannicides (the blade of the sword he's holding is gone; it's the hilt you see in his hand) and this fallen warrior statue from a pediment on the temple of Aphaia with this artist's reconstruction of a hoplite in typical armor.
Kind of reminds me about Spartan boys. They got punished for stealing because they got caught, not because they were stealing.
>The main key point here is that, when a boy was caught, he was not punished for his act of stealing, but for being caught!
Taken from "Ancient History Encyclopedia" http://www.ancient.eu/article/342/
This is insulting to Africans.
If white Europeans were poor and uncivilized, and Africa was this rich and advanced civilization, then how is it that these Caucasians who barely crawled out of the caves completely took over and stole everything from Africa?
You can't have it both ways. If white people were so inferior, they shouldn't have been able to dominate a superior group, unless they overwhelmed them with numbers. But Europeans didn't do that, the way the Mongols sacked the technologically superior Roman Empire. They were simply more advanced.
If you want to make the money analogy work, you have to tweak it a bit.
>Europeans had 10 bucks. Africans had 2 bucks. But Africans also had a million bucks buried in their yard, and Europeans knew where to dig. >
It sucks how Europe has constantly exploited Africa throughout history. It has been cruel and brutal and very much unfair. It's a legitimate complaint. There's just no need to rewrite history in order to make that point.
Edit - OK, before anyone else jumps on the train, I was talking about the Huns, but said Mongols for some reason. And by "sacked Rome", I didn't mean they took the city of Rome, just that Rome as an empire lost lots of land to a technologically interior enemy, due to sheer numbers and brutality.
In the ancient city of Ur they discovered a "magical ritual" written on sun baked clay tablets and it was simply a recipe for an alcoholic beverage.
They would do this "ritual" (follow the recipe) and then call upon a certain g-d of wine to "manifest itself" (ferment) within the beverage. When they drank it they probably considered it a very religious experience, as if they were entering the dimension of the g-ds that they called upon to "do the magic" (ferment).
Edit: The "Hymn to Ninkasi", goddess of beer. http://www.ancient.eu/article/222/
Is there any other source aside from the ~~odyssey~~ ~~Illiad~~ odyssey (edit:I'm dumb) for the Trojan Horse? If not, it wasn't just the Horse, but the treachery involved in it being a gift that was most poignant. Why would Homer mention all of that if he was just taking poetic license in describing a siege engine?
Also, I don't think the widespread use of those siege engines in Assyria began until the 9th century bc (http://www.ancient.eu/Assyrian_Warfare/) whereas the trojan war took place about a century before that. I don't think linking this with Assyria does much to prove it was a battering ram instead of a horse.
It fell in an earthquake about 300 years ago, but because the column drums and building pieces were so heavy, most of the blocks actually just stayed in the rubble for centuries to come.
So, in the 60s, the Soviet authorities decided to restore the monument, half with concrete and half with the actual 2000 year old basalt blocks that had remained in place.
The temple itself is unique in that it was a Roman-sponsored temple, but is built in the Hellenistic style with a four-sided portico, as opposed to the Roman style of typically embedding the colums into the side walls.
I think the most amazing thing about the temple is that it survived the Christianisation of Armenia. In this process, every pagan monument, building and document was destroyed, only Garni Temple survived in its full glory and continued to be used as a resort and a place for resting for medieval Armenian lords.
Despite the equally rich architecture of Christian Armenia, nearly all of pagan Armenia is lost and can only really be retrieved with archaeological excavations. Thankfully archaeology in Armenia is nascent, and there are some promising finds of ancient Armenian constructions in Tigranakert, Artsakh and other sites.
Absolutely! Roman culture was heavily influenced by Greek thinking, to the point that several prominent Romans were openly critical of it since they felt that it made their young men more effeminate and less effective as warriors (kind of like the lamentations that you hear from every older generation talking about the younger one these days). This site has a much more in depth take on it http://www.ancient.eu/article/472/
http://www.ancient.eu/Olmec_Civilization/
The Mayan and Aztecs can thank these guys for their culture.
Just because people live different lives doesn't make them inferior, it just means different things drive them.
The father of the race of centaurs was Centaurus, himself the offspring of Ixion who had made love to Hera, or more precisely, a cloud made by a jealous Zeus to resemble Hera.
Not in the way we think of "thick" at all. Classical beauty is defined by order, symmetry and proportion, so a thick stomach or thighs relative to the rest of the body would not suit that standard. Of course for most of human existence, people weren't at risk of becoming obese, but under-nutrition and wasting would be common even in times of prosperity. A proportional layer of body fat indicated health in a woman. A woman with a bit of fat probably didn't have any parasites, was free of infections or hygiene issues that cause chronic vomiting or diarrhea, had no cancers or other late-stage disease that cause wasting, and so on. She was also more likely to survive childbirth or disaster, and her plumpness showed prosperity. So yes, a proportionally larger woman would be more beautiful than a skinny, potentially sickly one.
That's not a Tess, not a woman with a fupa and necktits, and not even one with a flopping belly. It's pretty easy to get a good idea of which female body shapes were considered most beautiful though. This guy likes Aphrodite? How about her most famous form, the Venus de Milo? Or this lovely Aphrodite? Or Aphrodite Kallipygos aka "Venus with a Great Ass"?
I'm not a historian, but that's my take on it!
An even earlier example than Athens and Sparta is between the Ancient Egyptians and Hittities. They established a treaty after the battle of Kadesh in 1258BCE. This truce was never broken. Text from this treaty hangs at the UN today.
edit: I'm not sure how to link scholarly articles because I have access to them through my school, but I don't think everyone would be able to access them. So here's this
The odd thing is that the Romans knew what dolphins looked like, they just seem to have had zero interest in depicting them accurately. Perhaps they're supposed to be generic sea serpents.
Compare with this fresco from Ancient Crete, circa 1700bc, which is basically accurate: http://www.ancient.eu/image/393/
Sex and genitals weren't taboo in many cultures, Greek and Roman among them. There's all kinds of artifacts that most people weren't taught in school
The remains of a phalic column in Delos
There's all kinds of stuff you didn't learn in school
Not to mention, like Trump, His rule was essentially "Make Rome Great Again".
There was anger at the economy increasingly being focused in Alexandria, so he started a number of infra structure projects to mitigate that.
He worked to lower unemployment using said infrastructure projects, and by founding a number of colonies, making people more free to move where they wanted. He even declared that he would cover the rent for the poor for an entire year.
He massively cut public spending, And he managed to almost eliminate the crippling debt Roma was under at the time..
He really was a man of the people. he even donated most of his fortune to the poor of Rome when he died.
I'm as big of a hippy liberal douche as anyone on this sub, but c'mon man: Human Sacrifice was the engine through which the Mayans appeased the Gods in order to live in harmony with the land. I mean, hell. Lose a basketball game? Your team captain, or sometimes the whole team, sacrificed on the spot
Early rushed by Monty one too many times perhaps?
Cuinform was a pretty condensed written language.
http://www.ancient.eu/cuneiform/
Also the tablet has writing on the sides and back.
The ancient games started off as a single event lasting one day. Over time they expanded to 18 events over five days. So, it would still be the longest Olympic Games.
Cups and plates.
Take a look at crockery from ancient times. Bowls still look like bowls, and we've had waterproof and shatterproof ones for quite a while now. You want to eat something on a plate and it's the year 2042? It's still going to be plate looking.
This is a very nice map showing every known Celtic tribe and Germanic tribe, which shows the distribution well. Not sure the date, but looks around 100BC
http://www.ancient.eu/uploads/images/3687.jpg?v=1431034556
The map doesn't show it (maybe they were an earlier date), but there was also Celts in most of Iberia.
> The part about cross-dressing is probably an attempt at justifying her gender-swap. It is not quite true historically though, as even though Nero had one homosexual attraction, she wasn’t known for cross-dressing.
Googling "Nero and crossdressing" the first link that came up was http://www.ancient.eu/Nero/
From the article: "He was self-indulgent, cruel and violent as well as a cross-dressing exhibitionist."
Nero also married Pythagoras, dressing as the bride.
"...he stooped to marry himself to one of that filthy herd, by name Pythagoras, with all the forms of regular wedlock. The bridal veil was put over the emperor; people saw the witnesses of the ceremony, the wedding dower, the couch and the nuptial torches; everything in a word was plainly visible, which, even when a woman weds darkness hides."
This is also probably why we get Nero Bride.
Searching for Nero documentaries on youtube also state that he was a crossdresser.
Nero being a crossdresser sure isn't something the Nasuverse made up from out of thin air.
This is much more likely to be the actual reason:
> Egyptian art uses hierarchical proportion, where the size of figures indicates their relative importance. The gods or the divine pharaoh are usually larger than other figures and the figures of high officials or the tomb owner are usually smaller, and at the smallest scale any servants and entertainers, animals, trees, and architectural details.
Well, there is "textual evidence" making these claims (such as Polybius describing the Seleucid elite fighting in Roman fashion) [Polybius 30.25.3], however it is rightly questioned, as (at least generally) the tactics and equipment of Roman legionaries were not especially unique - Celtic peoples often wore similar equipment (indeed, the gladius Hispaniensis and the Scutam shield were both adapted from armaments used by the Celt-Iberians). [http://www.ancient.eu/Gladius_Hispaniensis/], [https://books.google.com/books?id=X_aoHLV02DAC&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=scutum+shield+iberian&source=bl&ots=OOZF3LOQ6L&sig=1LRrucqjQl3sUAwnDWGLksDUsX8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSmJ6h5p7PAhUBXh4KHVvMB_QQ6AEIVTAO#v=onep...]
Others, like Mithradates Eupator VI of Pontus (the Greatest) actually did take on Roman turncoats (specifically from the Roman Civil Wars that occurred during his reign) to train their armies, and so could properly be said to have adopted their tactics after the fact (though Galacian soldiers, again, fought in a similar fashion already). [Plutarch, Life of Lucullus 7.4].
(Sorry if the formatting is wrong - I don't know how to do all of this fancy "link embedding" on reddit. Just Italics and Bolding.)
I learned from this book, http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Myth-Edition-Barry-Powell/dp/0321967046 which I am sorry to say I no longer own, however if you look here http://www.ancient.eu/Minoan_Civilization/ above the picture of the palace of Knossos it will also confirm the speculation.
http://www.ancient.eu/Nefertiti/
Around the year 14 of Akhenaten and Nefertiti’s reign, their daughter Mekitaten died in childbirth at the age of 13. An image in relief from the time shows the couple standing over their daughter’s body in mourning. Shortly after this, Nefertiti vanishes from the historical record. There have been many theories offered to explain her abrupt disappearance and, among these are:
- She fell out of favor with her husband because she could not produce a male heir and so was replaced by Kiya.
- She abandoned the religion of Aten and was banished by Akhenaten.
- She committed suicide in grief over the loss of her daughter.
- She continued to rule under the name of Smenkhkare until her step-son, Tutankhamun, was old enough to assume the throne.
Marvin is wearin Mars' (as in the Roman god) armor, not just some random Roman soldier!
http://www.ancient.eu/uploads/images/2119.jpg
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/looneytunes/images/6/67/Marvin_the_martian.jpg
This thread covers a lot of aspects of Islam taking hold in Iran. One thing not mentioned in the thread (and also a bit off topic for this one) was that Persians had a (arguably) much stronger reaction against the spread of the Arabic language than the spread of Islam. When Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf arrived in Iran, he tried to discourage, and eventually ban Persian and made Arabic the official language. This (along with the invasion of Islam in Persia) sparked lots of civil unrest to the point where Caliph Umar was assassinated by Piruz Nahavandi and many of the provinces in North and East Persia fostered insurgencies. I think it can be argued that the Persians keeping their language saved their empire and culture from being subjugated and eventually absorbed by the Arabs. Similarly, the Levantine people who spoke Hebrew, Phoenician and Erkonite were absorbed by the Arab invaders and the latter two are currently extinced, the former surviving with the Jewish people. In Lebanon, Syria and Palestine they speak Arabic and follow Arab customs. Also linked in that thread was Drinking Arak Off an Ayatollah's Beard by Nicholas Jubber which is a great unbiased book on the Iranian peoples acceptance and views of Islam in modern and medieval Iran.
Pompeii was destroyed in 79 AD, this portrait of a man and wife is rather realistic. Their eyes are a bit large, but you get an idea of what they really looked like.
The Hymn to Ninkasi is at once a song of praise to Ninkasi, the Sumerian goddess of beer, and an ancient recipe for brewing. The recipe is contained within the poem. http://www.ancient.eu/article/222/
It's certainly plausible. In Gandhara, there was a pretty substantial influx of Greco-Buddhist art. I'd think it's pretty likely that philosophical ideas could've been exchanged, too.
I also believe that it's possible that the monistic philosophies of Greece, such as Pythagoreanism and Platonism, where inspired by those of India, such as the philosophy of the Upaniṣads.
Here's an interesting article detailing the interactions between them.
http://www.ancient.eu/article/107/ http://www.cracked.com/article_18476_5-ancient-acts-war-that-changed-face-earth.html
The fact that Alexander the Great was able to build a land bridge to Tyre (an island deep in the ocean) out of sheer dedication, and the fact that even today it is still present and thus he changed the geography of the world solely because he was pissed off.
Actually I think you're confusing that with the ancient Egyptians. The Mayans believed the afterlife was a horrible place, but the soul had to journey through it to be rebirthed. The Mayans put maize (corn) into the mouths of corpses as nourishment to help them get through it.
This is just from memory, and this site seems to re-enforce it. If I'm wrong someone let me know!
>Rational, self-interested and completely non-benevolent individuals will also attempt to fund public goods if the (transaction) costs to do so are low enough
CONSULT CALCUTRON TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE NEED ROADS. BUT MAKE SURE CALCUTRON IS NOT SHARED BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE CENTRAL PLANNING. MAKE SURE EVERYONE HAS THEIR OWN CALCUTRON THAT COMES TO A RATIONAL DECISION, WHICH WILL BE NECESSARILY UNIFORM UNLESS THEY'RE ACTUALLY SELF INTERESTED OR SOMETHING. Seriously, though.. wtf is "low enough"? We get all the public goods that can be purchased with spare change?
>There's a third possibility: you realize your contribution would likely be pivotal to the provision of the good and decide to pledge.
This sounds like a terrifically inefficient direct democracy! I, for one, am excited just thinking about all the important issues I might receive in the mail (if and when we kickstart the letter carrying service). I guess, If the letter carrying kickstarter fails I can look forward with only moderately diminished zeal to endless hours spent in the public square yelling out proposals or raising our hand or some shit.
In addation to the awesome map /u/PaulAJK has, this map is zoomable. If you don't want ads for it, use this one which is the same.
>A terracotta tablet with cuneiform inscriptions that narrates a love poem. This is the oldest love poem ever known. The poem was probably written by an unknown woman who was chosen as a bride for Shu-Sin, King of Ur, III dynasty. The poem was supposed to be sung at the New Year festival.
>The tablet was found at Nippur (modern Nuffar, Al-Qadisiyah Governorate, Iraq), southern Mesopotamia. Neo-Sumerian era, Ur III dynasty, 2037-2029 BCE. (Istanbul Archeological Museums/Ancient Orient Museum, Istanbul, Turkey).
The thing about a stone door is that stone would be a very unwieldy and heavy material to make a door out of. It may well have been possible to build a stone door, but the difficulty of working the material and the cost would probably keep someone from doing it. You can carve and shape stone, but wood and metal make far more sense as a construction material.
However, some ancient gates were very large. The famous Ishtar Gate of Ancient Babylon, for example, had gates that were 38 feet high. The doors themselves were purportedly made out of Cedar. From what I've seen they would have had pivot hinges.
The Golden Gate of Kiev dating to about the 11th century. Also known as the "Great gate" its passageway was 40 feet high and 20 feet wide. It's been reconstructed as a monument and you can see it here the gates themselves are built as it's thought the originals were, of wood and wrought iron. Thye reconstruction has both a hinged gate and a portcullis gate.
Except those fragments were still comically large, (Particularly considering that the Seleucids eventually absorbed the Antigonids), and ushered in an era of Hellenism in which one could, with a brief boat trip across the straits of Gibraltar, walk from modern-day Madrid to modern-day Madras entirely through Hellenistic kingdoms. Alexander was a pretty big deal, basically.
Short simple list:
Sumerians ~5000BC
Egyptians ~3000BC
Elamites 2700BC (Early Persians...sort of but not really)
Akkadians 2300BC (Sargon's Empire)
Babylonians 1900BC
Assyrians 1900BC
Hittities 1600BC (Early Turks but not at all, just in Turkey)
Carthage 814BC
Romans 753BC
Greeks 600BC
Persians 550BC
Alexander the Great died 323BC
This is a VERY short list but sums up the major names. It also does not really relate to when they were in power. Egypt lasted until essentially Alexander but continued until after Caesar.
EDIT: Formatting and added a few other items.
EDIT2: Heres a cool link if you want a VERY through timeline http://www.ancient.eu/timeline/
> Because that's what marriage is. A contract between two people and their God.
Wrong. Marriage has been around way longer than monotheism. Thousands of years longer in fact.
edit: If you had said "Because that's what Christian marriage is. A contract between two people and their God." you would have been more accurate, but even early Christian marriage was cool with polygamy. (as long as it was one guy and many girls)
Yeah that's a nice sentiment and all, and may be somewhat true about the ancient Egyptians, but I have to call bullshit on your timeline.
Ancient Rome was around in at least 500 BC (link), they definitely had slaves (link), and they also had a currency (link).
The story of Moses in the bible also talks of slaves in Egypt, though some might consider that a less than reliable source.
Do go on and keep revising though...
Edit: For those who seem to be missing my point, yes, I know Ancient Egypt was thousands of years before the Romans. I am responding to his claim that the concept of slaves as chattel, or property, didn't exist till 700 AD. I Invoke the Romans as proof that happened at least a thousand years earlier than OP claims. If you are still confused, please reread both of our comments.
Gilgamesh is the oldest piece of epic Western literature.
And I'm going to venture a guess on why this is being posted. Fall semester just started. You're probably taking some sort of class called "Western Civilization" or "Culture and Society in the West." This is one of the first texts you've been assigned, so you're seeking some help. Maybe you need to write a paper.
Did I get it right OP?
Was the mausoleum used as a house at one point during the middle ages or am I thinking of another Roman tomb?
edit: it was apparently used as a fortress by the Colonna family (http://www.ancient.eu/article/657/)
No. I think that likely comes from a misconception regarding the depiction of his hair in East Asian cultures, but that was supplanted and came much later.
The Sakyan people were most likely Aryans who descended into northern India by means of modern-day Iran, replacing the Dravidian cultures there that eventually moved southward. So the Buddha was most likely (there is no strong evidence to identify his ethnicity, only circumstantial) an Indo-Aryan, as that makes the most sense for that region at that time.
He was probably fair-skinned (but not "white", think fair-skinned Indian) due to his palace upbringing (he was probably not a prince, but the son of a republican chieftain, so still raised in a palace). The scriptures say he had blue eyes. If that theory holds up, he probably looked somewhat similar to the blue-eyed fair-skinned Iranians of today, with more Indic features.
We might be talking about different things.
>When Alexander the Great arrived at Persepolis it was the jewel of Persia and, when he left, it was a ruin whose spot would be known for generations only as `the place of the forty columns’ for the remaining palace columns left standing in the sand.
>Exactly why Alexander would burn the great palace, which, as conqueror, he now owned (and especially considering his well-known interest in the arts and sciences) is a question which historians have made answer to for centuries, most of them agreeing that the fire was started at the instigation of the Hetera [high-class prostitute/singer/conversationalist] from Athens, Thais.
For those wondering, the reason they drank beer out of a straw was because it was much thicker than beer we drink today. In fact, it looked more like porridge than modern beer.
>Paintings, poems, and myths depict both human beings and their gods enjoying beer which was consumed through a straw to filter out pieces of bread or herbs in the drink. The brew was thick, of the consistency of modern-day porridge, and the straw was invented by the Sumerians or the Babylonians, it is thought, specifically for the purpose of drinking beer.
Well, this is pretty basic historical linguistics, but here's one.
The Indo-Europeans were an early bronze-age tribe probably originating in Ukraine. Their language, proto-Indo-European, is the ancestor language for many languages spoken in Europe, the Middle East and India. The Celtic languages, including Irish, were among them. The exact timeline is unknown but here's what the encyclopedia I linked to says:
> By about 600 BCE, Celtic-speaking tribes had spread from what today are southern Germany, Austria, and Western Czech Republic in almost all directions, to France, Belgium, Spain, and the British Isles, then by 400 BCE, they also moved southward into northern Italy and southeast into the Balkans and even beyond.
Edit: I should add that Ireland was inhabited well before that, as we have monuments here thousands of years older than the Egyptian pyramids. Those people spoke something, but it couldn't have been anything like Irish.
You have a point there.
Nevertheless the Mongols contributed to the destruction of Iranian and the wider Islamic scientific knowledge and culture by burning the Grand Library of Baghdad, similar to the burning of the Imperial Library of Ctesiphon by the Arab invaders and the burning of Persepolis by the Greek invaders.
Sometimes I wonder what would have happened with Europe if Christianity did not take over but Greek mythology was being adopted by everybody.
It's also (and more significantly) the name of a cave and World Heritage Site in the north of Spain. The cave was inhabited for a millennia during the paleolithic. It's best known for the wealth of paintings found within the cave which include those of bison (hence the album artwork).
You should try looking things up. Alexander successfully defeated everyone who gave battle in vastly different areas of the world. Victory in the desert? Gaugamela. Victory in European mountains? Quelling the Thracians early on. Insurgency warfare? Try successfully prosecuting a war on the same breed of Afghan gorillas(in his day called Bactrians and Sogdians) we are fighting today, albeit under much different circumstances. Heck, amphibious assault seems to have been his specialty; at three different occations he was able to force an assault across a river. Yes, at Issus the river wasn't particularly hard to ford, but at the Jaxartes, he was able to trap an enemy force of horse archers with his infantry while crossing the river under fire, and at Hydaspes he crossed a swollen river at night, in the monsoon season, his army in two pieces separated by several kilometers.
If there was one thing Alexander could do very well, that was reorganizing his army on the fly. The Romans of 323 weren't something to laugh at, but I strongly doubt that they could have defeated the most veteran army led by the best leader in the western world at the time.
Yes, I know I'm a Wehraboo for Alexander. (What's that? A Maceboo?) But that doesn't change facts. The Roman empire at its height against Alexander? That's way different.
Selfishly, I would love Victoria 3 on the chance I can finally play a Vic game on my Mac (via Steam anyhow). :)
Rome would also be very cool. I had an idea a while back that a "Rise of Civilization" sort of thing that maybe starts in the Fertile Crescent and Mediterranean area could be really intriguing from Paradox and could then flow into Rome a la CK -> EU.
Cambyses II of Persia used cats to fight a battle.
He was fighting the Egyptians in the battle of Pelusium in 525 B.C. and as we all know, the cat held a high place in Egyptian society as sacred creatures and the Achaemenid Empire sought to use this to their advantage in the invasion of Egypt.Cambyses ordered his men to paint felines on their shields, and he brought hundreds of actual cats into his front lines. The plan worked: The Egyptian archers refused to fire on his felines, fearing that they would injure the animals—a crime punishable by death. Instead they retreated, and most were massacred by the pursuing Persians. This ultimately led to the capture of the pharaoh.
Rome had colonies all around the Black Sea. Just after the fall of the Western Empire, and the contraction of the Eastern. Romania was cut off to a large degree linguistically and culturally for several hundred years.
Their Latin developed into Romanian.
This isolation can be blamed with equal parts on Western Europeans, and the Mongols. The Mongols conquered Russia (or Kevian Russ). And Western attacks on the Eastern Empire (4th crusade) weakened the region further.
You aren't wrong. The Romans probably whooped the Briton's asses. However, It was known to be common for Roman writers to exaggerate battle numbers. For example, The Battle of Mons Graupius. > Tacitus claims that 10,000 Picts were killed in the battle, while the Romans lost only 360 men. It was common for Roman writers to inflate the casualties of opposing armies while diminishing their own losses and, regarding Tacitus' numbers, McHardy writes, "In the modern world we are well used to the inflated casualty figures put out by occupying forces in imperialist wars such as in Iraq and Afghanistan and I would suggest that Tacitus' numbers be treated similarly"
Ancient Greek culture was at something of a low ebb in 1000bc, the period known as The Greek Dark Age. This was between the Bronze Age Mycenaean period associated with the Trojan war and the later Archaic period where the city states began to develop and long before the time of the great philosophers and Athenian democracy. Population levels had fallen, daily life was likely quite hard and political entities are believed to have been small and localised. The Mediterranean world had undergone a time known as the late Bronze age collapse which saw a decline in the material culture of the region, including Greece. This is thought to have been caused by a combination of factors ranging from climate shifts, natural disasters, internal dissent and invasions by groups such as the Sea Peoples.
EDIT: Basically little is known about daily life in the period you asked about but there are a wealth of sources out there about the later Classical and Hellenistic periods of Greece.
Augustus specifically felt he had to combat adultery and the birth of bastard children. The point being the cycle of rise and moral decline has happened before and will happen again.
Fairly certain that's not actually where it's from. I'm pretty sure India is named after the indus river, which itself is an ancient greek word, which according to wikipedia is based off the sanskrit "Sindhu". Here's a source claiming there are references to India in greek in 440BC.
The deleted submission has been flagged with the flair (R.2) Subjective.
As an additional hint, the top comment says the following:
> Although this article doesn't mention it, it is thought likely that her death was due to the nasty politics of the time. There was a conflict between the Roman governor of the area and the religious leader of the Christians over how much power each had over the area, instigated by the Christian leader Cyril who was said to be encroaching on the authority wielded by the governor, in particular, it is said that the conflict became volatile after Cyril desired to expel the Jews from Alexandria after they rioted, but the details of these riots are difficult to discern. > > The Roman governor himself was almost killed by an angry mob of monks prior to this event and Hypatia is thought to have been killed because she associated with him often and was seen as influencing his decisions.
This might give you a hint why the mods of /r/todayilearned decided to remove the link in question.
^(It could also be completely unrelated or unhelpful in which case I apologize. I'm still learning.)
Why does this have to be a feminist issue? From a purely artistic/historical perspective, this seems more like a transition from idealism to realism. Idealism always comes first, and realism much after. Look at greek vs roman sculptures. We've had the barbie in its current, idealized form for what, 50 years now? People get bored of seeing the same shit. This is merely a natural transition to a more realistic barbie.
Seems like the depiction in HBO's Rome was fairly accurate:
Dressed in his finest armor, Vercingetorix was an imposing figure, even in defeat, and Dio claims that many in Caesar's camp were startled; though not, it seems, Caesar himself. Without saying a word, Vercingetorix slowly removed his armor and then fell to his knees at Caesar's feet. Dio writes, "many of those watching were filled with pity as they compared his present condition with his previous good fortune" (40.41). Caesar was not filled with pity, however, and had him taken away in chains and sent to prison in Rome. The defenders of Alesia were massacred, sold as slaves, or given as slaves to the soldiers for their service during the siege. When Caesar had completed the last details of his conquest of Gaul, Vercingetorix was dragged from his prison to appear in Caesar's triumphal parade through the Roman streets; then he was executed.
http://www.ancient.eu/vercingetorix/
The statement "dragged from prison" implies that he was not granted special treatment.
Not entirely true according to this.
Key passage:
>However, ramming would have rarely sunk an enemy vessel and an important secondary strategy was boarding the enemy ship. For this reason, the typical Athenian crew included a complement of ten hoplites and four archers.
Invändningen mot folkomröstningar jag har är egentligen samma jag har mot demokrati, att det är extremt lätt hänt att sådana drabbas av populistiska budskap och att folk röstar efter sina känslor istället för vad som gynnar samhället. Detta skulle vi förmodligen få se om vi hade en folkomröstning om t.ex invandringen, det är inte helt säkert att en majoritet skulle rösta för minskad invandring, speciellt inte efter att ha sett bilden på den lilla pojken som drunknade i medelhavet.
Den klassiska Atenska demokratin kan vara värt att ta upp som exempel på hur direkt demokrati kan slå fel ibland: > Critics of democracy, such as Thucydides and Aristophanes, pointed out that not only were proceedings dominated by an elite, but that the dēmos could be too often swayed by a good orator or popular leaders (the demagogues), get carried away with their emotions, or lack the necessary knowledge to make informed decisions. Perhaps the most notoriously bad decisions taken by the Athenian dēmos were the execution of six generals after they had actually won the battle of Arginousai in 406 BCE and the death sentence given to the philosopher Socrates in 399 BCE.
http://www.ancient.eu/Athenian_Democracy/
Med det sagt, så tror jag folkomröstningar som inte är bindande kan ha ett viktigt syfte när folket verkar oenigt. Om vi nu skulle ha en folkomröstning om invandringen och det skulle visa sig att en majoritet vill ha minskad så kan inte politikerna längre använda retoriska verktyg som menar att "Sverige står bakom oss", utan tvingas då acceptera en verklighet där de inte representerar folket. Plötsligt blir då den goda vänsterpolitikern som gav sig in i politikens värld för att skydda demokratin och göra världen till en bättre plats en antagonist, någon som går emot allt vad han säger sig stå för.
This is fascinating.
I saw that only fragments of bone and part of a skull were found. http://www.ancient.eu/Maeshowe/ Why do they call it a passage grave? I keep wondering why so many things that are supposed to be for burials seem to have no bodies in them.
Problem with archery is it goes way way back, oldest ones we have examples of are at least 9,000 years old, but there are theories that archery dates back 50,000 years. And while they may have been originally made for hunting, there’s not a whole lot of difference between hunting and fighting; just change of target. So when did folks switch from using them only for hunting to also shooting their neighbors with them? Hard to say,
We have bodies from 3,300 BCE with arrowheads in them.
And there are victory stele from 2250 BCE that seem to show bows in a military setting.
But I’d bet good money bows were used in combat earlier then that, but we just don’t have evidence.
As far as cleaning house. First time I know bows really got on the map & made an impact is when they combined it with a mobile firing platform, the chariot. The ability to conduct hit & run raids, while remaining out of reach of the enemy was a really killer combo. And chariot centered armies stormed out of central Asia & knocked over a bunch of civilizations back around the 2,000’s BC.
Indeed. Law has developed over 4 thousands of years.
While there is obviously no history-spanning syllabus outright explaining the point of societal structure (Get on that, Clio!) only a tiny bit of study it becomes clear that after people started settling permanently they got sick of each others' shit pretty quick.
In European history the concept of were gold replaced clan warfare. Basically instead of forcing a whole region to inevitably split into 2 factions and kill each other the perpetrator of a murder would be forced to pay off the family of the victim.
Later codes came along regulating what people ought to do and how to address infractions. This was necessary to keep the peace in ever-growing population centers.
> I feel like when people go all vigilante it's often selfish
By definition it totally is. But law is an artificial construct and no matter how fair it becomes emotion is a whole other animal.
"Passion rules reason" - Terry Goodkind
All of what you said, plus he was basically assassinated for proposing redistributing land to the poor which had accumulated at the top in addition to many other progressive social reforms, the literal opposite of Trump in all regards.
>He initiated many reforms including further land redistribution among the poor, land reform for veterans which eliminated the need to displace other citizens, as well as political reforms which proved unpopular with the senate. He ruled without regard to the senate, usually simply telling them which laws he wanted passed and how quickly, in an effort to consolidate and increase his own personal power. He reformed the calendar, created a police force, ordered the re-building of Carthage, and abolished the tax system, among many other pieces of legislation (of which quite a few were long-time Populare goals). His time as dictator is generally regarded as a prosperous one for Rome but the senators, and especially those among the Optimate faction, feared he was becoming too powerful and could soon abolish the senate entirely to rule absolutely as a king.
I think the story is pretty well known at this point from "You won't believe it" history buffs, which is why they didn't include a source. I'm not that poster, but you'd probably like this article: http://www.ancient.eu/article/43/
The last sentence: "It is said that Cambyses, after the battle, hurled cats into the faces of the defeated Egyptians in scorn that they would surrender their country and their freedom fearing for the safety of common animals."
Water makes soil nutrient rich, good for agriculture, which fosters growth of civilization.
It also allows trade and travel, both of which contribute to growth of civilization.
Human kind's earliest civilizations were formed around water. The Fertile Crescent, or Cradle of Civilization is "regarded as the birthplace of agriculture, urbanization, writing, trade, science, history and organized religion"
Considering that the Aztec's victims were captured warriors (and that the Aztecs themselves were known to wage wars solely to obtain victims to sacrifice), I wouldn't call it "piety" at all. One gets no credit for being "pious" by laying burdens on other people for selfish benefit. (See also, folks who confuse taxation with charity.)
Jillette only offers the flip side of the argument: by refusing to evangelize, aren't we holding the people we are supposed to be teaching in patronizing contempt, assuming that they're just too broken, too sinful, to ever be capable of being Christians? I'm sure glad that God didn't think that way about those of us who are Christians now...
Not quite, they're considered to have originated from something called Proto-Indo-European. Your own link points that out in the "Evolution" category.
> The proposed Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) is the hypothetical common ancestor of the Indo-European languages, spoken by the Proto-Indo-Europeans.
Right now the current most accepted theory (Kurgan Hypothesis) is that the speakers of this language originated in Eastern Europe (in and around modern day Ukraine), and that they made their way all the way down to the Indian Subcontinent.
Languages like Sanskrit, Ancient Greek and Latin, among others are some of the earlier examples with large bodies of work we use to observe.
You can read more here , or on your own wiki link you sent me.
The Gita is a part of the Mahabharata.
> The Gita is set in a narrative framework of a dialogue between Pandava prince Arjuna and his guide and charioteer Krishna. Facing the duty as a warrior to fight the Dharma Yudhha or righteous war between Pandavas and Kauravas, Arjuna is counselled by Krishna to "fulfill his Kshatriya (warrior) duty as a warrior and establishing Dharma."
- From research
The rest of it is an epic war of supremacy between two branches of a royal family over an ancient kingdom, while the Gods continue their work of choosing favourites and sabotaging opponents.
Actually that's false. Hellenistic (Roman) sculpture is characterized by realism, while Greek sculpture is highly romanticized.
If you look at Roman art before Augustus (who tried to revive and emulate Greek culture a bit), you'll find that most of the sculptures that weren't intended for propaganda include faces with harsh features (they used more busts than Greeks) and unimpressive body types, at least compared to Greece.
Did they? Yes, at times. As a rule? No.
As the original city-state expanded, the term "Romans" quickly came not to mean citizens of the city but citizens of the kingdom/republic/empire. This included those who were conquered by the Romans during their expansion. Citizenship did not mean equality, as there was still social stratification (patricians versus plebeians), but it did mean "that an individual lived under the 'rule of law' and had a vested interest in his government." [2]
Following conquests, the Romans would engage in a process of cultural appropriation/assimilation. As polytheists, recognizing external gods was very simple. There were restrictions on what they could and could not do, and some land from the conquered territories was redistributed to Roman soldiers following Gaius Marius's reforms, but by and large the people would be left to themselves as long as they respected Roman sovereignty. Eventually, many of these conquered peoples saw the social and economic advantages of becoming Roman, even demanding the opportunity to do so from the central government in Rome.[3]
As a counter example, the Romans certainly engaged in an extermination of their long-time rivals, the Carthaginians, following the third Punic War. It could be argued that this was the earliest recorded genocide.[1] Rome famously (and apocryphally) salted the lands around the destroyed city to prevent it from ever being capable of supporting another society to challenge Rome. However, this was a response to a long-standing rivalry, not the typical territorial expansion.
[1] http://gsp.yale.edu/sites/default/files/first_genocide.pdf [2] http://www.ancient.eu/article/859/ [3] https://www.quora.com/Once-a-territory-had-been-conquered-how-did-the-Romans-treat-the-native-inhabitants
>Septimius Severus biopic
I agree. It would be nice to watch the ignorant implode when they are forced to acknowledge the fact that Septimius Severus was unequivocally caucasian. http://www.ancient.eu/uploads/images/358.jpg?v=1485681253
The Popol Vuh. It is a version of Maya cosmology (reconstructed after earlier writings were burned by the Dominicans, I believe). In the cosmology people are finally created from maize after a series of other, very unsatisfying attempts, which have always made me giggle:
"...Heart of sky...tries to make a giver of respect. Tries to make a giver of praise. Here is the new creation, made of mud and earth. It doesn't look very good."
http://www.criscenzo.com/jaguarsun/popolvuh.html
http://www.ancient.eu/Popol_Vuh/
Edit: mistakenly blamed the Jesuits for burning the earlier sacred texts. Mea culpa.
And you're using the word 'vassal' in the wrong sense. Vassal is the closest english word to describe the relationship between various empires of ancient Korea and Chinese, but as you can see from this article: http://www.ancient.eu/article/984/ Koreans and Korea as a country viewed itself as entirely independent country, and China rarely had chance to ever influence Korea's domestic politics.
Can you provide some source regarding Korean upper class (yangban) considering themselves as Chinese?
>TAX & INHERITANCE LAWS Augustus’ goal in restoring public monuments and reviving religion was not simply to renew faith and pride in the Roman Empire. Rather, he hoped that these steps would restore moral standards in Rome. Augustus also enacted social reforms as a way to improve morality. He felt particularly strong about encouraging families to have children and discouraging adultery. As such, he politically and financially rewarded families with three or more children, especially sons. This incentive stemmed from his belief that there were too few legitimate children born from “proper marriages.” On the other hand, he penalized unmarried men older than 38 years old by imposing on them an additional tax that others did not have to pay. They were also debarred from receiving inheritances and attending public games. Furthermore, the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus prohibited celibacy and childless marriages, as well as made marriage compulsory.
I look at it like the Roman Triumvirate, a delicate balance of power. If any one of the three attacks the other, even if successful, they are weakened from the fight and vulnerable to the third. So the three have left eachother alone for now. But with Oryx floating off to Saturn, the rules have changed. I am hoping that the next Hive Expansion is Savathun and Xivu Arath coming to the solar system to claim the dreanaught, and battling it out. The raid could be us getting in the middle of the fight, taking out one, then the other.
Interesting, as the image page for that piece says it's part of the Kansong Museum of the Fine Arts in Seoul. Tried poking around the Goryeo Celadon Musem website a bit to see if it's listed there but didn't have any luck. Did find a nice overview page talking about different styles of celadon decoration here though.
You joke, but if you take Herodotus for his word, this actually has historical reference:
>The Phoenicians and the Egyptians who had been assigned the task set about building their bridges (the Phoenicians using white flax and the Egyptians papyrus), taking Abydus as their starting point and directing their efforts towards the headland on the opposite coast – a distance of seven stades. They had just finished bridging the straits when a violent storm erupted which completely smashed and destroyed everything. This news made Xerxes furious. He ordered his men to give the Hellespont three hundred lashes and to sink a pair of shackles into the sea. I once heard that they also dispatched men to brand the Hellespont as well. Be that as it may, he did tell the men he had thrashing the sea to revile it in terms you would never hear from a Greek. “Bitter water,” they said, this is your punishment for wronging your master when he did no wrong to you. King Xerxes will cross you, with or without your consent. People are right not to sacrifice to a muddy, brackish stream like you!” So the sea was punished at his orders and he had the supervisors of the bridging of the Hellespont beheaded. The men assigned this grotesque task carried out their orders and another team of engineers managed to bridge the Hellespont (VII.34-36).
http://www.ancient.eu/Chocolate/ Ancient History Encyclopedia
As an expensive import then, chocolate was drunk mainly by the upper classes and consumed after meals, typically accompanied by the smoking of tobacco. It may have been enjoyed mixed with maize gruel by the poorer classes at important events such as weddings, but some scholars maintain that the pure chocolate drink was an exclusive status symbol of the nobility. Curiously, it could even be given to favoured sacrificial victims as a final treat before they departed this world, for example, at the annual Aztec festival of Panquetzaliztli held in honour of Huitzilopochtli.
While humanizing may not be the specific reason for it, there is a near historical basis to your idea. Greek hoplites for example, had various paintings on their shields, with many of their phalanxes probably being more colorful and diverse than say, a roman army, which would largely have a single design idea for their legionairre shields, though there were probably various versions and exceptions.
As for humanizing, it would very well be possible that personalized shields do just that. Back to the greek example, some greeks painted the head of Medusa on their Aspis which was said to have placed doubt or scared enemies (It was also a badass design). These shield designs definitely added some personalization to greek armies, although they were still, for the most part, similar in other departments.
All in all it would depend on the mindset of the main characters as well. IMO if you have a main character with constant doubts or questions, then a uniquely painted shield would be something that could most definitely cause him/her to question themselve mid battle, opening up themselves for the possibility of death. Accompanying this, if the main character was of a mindset of confidence, and you wanted to show him/her as having a weakness, then having them hesitate at the shield would be a great place to build on that character. There could also be the character who is mentally strong, unphased by designs on shields.
TL:DR- Yes it would humanize soldiers but it could also depend on the mindset and character development of the attacker if the humanization would cause them to hesitate or not.
im no historian, but there were a few ancient empires, maybe the hittites, the assyrians, both contemporaries to the egyptians, but dont quote me on that
Edit: i found this http://www.ancient.eu/Assyrian_Warfare/ which says that they ancient assyrians did have a standing army
this link talks about egypt, http://www.ancientmilitary.com/ancient-egypt-military.htm
and this one talks about the hitties having a standing army but i only skimmed the article, and did not see a date http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/whic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=WHIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&display-query=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Reference&dviSelectedPage=&am...
this is where mine comes from.
It's a fun coincidence that "Inanna" is made up of all of the same letters as my male first name, so it's like I've literally rearranged my male self into my female self! Perfect metaphor for transitioning, now that I think about it. =)
I always assumed Rainbow Quartz in "warrior mode" would look like a Greek Hoplite. What with the large shield and spear after all. Although, all other fusions have had they're weapons combined as opposed to having them both I guess.
This: People always talk about how you can't run in a Hauler (or T6/7/9) but those things are bulky, heavy and big. You're flying a fucking Spacebus... use it as a giant space trireme and ram them.
http://www.ancient.eu/uploads/images/266.png
The Roman Empire is one of those things where we have a map for almost every year. One thing to keep in mind for the 117 map is that this was before Diocletian so provinces are arranged differently.
Greco-Roman ships din't have gunpowder cannons, but they did have an assorted selection of impressive weapons. From ship-mounted ballistas, or ship-mounted scorpions (slower than the ballistas but devastating in force, they were able to sink Persian ships with one shoot during the Roman–Persian Wars) and fireball catapults to ships like the trireme which were engineered from the ground up for ramming naval warfare.
"Circuses" refers to the large arena where chariot games would've been played. So whether it's bread and games, circuses, or entertainment, it's all the same idea.
With regard to her being sent to the earth inside of a golden sphere, I think there's more of a Taoism Yin/Yang metaphor going on. Yin is feminine energy and Yang is masculine energy. There's a bit of Yin in every Yang and a bit of Yang in every Yin. Day and night, good and evil, etc. Duality...all that fuckin' shit
> actualy it would help even further. Getting opinions from two,three or more people is good for learning.
No, getting information from two, three or more citations / sources us good for learning.
Asking random people on reddit isn't learning. It's asking them to do your homework for you.
I'm not trying to be a dick - if you read the history of hieroglyphs, it will answer your questions, with provided sources, chapters and reference books.
http://www.ancient.eu/Egyptian_Hieroglyphs/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_hieroglyphs
20 minutes reading will get you your answers.
There are 4 dates for the supposed destruction, ranging from 48 BC to 643 AD, so you can take your pick of villain. I've also read that there quite possibly was no large-scale destruction, just the ravages of time and neglect.