Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 9th, 2017, 05:25 PM   #1071
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Chalfont, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,555

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kartir View Post
Do skeletons not shrink with age?
Burials from civilian graveyards are possibly misleading.

There were no ethnic Vikings. Dark age Scandinavians were ethnic Norse or Swedes or Danes. Being a viking was a profession.

Egil's saga tells how when Egil Skallagrimsson was 7 years old he quarreled with another boy and killed him. Egil's mother said that with Egil's personality he should be a viking hen he grew up and he did sometimes go on viking raids.

People who became vikings or berserkers or royal warriors may have had unusual personalities compared to most Scandinavians. And possibly they might have averaged a little bit bigger and stronger than the average Scandinavian or average European.
MAGolding is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 9th, 2017, 05:41 PM   #1072
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Chalfont, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,555

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taharqa View Post
Macedonian Empire, Seleucid Empire, Roman Empire, British Empire, French Empire, Habsburg Empire, Spanish Empire, Austrian Empire (or Austria-Hungary), Portuguese Empire, Dutch Empire, Belgian Empire and German Empire.
From one point of view the only empire is a Roman Empire.

Thus the only European empires were the Roman Empire and its various off shoots and continuations such as the Gallic Empire, the Palmyrene Empre, the Brittanic Empire, the western Roman Empire, the eastern Roman or "Byzantine" empire, the Holy Roman Empire, The Empire of the Bulgarians and the Romans, the empire of the Serbs and the Romans, the Empire of Romania or Latin Empire of Constantinople, the Nicaene Empire, the Empire of Trebizond, and the Empire of Thessalonika.

By this standard all other so called empires in European could be called anti empires or inferiums. They would include Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, the first and second French Empires, the Austrian Empire, the first and second Haitian Empire, the first and second Mexican Empire, the German Empire and the Indian Empire.

The European colonial empires of Spain, Portugal, France, Britain, Belgium the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, etc. can be called thalassocracies or colonicracies.

Non Europeans realms can be called semi empires or quasi empires or empire equivalents depending on ho much they resemble the Roman Empire.

Last edited by MAGolding; January 9th, 2017 at 05:48 PM.
MAGolding is offline  
Old January 10th, 2017, 01:28 PM   #1073

notgivenaway's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: UK
Posts: 4,666

England had no good kings or advanced culture pre-1066.

Nonsense! the essence of the English state and culture, which the Normans only augmented and little else, was laid down by kings even before Alfred the Great or the Wessex line. Offa was Mercian, and it was a Kentish King who helped introduce Christianity (with St. Augustine the first Archbishop of Canterbury). The Normans continued traditions and practices that existed for centuries before.

Africans were always complicit in the slave trade. the King of Kongo at one point opposed it, as did the Benin Kingdom.
notgivenaway is offline  
Old January 10th, 2017, 02:52 PM   #1074
Academician
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 69

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAGolding View Post
From one point of view the only empire is a Roman Empire.

Thus the only European empires were the Roman Empire and its various off shoots and continuations such as the Gallic Empire, the Palmyrene Empre, the Brittanic Empire, the western Roman Empire, the eastern Roman or "Byzantine" empire, the Holy Roman Empire, The Empire of the Bulgarians and the Romans, the empire of the Serbs and the Romans, the Empire of Romania or Latin Empire of Constantinople, the Nicaene Empire, the Empire of Trebizond, and the Empire of Thessalonika.

By this standard all other so called empires in European could be called anti empires or inferiums. They would include Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, the first and second French Empires, the Austrian Empire, the first and second Haitian Empire, the first and second Mexican Empire, the German Empire and the Indian Empire.

The European colonial empires of Spain, Portugal, France, Britain, Belgium the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, etc. can be called thalassocracies or colonicracies.

Non Europeans realms can be called semi empires or quasi empires or empire equivalents depending on ho much they resemble the Roman Empire.
How on earth can the colonies of the 19th and 20th century be called thalassocracies? The Belgian Colonial Empire for example was huge and only had a very small coast. It was an empire, it wasn't called one, but that's what it was. Many different ethnic groups living in Congo, Rwanda and Burundi (not to mention concession zones in Tangiers and Tianjin).

Click the image to open in full size.
Taharqa is offline  
Old January 11th, 2017, 10:27 AM   #1075

weber the weaver's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: New Zealand
Posts: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taharqa View Post
How on earth can the colonies of the 19th and 20th century be called thalassocracies? The Belgian Colonial Empire for example was huge and only had a very small coast. It was an empire, it wasn't called one, but that's what it was. Many different ethnic groups living in Congo, Rwanda and Burundi (not to mention concession zones in Tangiers and Tianjin).

Click the image to open in full size.
The Belgian Congo was run in its early years as a business therefore making it inexpensive and exploitable.
weber the weaver is offline  
Old January 11th, 2017, 10:47 AM   #1076

Marcellus's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2014
From: Portugal
Posts: 399

Catherine the Great was a nymphomaniac.

She liked to date younger men, but it was one at a time and the affairs were long. Every serious biography of Catherine makes it clear that the orgy charges were false or unproven. Much hatred against her comes from the Poles and Frederick of Prussia.
Marcellus is online now  
Old January 11th, 2017, 10:47 AM   #1077

seneschal's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2015
From: California
Posts: 983

Quote:
Originally Posted by notgivenaway View Post
England had no good kings or advanced culture pre-1066.
Honestly, I have never heard of that misconception.
seneschal is offline  
Old January 11th, 2017, 07:03 PM   #1078
Academician
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 69

Quote:
Originally Posted by weber the weaver View Post
The Belgian Congo was run in its early years as a business therefore making it inexpensive and exploitable.
Please learn your history, Leopold II lost a lot of money on the colony in the first few years, it was only after he started exploiting rubber trees that money started flowing in. To say it was inexpensive is ludicrous.

And none of what you said excludes it from being an empire anyway. And in the fifties Belgian Congo was a model colony, with the best education on the continent. I dare say Congo in the 1950s was a much nicer place to live in than Congo nowadays. The major flaw however was that it was a very paternalistic colony, the Congolese people had zero experience in self-governance and that bit them in the ass when independence was granted (too quickly). They should have steadily been given more democratic power until they were prepared to rule over themselves without outside help. I hate how Western powers always try to force democracy on other countries, even to this day, it simply doesn't work that way. European countries didn't democratize over-night... Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan are prime examples of countries that are now worse off thanks to American interference and "democracy". Syria will be the next in line.

Mainland China is smart for not being a democracy yet. An autocracy can be incredibly advantageous for developing countries. Just compare China with India to see for yourselves.
Taharqa is offline  
Old January 11th, 2017, 11:06 PM   #1079

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 5,731

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taharqa View Post
Please learn your history, Leopold II lost a lot of money on the colony in the first few years, it was only after he started exploiting rubber trees that money started flowing in. To say it was inexpensive is ludicrous.

And none of what you said excludes it from being an empire anyway. And in the fifties Belgian Congo was a model colony, with the best education on the continent. I dare say Congo in the 1950s was a much nicer place to live in than Congo nowadays. The major flaw however was that it was a very paternalistic colony, the Congolese people had zero experience in self-governance and that bit them in the ass when independence was granted (too quickly). They should have steadily been given more democratic power until they were prepared to rule over themselves without outside help. I hate how Western powers always try to force democracy on other countries, even to this day, it simply doesn't work that way. European countries didn't democratize over-night... Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan are prime examples of countries that are now worse off thanks to American interference and "democracy". Syria will be the next in line.

Mainland China is smart for not being a democracy yet. An autocracy can be incredibly advantageous for developing countries. Just compare China with India to see for yourselves.
Paternalistic eh? The Belgian Congo is often held up as the most brutal example of colonial rule of all the European powers in Africa.

I too hate this trying to force democracy on unsuitable places.
johnincornwall is offline  
Old January 12th, 2017, 12:19 AM   #1080

Tulius's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2016
From: Portugal
Posts: 2,472

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taharqa View Post
I dare say Congo in the 1950s was a much nicer place to live in than Congo nowadays.
I saw this line of thinking in the words of the Portuguese “retornados” (settlers that came to Portugal after the independence of Angola and Mozambique). They usually say that the life was so good in those colonies and now they only have poverty, civil wars and corruption.

They usually forget that the life was good for them and not to the majority of the population. So it was natural that those segments of the population that were excluded from the “nicer place to live” wanted more…
Tulius is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
irritating, misconceptions



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Common Historical Misconceptions/Myths Alex III General History 120 February 25th, 2017 05:46 PM
Historical misconceptions created by the media Naomasa298 Art and Cultural History 35 February 26th, 2015 04:33 PM
your historical misconceptions oshron General History 74 September 30th, 2014 09:35 PM
5 historical misconceptions rundown Emperor Trajan Learning History 6 November 15th, 2013 06:14 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.