The History Thread!

How did that traditional rule get started? The one that says "A wise man climbs Mt. Fuji once; a fool does it twice."

One more thing I want to add about slavery in ancient Greece and Rome: It must be pointed out that the ancient cultures had fundamentally different views on concepts such as ethnicity and race, focusing more on culture than appearance. That is why slaves' social stature was focused on more than whether they were of a different origin than their masters. Invicta had a good summary on what we do know about Roman views on the differences between various peoples.

So how did Napoleon die? Was it cancer that did it or was he assassinated with poison?

Edited by Demetrios on Mar 24th 2021 at 10:33:47 AM

According to modern studies, he died of stomach cancer and the large amounts of arsenic in his system were due to the glues and dyes of the time.

So today is the 200 year anniversary of Greece winning her freedom from the Ottoman Empire.

When it came to aristocracies, were titles treated like ranks? Would a baron, or freiherr (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freiherr) in German-speaking countries, have to kowtow to a count or graf (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graf)?

Kinda, depending on the period. The different titles were for a long time tied to feudal positions, meaning that someone who was the vassal of someone higher-ranked could still have vassals of his own. The higher aristocrats delegated responsibilities to the low aristocracy, while everybody is nominally under the king, even though kings were very dependent on the highest-ranking and/or richest land-owning aristocrats. It's mostly about personal loyalty between a liege lord and his various vassals, but a minor nobleman in charge of a small fiefdom would still have to show proper deference to any people higher up in the food-chain, even if they are not from the same country.

One of the reasons the different noble positions are ranked is because there is a military connection to their origins. For instance, the nomadic tribes entering Europe during the Migration Period had titles often based on how many warriors were under their direct responsibility, with a Khan/Khagan in charge of many noblemen. After taking charge of many lands these nomads became gradually sedentary and integrated into existing European societies, until their nobility's warrior culture was assimilated into what would become the Medieval feudal order.

But how did that go in 1871-1918 Imperial Germany? Take Lieppe: it's ruled by a prince or reichsfurst. Within that Principality or Furstentum, I assume there would nobles with lesser ranks and that the "chain of command" for lack of a better term would be this:

• Multiple lords or herren obey a baron or freiherr.
• Multiple barons or freiherren answer to a burgrave or burgraf.
• Multiple burgraves or burgraffen answer to a count or graf.
• Multiple counts or graffen (forgive me if I got the plural wrong) answering to the prince/reichsfurst.

Edited by HallowHawk on Mar 27th 2021 at 1:20:05 AM

My knowledge about that period in German history is admittedly a bit hazy and general, but I'd assume those rankings would be most important during different ceremonies. We need to take into account that a lot had changed with the social order after the French Revolution. By the time the various Germanies had been united the nobility still had lots of power and influence, but that was mostly due to individual aristocrats' roles within the military and civic organizations, or as big land-owners and businessmen. There was an obvious glass ceiling everywhere, especially in the military due to the aristocratic warrior-ideal, but a lot of the political and economic power in Europe had gradually shifted to people of bourgeoise origins. The aristocrats of different ranks did have to answer each other, at least in theory, but their old way of life was already starting to die out. That's why I'm a bit iffy about how serious people would have still been about that chain of command, but I guess that some very conservative-leaning districts would have taken the social order more seriously than people living in bigger cities.

Kind of a niche question, but anyone knows some medieval place names in Finland that aren't in use anymore?

Can't remember any specific examples off the top of my head, but in general demographics have affected placenames for centuries. For instance, if a population has a negligible amount of Swedish-speakers or none at all, then the Swedish name has in many cases been disused in modern documentation and forgotten about in casual use. Same goes for Finnish names if there are no Finnish-speakers for a long enough time, which has led to brand-new Finnish names given in the 1960's, when many local politicians wanted to get easy points from potential voters moving in from elsewhere. There are cases where the primary spoken language has not affected the name of a town or village, such as Haapajärvi, which had a Finnish name for centuries after it became unilingually Swedish, because the locals weren't bothered by it. There are also placenames of Sámi origin, which have been forgotten until the Swedish- and Finnish-speaking locals make up their own folk-etymology explanation for strange names like "Vasklot".

Ah, I see. I'm vaguely aware of some of the Swedish-derived place names (like Helsinki being originally founded by Swedish settlers from Hälsingland) as well as the Old Slavic/Russian-derived ones (like Turku being a cognate of the Russian torg). I was actually looking up some random geography references for a worldbuilding project when I noticed how many lakes there are in Karelia, which I suppose is why you have all the -järvi on the Finnish side and all the -ozero on the Russian side. That had me wonder how shifts in demographics and ruling groups affected the names we ended up with. And I'm also wondering how many Sámi place names out there disappeared over the centuries, or got assimilated into the dominant language while having their etymology obscured.

Edited by eagleoftheninth on Apr 2nd 2021 at 3:49:20 AM

The linguistic origin of place-names in Finland is a hotly debated subject, because there are plenty of nationalistic sentiments involved. It can get quite ugly if it's debated whether an old place-name has a Finnic origin (like Tavastian, Karelian, or any of the Sámi languages, etc.), Norse, or Russian. While the archeological evidence has gradually painted up an ever more dynamic picture of life in Finland during the Iron Age and Medieval period, all the way to the 19th century, it unfortunately does little to affect the popular discourse. Many people still like to cling to the nationalistic myth that Finns are the perpetual victim, because our culture is based on Misery Builds Character, meaning that we insist on having the worst lot of everybody else in Europe, just so that we can feel good about ourselves. For instance, there is one prominent historian who even claims that during the Swedish reign we've suffered more than the people of Congo during Leopold II's reign of terror, which just shows the ridiculous insecurities sometimes affecting historical debates here.

Edited by Mara999 on Apr 3rd 2021 at 1:42:10 PM

Watching this here video (which is very cool ) got me pondering. Was obsidian first used as jewelry or as a weapon? And who were the first people to use it as a weapon?

The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated today, 53 years ago.

In response to the violent murder of America's most prominent peaceful protester, many people responded with angry disillusionment and riots broke out across the nation from Baltimore to Chicago, Cincinnati to Kansas City.

Bobby Kennedy had just arrived in Indianapolis to give a speech as part of his presidential campaign and found out King had been killed as soon as he got there. Kennedy tossed out his intended speech and improvised a new one which I'm not equipped to describe so here it is:

Today is the anniversary of the first day of Battle of Shiloh, fought 159 years ago. Union forces near a small church called Shiloh in Tennessee under General Ulysses S Grant are taken by surprise in a morning attack launched by the rebel army under General Johnson. Initially it seems like a route, as the mostly fresh recruits that comprise Grant's army panic and flee from their camp as the rebels storm in. Grant manages to round up the fleeing men and reorganize them into fighting units and form a defensive line.

One area of the Union line covered in overgrowth and bramble holds its ground while the rest of the army falls back, and soon become surrounded on three sides. The rebels charge time and time again but are repulsed each time by the steadfast defenders. The constant ring of bullets crossing the Union holdout earn the area the nickname the Hornet's Nest. The Union defenders hold out for seven hours until a Confederate artillery bombardment is called in and one more charge destroys the position. Although the casualties are severe, their sacrifice has allowed the rest of Grant's army to fall back safely.

It's been a day of setbacks. Grant wasn't even with the army when the battle started, he didn't anticipate an attack and failed to set up a proper watch. The inexperience of the army showed in both the men and officers alike. One general led his men so badly they didn't even make it to the battlefield at all. The panic the army experienced almost made in collapse.

During the battle the Confederate General Johnson is killed after a bullet hit an artery in his leg. But overall the day seems to have gone good for the Confederates. The victory is an illusion however. Grant has not been driven off, but has set up a new position near the Tennessee River, where more Union troops are already on their way by ship. At night the gunboats already present fire at rebel position across the field, keeping them awake and miserable.

Even less pleasant for both sides is that its raining and the wounded and dying soldiers who had been left on the battlefield cry out all night, leaving the men on both sides with some lullabies of horror to sleep to.

Grant spends the night under a tree. When it started raining he noticed a farmhouse and made his way there to rest, but found that it had already been taken by the army medics for surgery and amputating limbs. Grant spends a minute listening to the screaming before going back to the tree. General Sherman, a corp commander serving under Grant, notices him and walks up to discuss the day.

"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?" Sherman says.

"Yes." Granted replies. "Lick 'em tomorrow, though."

Something I discovered recently: the bow and arrow were discovered and adopted in North America on four separate occasions — 12,000 BP, 4,500 BP, 2,400 BP and 1,300 BP. The earlier kinds lacked the power to bring down large animals, which left them as a secondary hunting weapon to the ubiquitous atlatl. Climate shifts brought changes in prey animal availability and migration patterns that ended the use of bows several times. That is, until roughly 800 CE, when the so-called "Asian war complex" was introduced to Alaska by way of the Chukchi people who inhabited the Bering Strait: sinew-backed recurve bows, small, pointed arrowheads and wrist guards. These technological innovations turned the bow into a lethal weapon of war, which soon spread down the continent and spurred the rise of fortifications to protect settlements from them.

Today is the 159th anniversary of the second and last day of the Battle of Shiloh. Having reorganized and assembled the reinforcements that came in last night, Grant turns the tables of the Confederate army (now under General PGT Beauregard) with a massive morning counter-attack that send the rebel army reeling off the battlefield they had just claimed the day before.

That doesn't last long though, as the rebels gather their wits soon enough and engage in a stubborn defense of what positions they still have. The two sides thrash each other with unusual severity. Union General Sherman says the two sides fought harder then they had yesterday and that the gunfire was the thickest he ever heard. The Union makes a point of recapturing the Hornet's Nest as the Confederate defenses crack. Beauregard eventually realizes that Grant has him outnumbered and outmatched. His hand forced, he orders a retreat, abandoning the field he and his men had fight for two days to claim.

Grant chooses not to pursue the rebels, citing the exhaustion of his men. Many of them were raw recruits and had never been in combat until the day before. The two days of fighting has left them nearly dead on their feet, many simply collapse as soon as the adrenaline rush passes over, others vomit where they stand from the strain on their bodies.

The Union is victorious and the ramifications are evident to those with a map. With the Confederates now forced to abandon the area, the rebellious state of Tennessee has lost most of it's west to Union control. More importantly, a large part of the vital trade and supply route that is the Mississippi River can now be reclaimed for the Union. For the South's part, their failure to destroy Grant's army before it could unite with other Union elements meant they were now facing an even stronger force down the line then the one they had fought the day before. Their position in untenable and they are forced to abandon large portions of one of their 11 states as well as all their plans for an invasion of the North.

Outside its immediate strategic consequences, the Battle of Shiloh strikes something deeper. Although it had already been a year since the American Civil War began, many on both sides were still optimistic that one great battle, presumably along the Atlantic coast, would end the fighting once and for all. Shiloh killed all such hopes. In a single battle more Americans had become casualties than had died in the entire Revolutionary War. The count was double that of either the War of 1812 or the Mexican-American War. What's more, Shiloh was essentially Middle-of-Nowhere, Tennesee, far beyond where anyone had expected a climactic battle to take place. Yet between April 6 and 7th, the small church had become the site of the largest battle ever fought on the North American continent at that time. I say at that time because within the next three years, Shiloh would be bumped down again and again and again until it was only the 9th bloodiest battle of the war. A war that, as of Shiloh, still saw no end in sight.

Both sides steeled themselves for the days ahead, some still hoping that a few more months will bring the end of the war. But as one Confederate put it:

"The South never smiled again after Shiloh."

Having just had some for dinner myself, this historical thought just entered my mind. Where and when were shish kebabs first cooked up? I keep hearing conflicting stories about it.

Outside of the various regional varieties, it is basically just a few bits of meat on a stick. That's why I think it is a dish that could have arisen in multiple places independently, because it is both simple and a practical way of storing the meat if you live a nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyle as a shepherd.

I like how every new book on Abraham Lincoln I've read feels the need to include a preface justifying its own existence. "Yeah, I know there's 16,000 other books on Lincoln, but this one is different! I swear!"

Anyone else notice that with other historical subjects?

I remember when I was a kid, I was confused that armies in the 18th Century had musicians marching alongside them as they went into battle, like in that one part of The Patriot. I thought “Who can think about listening to music at a time like that? :S” ^_^;;

The regimental musicians were actually an important part of the 18th century battlefield. The battlefield tactics of the time required soldiers to march in formation, maneuver, load their weapons and fire with a thoroughly robotic, mechanical precision, regardless of the carnage and terror ensuing around them. The pipers and drummers were there to make sure that they kept their steps to a regular cadence and approached danger with confidence.

The Medieval Masterpiece, the Book of Kells, Is Now Digitized & Put Online.

If you know nothing else about medieval European illuminated manuscripts, you surely know the Book of Kells. “One of Ireland’s greatest cultural treasures” comments Medievalists.net, “it is set apart from other manuscripts of the same period by the quality of its artwork and the sheer number of illustrations that run throughout the 680 pages of the book.” The work not only attracts scholars, but almost a million visitors to Dublin every year. “You simply can’t travel to the capital of Ireland,” writes Book Riot’s Erika Harlitz-Kern, “without the Book of Kells being mentioned. And rightfully so.”

The ancient masterpiece is a stunning example of Hiberno-Saxon style, thought to have been composed on the Scottish island of Iona in 806, then transferred to the monastery of Kells in County Meath after a Viking raid (a story told in the marvelous animated film The Secret of Kells). Consisting mainly of copies of the four gospels, as well as indexes called “canon tables,” the manuscript is believed to have been made primarily for display, not reading aloud, which is why “the images are elaborate and detailed while the text is carelessly copied with entire words missing or long passages being repeated.”

Its exquisite illuminations mark it as a ceremonial object, and its “intricacies,” argue Trinity College Dublin professors Rachel Moss and Fáinche Ryan, “lead the mind along pathways of the imagination…. You haven’t been to Ireland unless you’ve seen the Book of Kells.” This may be so, but thankfully, in our digital age, you need not go to Dublin to see this fabulous historical artifact, or a digitization of it at least, entirely viewable at the online collections of the Trinity College Library. (When you click on the previous link, make sure you scroll down the page.) The pages, originally captured in 1990, “have recently been rescanned,” Trinity College Library writes, using state of the art imaging technology. These new digital images offer the most accurate high resolution images to date, providing an experience second only to viewing the book in person.”

What makes the Book of Kells so special, reproduced “in such varied places as Irish national coinage and tattoos?” ask Professors Moss and Ryan. “There is no one answer to these questions.” In their free online course on the manuscript, these two scholars of art history and theology, respectively, do not attempt to “provide definitive answers to the many questions that surround it.” Instead, they illuminate its history and many meanings to different communities of people, including, of course, the people of Ireland. “For Irish people,” they explain in the course trailer above, “it represents a sense of pride, a tangible link to a positive time in Ireland’s past, reflected through its unique art.”

But while the Book of Kells is still a modern “symbol of Irishness,” it was made with materials and techniques that fell out of use several hundred years ago, and that were once spread far and wide across Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. In the video above, Trinity College Library conservator John Gillis shows us how the manuscript was made using methods that date back to the “development of the codex, or the book form.” This includes the use of parchment, in this case calf skin, a material that remembers the anatomical features of the animals from which it came, with markings where tails, spines, and legs used to be.

The Book of Kells has weathered the centuries fairly well, thanks to careful preservation, but it’s also had perhaps five rebindings in its lifetime. “In its original form,” notes Harlitz-Kern, the manuscript “was both thicker and larger. Thirty folios of the original manuscript have been lost through the centuries and the edges of the existing manuscript were severely trimmed during a rebinding in the nineteenth century.” It remains, nonetheless, one of the most impressive artifacts to come from the age of the illuminated manuscript, “described by some,” says Moss and Ryan, “as the most famous manuscript in the world.” Find out why by seeing it (virtually) for yourself and learning about it from the experts above.

For anyone interested in getting a copy of The Book of Kells in a nice print format, see The Book of Kells: Reproductions from the manuscript in Trinity College, Dublin.

Edited by eagleoftheninth on Apr 17th 2021 at 7:26:24 AM

Thanks for clearing that up for me. :)

Music is a very ancient tool in warfare, going back to the Bronze Age, at least. It has been used to signal the troops about which regiments are to advance, or retreat, as well as to set up a steady rhythm for soldiers to march in the right pace. Music is also an effective way to get your heart pumping and blood boiling, if you belong to a society with more individualistic tribal warfare instead of regimental fighting.

Oooh, that's good news. I visited Trinity College back in '08, but unfortunately it was right then not possible to get close enough to even look at the book.

Edited by Mara999 on Apr 17th 2021 at 8:13:08 PM