|
Why is Atlantis the Plato story everyone goes "That one must be real, let's find it?" If I wanted to believe in a Plato story, it'd be the Ring of Gyges. Think of how much fun you could have with an invisibility ring. The Ring of Gyges is equally credible as Atlantis.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 08:26 |
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Didn't they drastically reduce the silver content of their coins, leading to at least one bewildered and furious Emperor trying to understand why people thought old coins were worth more than new coins of the same denomination? It also created coins that fell apart very quickly with the passage of time, while older coins held their shape far better? They did drastically reduce the silver content. I haven't heard the story about the emperor but it wouldn't surprise me since there was little understanding of inflation at the time. Also, on the occasions where coins with lower silver content were minted and the standard was raised again (or most famously the Marc Antony legionary denarii with a lower silver content) were circulated like crazy. Nobody wanted to horde them since their silver content was lower than other coins that were worth the same. The coins with less silver should have been more hardy though. Silver is a soft metal relative to copper, and my thinking is that the more copper you had in the coin the less it should wear. Now once it's buried that copper is more reactive, so it might look worse, and the higher silver coins were probably hoarded more and circulated less, but as best I can figure a high copper coin should hold up better to circulation all else being equal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
euphronius posted:This is back a page but Carthage was a major state and empire that almost strangled Rome in its cradle. That's not really accurate (the last part I mean) since they didn't even rule the Phoenician homelands and weren't a continuation of a former empire. They were a huge world power and were Phoenecian though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Copper vs silver hits on couple of points. Many silver coins were probably used until they were worn to a nub. But silver is silver so they would get melted and used for something else, maybe just a new coin at se point. The silver coins we have are generally the ones people stashed away/burried and forgot about/died before they could retrieve. These are obviously in better shape as they were intentionally pulled from circulation. Copper finds tend to be worn, I dont know the numbers but copper being say 100 times harder doesnt matter if its handled a million times more as its your everyday walking around money for most of the population. The best examples we have were those that were also stashed away but as you said copper is reactive. So you get a patina which can either enhance or destroy the detail on a coin. Also there were a trabiljillion more copper coins than gold or silver so tbe numbers game says some (quite a lot) will make it through looking good. Cast_No_Shadow fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
euphronius posted:This is back a page but Carthage was a major state and empire that almost strangled Rome in its cradle. But did they call themselves the Phoenician Empire?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:They were a huge world power and were Phoenecian though. Ok. That's my point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 22:09
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:They did drastically reduce the silver content. I haven't heard the story about the emperor but it wouldn't surprise me since there was little understanding of inflation at the time. Also, on the occasions where coins with lower silver content were minted and the standard was raised again (or most famously the Marc Antony legionary denarii with a lower silver content) were circulated like crazy. Nobody wanted to horde them since their silver content was lower than other coins that were worth the same. Can I just say that this reminds me of this ridiculous video in which Ron Paul claims that this debasing of the currency under Diocletian is why we don't need a federal reserve and need the gold standard back. I'm not a huge Krugman lover, which leads to Paul Krugman saying 'I am not a defender of the economic policies of the emperor Diocletian'. What are people's favourite books about ancient Greece and Rome, respectively?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Ok. That's my point. They were established by the Phoenicians originally and paid tribute to the home Phoenician city states early on. But then they became their own thing in their own region. They never really had control over the eastern Mediterranean coastal cities that were the original Phoenician city states. This is why historians refer to it as the Carthaginian Empire and not the Phoenician Empire, despite what Carthage may have called itself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
This is like the whole Byzantine Empire Debate. Fine call it the Western Phoenician Empire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:What are people's favourite books about ancient Greece and Rome, respectively? About Rome? "Hannibal Ante Portas" (1960) by Slavomir Nastasijević, by far. That book absolutely amazed 12 year old me, and is the main reason why I'm interested in ancient history today. It uses the setting of the Second Punic War to create a really memorable set of scenes and characters, guiding you through the events of the era, and making you really feel like you're there - watching over young Hannibal's shoulder as he makes his oath to hate Rome, pushing through the crowd to watch Hamilcar's fleet set sail for Spain, standing on the walls of Saguntum and watching the torches slowly light up in Hannibal's camp, sitting in the Carthaginian Senate as the senators mockingly accept Fabius' offer of war, freezing your rear end off in the Alps as you watch an elephant tumble off a cliff, laughing alongside Longus as he prepares to swiftly crush the upstart Punic general, taking a stroll with Hannibal and his generals as they look at the bloody aftermath of Trebia, and so many more... The book generally focuses on 3 main points of view. The first is, obviously, centered around Hannibal and his army. Hannibal is mainly an antagonist, although one whose courage, wile, and brilliance the book encourages you to respect. The second is centered on Rome, and is mostly about the various people who fought against Hannibal, and either their stupidity, despair as they're forced to walk to their doom due to other people's stupidity, or grim determination to endure (with the young Scipio generally present in the background, earning his reputation as a leader, watching and learning), although it also focuses on the general Roman populace every once in a while. The third is centered around an entirely fictional warband that fights against Hannibal, and serves to give the reader insight into the views of various smaller factions caught in the war. It centers around a renegade Turdetani chieftain, his warriors, the few remaining survivors of Saguntum, and his entourage composed of various people he encounters during his journeys across Spain and Italy, generally hanging around wherever Hannibal's army is and striking back against it in whatever small way he can. It ends with a couple of pages going 'here's what really happened', giving you an overview of the war based on the historical facts known at the time. The book and the overview really do a great job of telling you almost enough, and making you want to know more about the people and events involved. Like, what were the Spaniards like when they weren't caught in the crossfire? How did Rome become a state that can manage to survive crushing defeat after crushing defeat only to come out on top in the end? Who were Syphax and Massinisa, and how did their conflict come to be and influence Numidia? And so many more questions. I spent a few months trying to find books on the subject, some with success (Rome), some with less (Spaniards), some with none (Numidians). I'm sure the book has quite a number of factual errors (it was written in 1960 after all), and obviously has fictional elements, but I still consider it the best historical novel I've read so far. drat it, now I want to read the book again. my dad fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
euphronius posted:This is like the whole Byzantine Empire Debate. Better comparison would be arguing that Alexander's empire should be called the Greek Empire. Macedonian Empire is a better name because it was a specific group of Greeks, not the Greeks as a whole. Macedonians were Greeks, but Greeks aren't Macedonian. Carthaginians were Phoenician, but Phoenicians aren't Carthaginians.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:What are people's favourite books about ancient Greece and Rome, respectively? I haven't read nearly as many as I'd like, but I absolutely adore Suetonius' 12 Caesars. It's this wonderfully gossipy book detailing the qualities and foibles of the first 12 Caesars (including Julius), and the entire thing is worth it for the Tiberius chapter alone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Maybe one day someone will find a copy of Lives of Famous Whores. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:Maybe one day someone will find a copy of Lives of Famous Whores. I like to think it's been sitting in some European aristocrat's private library somewhere for the last 1000 years and we'll only find it when they run out of money and are forced to sell up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Octy posted:I like to think it's been sitting in some European aristocrat's private library somewhere for the last 1000 years and we'll only find it when they run out of money and are forced to sell up. Pssh, you know the pope has, like, three illustrated copies stashed away in the Papal library. With notes, addendums, and phone numbers listed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Can I just say that this reminds me of this ridiculous video in which Ron Paul claims that this debasing of the currency under Diocletian is why we don't need a federal reserve and need the gold standard back. I'm not a huge Krugman lover, which leads to Paul Krugman saying 'I am not a defender of the economic policies of the emperor Diocletian'. Sorry, it sounds like you not liking Krugman caused Krugman to say something? That's kind of confusingly worded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 03:06
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Sorry, it sounds like you not liking Krugman caused Krugman to say something? That's kind of confusingly worded. Apologies, my brain clearly farted. By which I mean, I tried to go back and add a clause somewhere and then didn't go back to fix the sentence. Just scratch the not Krugman lover bit (though I'm not) and pretend it's one long sentence. Libertarian love of ancient Rome has to be one of the weirdest forms of love of the classical world.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, what does history tells us about the North American continent before columbus? I know there were some civilization here but I am not really aware of ruins, cities and the likes. Somehow, I really doubt they all lived in tents like movies try to depict them. The only major sites I am personally aware of a pretty much all cliff dwellings. Were there major cities that left ruins like on pretty much all other continents? If not, do we have any idea why there isn't?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
Google Cahokia. And the Aztecs were North American
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Several. I dont know nearly enough to go into detail, but Central America had the Olmecs who were settled enough to carve giant stone heads, and north america had the Mound builders in the South East, who build massive artificial hills 1000 years before the Great Pyramids were constructed. The areas around Kentucky and Ohio also had cultures who built their own mounds and also lived in fort-villages. As far as I know there were cities like these up till European contact caused small pox to kill off 90% of their population; at which point they went WELP I GUESS ITS BACK TO SQUARE ONE, THANKS WHITEY which reduced the scale of their civilization to what people popularly think of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Google Cahokia. And the Aztecs were North American I apologize, I should have been more precise in my request. When I said North America, I was excluding Mexico and the southern part of the US. I meant more in the area of the middle to north US, and Canada. I'm currently reading about the site you mentioned. Its very interesting so far and I had never heard about it. My knowledge of north american history is close to nil. I only know a little bit about the french/anglo colonization period.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Dalael posted:I apologize, I should have been more precise in my request. When I said North America, I was excluding Mexico and the southern part of the US. I meant more in the area of the middle to north US, and Canada. Cahokia was part of the Mississipian Culture generally. The Wiki should be good background.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
It really really really depends on where you're talking about. You're going to end up with groups as diverse as the Inuit, Micmac, Haida, Tsenacommacah, Cherokee and Iroquois. There's simultaneously a lot of information (there are many ethnic groups) and huge gaps in our knowledge (no written records). What can be very generally said about North America before Columbus is that it was well populated and the people there had developed a diverse number of ways to benefit from their environment. I'm sorry to give such a general answer, it really depends on where in North America. I strongly recommend reading Charles C. Mann's 1491.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
Testikles posted:It really really really depends on where you're talking about. You're going to end up with groups as diverse as the Inuit, Micmac, Haida, Tsenacommacah, Cherokee and Iroquois. There's simultaneously a lot of information (there are many ethnic groups) and huge gaps in our knowledge (no written records). What can be very generally said about North America before Columbus is that it was well populated and the people there had developed a diverse number of ways to benefit from their environment. I'm sorry to give such a general answer, it really depends on where in North America. I strongly recommend reading Charles C. Mann's 1491. I'm aware that plenty of civilization lived everywhere throughout North America during different periods. What I'm wondering is, their level of development. I find it curious that none of them seemed to have reached the level of development reached by the Greeks, Persians, Egyptiens, Incas, Mayas and so many ancient civilizations... and I wonder why that may be. Before I read about the site Arglebargle III told me to look for, I was not aware of any major city. And even that one seems the exception rather than the rule. I haven't yet had the opportunity to read about the Mississipian Culture, sure maybe there is more. One thing is, I'm impressed by the sheer amount of work that much have been involved to create those mounds. It may not be as technical as building a pyramid or temple, but moving 55 million cubic feet of earth must be no easy task for anyone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
sullat posted:He wan't perfect, I believe he screwed up the exchange rates between silver and gold and drove all the silver out of England. Neal Stephenson would have you believe that this was a sophisticated plot to scour the world for King Solomon's gold, but it could easily have also been carelessness. I'd have to look it up again, but IIRC the problem why he was put in charge in the first place was that more than 20 % of all silver coins in circulation in Britain were fake, meaning that nobody trusted a British silver coin any more. Genuine silver coins were melted down and more and more moved to France and as far as China, as basically every other kind of silver mint was more stable and trustworthy than the British stuff. He did indeed gently caress around with the gold/silver exchange rate, moving Britain from the Silver standard to the Gold standard, which drove them crazy in the short run, moving even more silver out of the country (which made the main heist of Stephenson's books possible), but he made the British silver coins trusted again, which in the long run stabilized them back to not only a realistic exchange rate, but also made it a trusted currency again. To get back on topic again: What does everyone think about Hadrian abandoning Trajan's expansion to the East, into Parthian territory? Would holding it and fortifying the new eastern provinces have broken the Parthian hold on the Silk Road (which seems to have been Trajan's long-term plan), meaning tremendous riches for Rome in the long run? Or would the re-emerging unified Parthia after the weakness during Trajan's rule have taken back the provinces anyway? Would the Antonine plague and the troubles Marcus Aurelius had at the Danube and the counter-Emperor in Syria have made the whole thing moot anyway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
Dalael posted:I'm aware that plenty of civilization lived everywhere throughout North America during different periods. What I'm wondering is, their level of development. I find it curious that none of them seemed to have reached the level of development reached by the Greeks, Persians, Egyptiens, Incas, Mayas and so many ancient civilizations... and I wonder why that may be. How do you define "Advanced"? To use your examples, what did they accomplish that the Maya, Olmec, or Pueblos didn't? North American civilization had pyramids by the dozens, astronomy and the mathematics to follow, and large cities (that are hard to excavate given many werent made of stone and have a suburb on top of them now).
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:How do you define "Advanced"? To use your examples, what did they accomplish that the Maya, Olmec, or Pueblos didn't? North American civilization had pyramids by the dozens, astronomy and the mathematics to follow, and large cities (that are hard to excavate given many werent made of stone and have a suburb on top of them now). I don't mean advanced in the technological sense. I'm mostly curious about level of urban development that was reached in North America. Is there a reason why stone was not used more than it was in the same way many other civilization had? I can 'assume' that wood was plentiful and was most likely the easiest ressource to find, but did they not find good reasons to use stones? Edit: I was also under the impression that there was not really any large cities compared to what has been seen in europe/north africa during antiquity. But as I said, I know almost nothing of North American history. Dalael fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
Dalael posted:I don't mean advanced in the technological sense. I'm mostly curious about level of urban development that was reached in North America. Is there a reason why stone was not used more than it was in the same way many other civilization had? I can 'assume' that wood was plentiful and was most likely the easiest ressource to find, but did they not find good reasons to use stones? Fundamentally it was an issue of population density as a function of climate. The vast majority of people lived in South and Central America, which meant that to get to the fertile region of North America they needed to first cross the deserts that were in the way. Who wants to walk through Arizona, or Texas, or Southern California? The one exception was Florida, which was close enough to the Caribbean that people could island hop their way there (rather than crossing the entire Gulf of Mexico in one go, or sailing up the coast of the Atlantic/Pacific and then striking inland hoping for good land) but it was mostly just a terrible swamp. As a result, most estimates find that only about 10% of the entire New World population, including the hardy folks living up in Canada, lived in North America. edit: Indeed, many of the anthropological and archeological models of the indigenous settlement of the Americas posit that Paleo-Indians largely avoided and bypassed North America, despite initially coming over via the Bering Strait, simply because settlement was so difficult. Most sailed down the coast all the way to Central America, and were still slowly populating the continent when their European cousins followed them across the sea 15,000 years later. Kaal fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
Also, when the first Europeans started sailing up and down the eastern seaboard, there were apparently indigenous people everywhere. While apparently not particularly urbanized, the European explorers sure seemed to think there were tons of them, to the point where landing was difficult to impossible, because the locals would come chase them off. I think it was Verrazano who once wound up trading with locals by passing goods back and forth from his ship via a rope secured to the shore. The extent of what sort of urbanized society might have existed in the Mississippi valley isn't really known. There was clearly an urban group there, but they completely vanished between European expeditions, and there hasn't really been a lot of effort invested in looking for archealogical evidence. Really you just need to go read 1491. But for gods sake don't buy 1423, lest you ruin the thread again. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 08:49
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Also, when the first Europeans started sailing up and down the eastern seaboard, there were apparently indigenous people everywhere. While apparently not particularly urbanized, the European explorers sure seemed to think there were tons of them, to the point where landing was difficult to impossible, because the locals would come chase them off. I think it was Verrazano who once wound up trading with locals by passing goods back and forth from his ship via a rope secured to the shore. I'll look for the first book you recommended. As for the 2nd one, after checking it out, it holds no interest to me. I can only suppose that Paul Chiasson took his ideas from there, considering he's claiming the same thing. Also, my intent originally was definitely not to poo poo up the thread. It just turned out that way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 09:38
|
|
|
Dalael posted:I apologize, I should have been more precise in my request. When I said North America, I was excluding Mexico and the southern part of the US. I meant more in the area of the middle to north US, and Canada. I made a longer post about Mississippian sites this morning but my phone ate it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 11:00
|
|
|
I think it's useful to remember that old world agriculture was really dependent on metallurgy and work animals, which North America did not have to anywhere near the same degree. Without iron tools and oxen there's not a lot of incentive to clear and plow the old growth forests of the eastern US. And the west is a lot worse; the great plains were impossible to farm until the steel plow in the 19th century. Intensive agriculture was sporadic in North America mostly because there wasn't a great return on investment without some critical technologies that old world people have taken for granted since the late neolithic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Fine call it the Western Phoenician Empire. Empire or not, thanks everyone for the stuff about the Phoenicians. I always come into this thread wondering about stuff, but I don't know enough to know what questions to ask. Like right now, I'm curious about the Ubaid period in Mesopotamia, but I can't think of a good question to start it off. I'm just trying to get a sense for how these people lived and what's left of them. I hear they had sailing and villages and trading and stuff, farming but no irrigation. Did they have any kind of government? Religion? I guess of course they had religion but do/can we know anything about it? What were these villages like? I can't think of a way to be less vague.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 11:33
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I made a longer post about Mississippian sites this morning but my phone ate it. Phone posting is always the worst. I thank you for the attempt. Arglebargle III posted:I think it's useful to remember that old world agriculture was really dependent on metallurgy and work animals, which North America did not have to anywhere near the same degree. Without iron tools and oxen there's not a lot of incentive to clear and plow the old growth forests of the eastern US. And the west is a lot worse; the great plains were impossible to farm until the steel plow in the 19th century. Intensive agriculture was sporadic in North America mostly because there wasn't a great return on investment without some critical technologies that old world people have taken for granted since the late neolithic. When you say "without iron tools...", do you mean none at all , or it simply was not widespread in north america? Was there even the use of any types of metal, like copper or bronze?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 11:35
|
|
|
I seem to remember copper (which is easy to smelt) being the most commonly worked metal in North America but this really isn't my area. But no simple iron tools just weren't made in NA because producing iron requires smelting technologies they didn't have. Specifically smelting iron ore requires specialized furnaces that get very hot. Copper ore can be smelted in a hot campfire.
Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 12:27 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 12:23
|
|
|
Ironworking was one of the things at L'Anse aux Meadows that proved it was a Viking settlement. That technology just didn't exist in the Americas. As for why, I dunno. You could equally validly ask why Europeans did build in stone. It's not like that's the default--most East Asian civilizations also built primarily in wood, which is a major reason why there are very few genuinely old buildings in East Asia. Building in stone isn't really a measure of advancement. If you were using it that way, you'd have to argue that ancient China was not an advanced civilization, which is patently absurd and immediately proves stonework doesn't cut it as a sign of technological achievement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 12:33
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:As for why, I dunno. You could equally validly ask why Europeans did build in stone. It's not like that's the default--most East Asian civilizations also built primarily in wood, which is a major reason why there are very few genuinely old buildings in East Asia. Building in stone isn't really a measure of advancement. If you were using it that way, you'd have to argue that ancient China was not an advanced civilization, which is patently absurd and immediately proves stonework doesn't cut it as a sign of technological achievement. Equally, it's something some civilizations start doing really early, before a lot of hallmarks of advanced civilization. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 12:47 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
Yep. Real life isn't Civ, there's no tech tree. I would bet all these questions could be answered in theory, but a lot of them would require access to material we will never get. Writing from civilizations that didn't have it, detailed knowledge of environmental conditions 3,000 years ago that might explain one decision over another, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
What kind of sanitation did ancient Chinese cities have?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 08:26 |
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:What kind of sanitation did ancient Chinese cities have? The North Korean Kim family are a throwback. Back then people of East Asian origin didn't pee or poop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 15:57
|
|
