World History Discussion

[Kabalisto Koga]

Depends on whether you consider the Palingenesis and the consequence ripple that led to WW1 a consequence of the Revolution or a reaction to it. You can tie pretty much any two events in history this way if you go deep enough.

The 19th and 20th century would certainly have been a lot different without the American Revolution, though. Among other things.

- - - Updated - - -



No Byzantine Empire, no sale. I'd definitely like to see the Renaissance up close.

About the Byzantine do you know abouut it nnearere or just surfce ?

- - - Updated - - -

Basically- every fucking kid that watches too much oversimplified and thinks they're hot shit and then goes posting on reddit about how much hot shit they think they are as a result of their dwindling attention span and lack of interpretative skills seems to go on and on about rome and world war 1 and 2. Does this happen in academia as well?

honestly i havve more in depth loocked at their history and am still greatly fascinated about them as they were basically the Root of today Europe .

[Ideofago]

I see your point and it makes sense, I just don't care that much about Europe.

[Five_X]

Most current Roman scholarship focuses on reinterpreting ancient sources and using modern technology (like DNA analysis) and archaeological finds to revisit the flawed work of mid-20th century historians. One of the core problems of Classical studies broadly is that it predates the formal discipline of history, so you've got millennia of mostly primary source document analysis which is responsible for a lot of myth-making about Rome in particular. Historians used to take Livy's works very literally, for example. One of my professors from when I was doing my undergraduate was very cutting-edge in this respect, so I feel pretty lucky in getting a kind of front-row seat to the revision of Roman history. Sadly, a lot of that stuff - despite being very interesting! - doesn't make it into popular history books, let alone textbooks, so old mid-century myths endure and are reproduced now by HistoryTubers. It's made more difficult by the fact that a lot of the good stuff is buried in obscure articles and academic texts. You really have to have a research-oriented mindset to find them.

Being Canadian, WW1 and 2 figure very large in any university's history department here, so I also get to peek closely at what they're doing over there. A lot of it remains military-focused history, about the battles and the leaders and stuff, but from new perspectives and with new questions and theories. I volunteered to represent my university's history department in their usual open house events for highschoolers, and you still get the odd kid here and there who's overly excited about tank battles and all that. WW2 especially is the locus of national myth-making for countries around the world, so even good revisionist work being done today gets overshadowed by popular history. I think part of the problem is that the wars are such massive topics that if you have a general university course on them, it won't cover things in enough specific detail to dispel a lot of myths. These days the Eastern Front for example (the only example from WW2 I really know much about....) gets a lot more attention popularly than it used to, but the big overviews still tend to emphasise the big battles and Stalin and the generals and the obviously exciting stuff. Roman history isn't quite the same anymore, since even a general overview course on Roman history necessarily dispels a lot of myths simply because of how much Roman history has been fundamentally renegotiated.

So, in other words, for Roman history academia has moved vastly beyond what's usually parroted still in popular histories and on YouTube. For WW1 and 2 (mostly 2) it's harder to do so, since different countries still have so much invested in the war culturally that there's no real "international" history of the war yet. Plus, a lot of historians simply don't engage with the politics and events of the war per se, instead examining how the war has been remembered to the present, or the nature of the societies and cultures that went into the war and how it changed them. I think if you're looking for the most interesting and innovative revisionist history on WW1 at least, you're best off looking at historians studying Austria-Hungary currently. There's a whole host of them and they're very active, but Pieter Judson is the most accessible and best-known of them.

[Kabalisto Koga]

Five_X, are rome and WWI-II as much of a soy redditor subject in actual history academic society as reddit? Also, why did the fixation even begin? Lastly, what about the greeks?

i just now saw this mesaage , at one point were the Romans basically THe Greek 2.0 as the Roman society were increasingly hellenised with the time like many society trends had come from america to europe . As if you are interested there were many discussion withhin the old roman nobles and intelectuals about the integrity of the Roman culture against the greek influences .

[SirGauoftheSquareTable]

Most current Roman scholarship focuses on reinterpreting ancient sources and using modern technology (like DNA analysis) and archaeological finds to revisit the flawed work of mid-20th century historians. One of the core problems of Classical studies broadly is that it predates the formal discipline of history, so you've got millennia of mostly primary source document analysis which is responsible for a lot of myth-making about Rome in particular. Historians used to take Livy's works very literally, for example. One of my professors from when I was doing my undergraduate was very cutting-edge in this respect, so I feel pretty lucky in getting a kind of front-row seat to the revision of Roman history. Sadly, a lot of that stuff - despite being very interesting! - doesn't make it into popular history books, let alone textbooks, so old mid-century myths endure and are reproduced now by HistoryTubers. It's made more difficult by the fact that a lot of the good stuff is buried in obscure articles and academic texts. You really have to have a research-oriented mindset to find them.

Being Canadian, WW1 and 2 figure very large in any university's history department here, so I also get to peek closely at what they're doing over there. A lot of it remains military-focused history, about the battles and the leaders and stuff, but from new perspectives and with new questions and theories. I volunteered to represent my university's history department in their usual open house events for highschoolers, and you still get the odd kid here and there who's overly excited about tank battles and all that. WW2 especially is the locus of national myth-making for countries around the world, so even good revisionist work being done today gets overshadowed by popular history. I think part of the problem is that the wars are such massive topics that if you have a general university course on them, it won't cover things in enough specific detail to dispel a lot of myths. These days the Eastern Front for example (the only example from WW2 I really know much about....) gets a lot more attention popularly than it used to, but the big overviews still tend to emphasise the big battles and Stalin and the generals and the obviously exciting stuff. Roman history isn't quite the same anymore, since even a general overview course on Roman history necessarily dispels a lot of myths simply because of how much Roman history has been fundamentally renegotiated.

So, in other words, for Roman history academia has moved vastly beyond what's usually parroted still in popular histories and on YouTube. For WW1 and 2 (mostly 2) it's harder to do so, since different countries still have so much invested in the war culturally that there's no real "international" history of the war yet. Plus, a lot of historians simply don't engage with the politics and events of the war per se, instead examining how the war has been remembered to the present, or the nature of the societies and cultures that went into the war and how it changed them. I think if you're looking for the most interesting and innovative revisionist history on WW1 at least, you're best off looking at historians studying Austria-Hungary currently. There's a whole host of them and they're very active, but Pieter Judson is the most accessible and best-known of them.

I see. Any good sources on new Roman history, and also Austria-Hungary?

[Five_X]

No-one ever thinks of the Etruscans...

I see. Any good sources on new Roman history, and also Austria-Hungary?

It all depends on what you're looking for. Rome is very big, so for specialist history it's divided into lots of different eras and subjects. Broadly though the Cambridge Companion series is pretty good since they're basically compilations of a bunch of articles by historians: https://www.cambridge.org/core/what-...dge-companions

For Austria-Hungary, Pieter Judson's The Habsburg Empire. A New History is the best modern history. My favourite, though, is and remains Edward Crankshaw's The Fall of the House of Habsburg.

[SirGauoftheSquareTable]

Austria-Hungary is just so interesting because it felt ahead and behind its time all at once.

[Kabalisto Koga]

Most current Roman scholarship focuses on reinterpreting ancient sources and using modern technology (like DNA analysis) and archaeological finds to revisit the flawed work of mid-20th century historians. One of the core problems of Classical studies broadly is that it predates the formal discipline of history, so you've got millennia of mostly primary source document analysis which is responsible for a lot of myth-making about Rome in particular. Historians used to take Livy's works very literally, for example. One of my professors from when I was doing my undergraduate was very cutting-edge in this respect, so I feel pretty lucky in getting a kind of front-row seat to the revision of Roman history. Sadly, a lot of that stuff - despite being very interesting! - doesn't make it into popular history books, let alone textbooks, so old mid-century myths endure and are reproduced now by HistoryTubers. It's made more difficult by the fact that a lot of the good stuff is buried in obscure articles and academic texts. You really have to have a research-oriented mindset to find them.

Being Canadian, WW1 and 2 figure very large in any university's history department here, so I also get to peek closely at what they're doing over there. A lot of it remains military-focused history, about the battles and the leaders and stuff, but from new perspectives and with new questions and theories. I volunteered to represent my university's history department in their usual open house events for highschoolers, and you still get the odd kid here and there who's overly excited about tank battles and all that. WW2 especially is the locus of national myth-making for countries around the world, so even good revisionist work being done today gets overshadowed by popular history. I think part of the problem is that the wars are such massive topics that if you have a general university course on them, it won't cover things in enough specific detail to dispel a lot of myths. These days the Eastern Front for example (the only example from WW2 I really know much about....) gets a lot more attention popularly than it used to, but the big overviews still tend to emphasise the big battles and Stalin and the generals and the obviously exciting stuff. Roman history isn't quite the same anymore, since even a general overview course on Roman history necessarily dispels a lot of myths simply because of how much Roman history has been fundamentally renegotiated.

So, in other words, for Roman history academia has moved vastly beyond what's usually parroted still in popular histories and on YouTube. For WW1 and 2 (mostly 2) it's harder to do so, since different countries still have so much invested in the war culturally that there's no real "international" history of the war yet. Plus, a lot of historians simply don't engage with the politics and events of the war per se, instead examining how the war has been remembered to the present, or the nature of the societies and cultures that went into the war and how it changed them. I think if you're looking for the most interesting and innovative revisionist history on WW1 at least, you're best off looking at historians studying Austria-Hungary currently. There's a whole host of them and they're very active, but Pieter Judson is the most accessible and best-known of them.

did you sew my Question towards you ?

[Five_X]

I'm not a robot, I can't just be inserted with questions and print out answers!

Anyway, if you're talking about Roman emperors, then my favourite is Hadrian. He was a stern but sensitive top and probably had a massive cock.

[Ideofago]

Most current Roman scholarship focuses on reinterpreting ancient sources and using modern technology (like DNA analysis) and archaeological finds to revisit the flawed work of mid-20th century historians. One of the core problems of Classical studies broadly is that it predates the formal discipline of history, so you've got millennia of mostly primary source document analysis which is responsible for a lot of myth-making about Rome in particular. Historians used to take Livy's works very literally, for example. One of my professors from when I was doing my undergraduate was very cutting-edge in this respect, so I feel pretty lucky in getting a kind of front-row seat to the revision of Roman history. Sadly, a lot of that stuff - despite being very interesting! - doesn't make it into popular history books, let alone textbooks, so old mid-century myths endure and are reproduced now by HistoryTubers. It's made more difficult by the fact that a lot of the good stuff is buried in obscure articles and academic texts. You really have to have a research-oriented mindset to find them.

Being Canadian, WW1 and 2 figure very large in any university's history department here, so I also get to peek closely at what they're doing over there. A lot of it remains military-focused history, about the battles and the leaders and stuff, but from new perspectives and with new questions and theories. I volunteered to represent my university's history department in their usual open house events for highschoolers, and you still get the odd kid here and there who's overly excited about tank battles and all that. WW2 especially is the locus of national myth-making for countries around the world, so even good revisionist work being done today gets overshadowed by popular history. I think part of the problem is that the wars are such massive topics that if you have a general university course on them, it won't cover things in enough specific detail to dispel a lot of myths. These days the Eastern Front for example (the only example from WW2 I really know much about....) gets a lot more attention popularly than it used to, but the big overviews still tend to emphasise the big battles and Stalin and the generals and the obviously exciting stuff. Roman history isn't quite the same anymore, since even a general overview course on Roman history necessarily dispels a lot of myths simply because of how much Roman history has been fundamentally renegotiated.

So, in other words, for Roman history academia has moved vastly beyond what's usually parroted still in popular histories and on YouTube. For WW1 and 2 (mostly 2) it's harder to do so, since different countries still have so much invested in the war culturally that there's no real "international" history of the war yet. Plus, a lot of historians simply don't engage with the politics and events of the war per se, instead examining how the war has been remembered to the present, or the nature of the societies and cultures that went into the war and how it changed them. I think if you're looking for the most interesting and innovative revisionist history on WW1 at least, you're best off looking at historians studying Austria-Hungary currently. There's a whole host of them and they're very active, but Pieter Judson is the most accessible and best-known of them.

That's actually rather interesting. Nice to see most of academia manages to go far beyond the stereotypes I see on the subjects at matter. I want to follow up with a question to be more appreciative, but I don't know what to say.

[Kabalisto Koga]

other Question what do you think of the history of Persia and i wonder which were better Rulers in terms of Leadership the Partian or Sassanian Monarchs ?

and i must openly admit that i know that about the Sassanian are more known about them due to existing source reports and that under both were Monarchs of different Leadership quality ?

But i still didnt found some Partian Rulers with potencial to be servants to be honest .

though i must admit that the story of Shappur II the second is impressive and that he led a victorious campaign already at his youth .

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not a robot, I can't just be inserted with questions and print out answers!

Anyway, if you're talking about Roman emperors, then my favourite is Hadrian. He was a stern but sensitive top and probably had a massive cock.

So sorry ! i didnt want to push you i am just a curious person which if when something has striked my curiousity is impatient .

and Hadrian was a great ruler plus i did read he was one passionate travel as with his wife he visited the two Collosal statues of Amenhotep the third or that were known as Memnon-collosals .

[aldeayeah]

I'm not a robot, I can't just be inserted with questions and print out answers!

Anyway, if you're talking about Roman emperors, then my favourite is Hadrian. He was a stern but sensitive top and probably had a massive cock.

For some reason I can't divorce the historical Hadrian from his Thermae Romae depiction

[Kabalisto Koga]

One Question has someone here heard from Ghemisto Plethon ?

He was a very interesting Person.

[SpoonyViking]

I always think of Marguerite Yourcenar's book. Wonderful read!

[Ratman]

The French revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

Absolutely.

okay so now what i wanted to discuss which of the Roman Emporers is or are your favorites ? i mean either in personlity , deeds etc .

Justinian :^)

Austria-Hungary is just so interesting because it felt ahead and behind its time all at once.

Back then all those different ethnicities were actually more united than later, which is really messed up. Marie Theresia should be your idol in many ways. The Hapsburgs got really unlucky by the end of it, it really didn't have to turn out that way. If Maxmillian didn't die in South America...

[SirGauoftheSquareTable]

Absolutely.



Justinian :^)



Back then all those different ethnicities were actually more united than later, which is really messed up. Marie Theresia should be your idol in many ways. The Hapsburgs got really unlucky by the end of it, it really didn't have to turn out that way. If Maxmillian didn't die in South America...

Yeah, I ain't gonna open this can of worms except to say you're fucking wrong.

[Five_X]

This is the history thread, worms exist to be uncanned.

[Ideofago]

Bro, I don't think these worms should be uncanned. When Gau holds back from a quasipolitical argument, you know shit's about to get soggy.

[Kabalisto Koga]

Absolutely.



Justinian :^)



Back then all those different ethnicities were actually more united than later, which is really messed up. Marie Theresia should be your idol in many ways. The Hapsburgs got really unlucky by the end of it, it really didn't have to turn out that way. If Maxmillian didn't die in South America...

Why is Justinian your favorite ?

yep actually wereAustro Hungary a quite prosperious country where amongst other persons later renowed person originqated like Nikola Tesla is a born Austro hungarian . and in the succesor state Austria is still today amongst other things Maria theresia known for the introduction of the shoool system and were a figure of moderate modernisation and wrere on of europe reat three Queens aside Katherina the Great .

- - - Updated - - -

This is the history thread, worms exist to be uncanned.

okay then i like to discuss why the Byzantine Empire did crumbled and that Justinian in many ways caused many destructions aswell were the cause of the Religious schism .

[SirGauoftheSquareTable]

Bro, I don't think these worms should be uncanned. When Gau holds back from a quasipolitical argument, you know shit's about to get soggy.

Considering what views Ratman has admitted to holding, and his response to my statement about Austria-Hungary, I knew this would get way too ugly way too fast. Also, I am a man of my word, and Draconic asked me to refrain from starting shit at least. That being said, this thread will likely get super political and I don't think we've seen the worst of the bigoted takes.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, if you go any further, Ratman, I am not letting you get away with it.