The sea people: Alexander the Great trod in the footsteps of forgotten Greeks(nemets.substack.com)
nemets.substack.com
The sea people: Alexander the Great trod in the footsteps of forgotten Greeks
https://nemets.substack.com/p/the-sea-people
158 comments
>Another theory is that Palestine came to be known as Palaistine after the Philistines via a process called "pars pro toto", which means that a part becomes the name of the whole.
The history is well known, and there's no need for theorizing. You meant 'renamed by Emperor Hadrian to the names of nearby provinces, after crushing the local revolt as a method of erasing the province's residents'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina#cite_ref-9
The history is well known, and there's no need for theorizing. You meant 'renamed by Emperor Hadrian to the names of nearby provinces, after crushing the local revolt as a method of erasing the province's residents'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina#cite_ref-9
Well, if you look at the history of that page, you see that a helpful Wikipedian has deleted a pertinent paragraph that followed the text you cited: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syria_Palaestina&...
Herodotus in his travel diaries wrote about the region in the 5th century BC and he used the word Palaistine for the region and Palaistinian for the inhabitants. Aristotle in 340 BC wrote about the Dead Sea - "a fabled lake" - which he situated in Palaistine. This suggests that the Greeks thought Palaistine was a greater region than merely Philistia.
Why Hadrian choose to rename and reorganize the provinces of the southern Levant right after the end of the Bar Kokba revolt in 135 is a mystery. The record is silent. Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, if the renaming was intended to punish the Jews, why weren't the Romans explicit about it? If the renaming was to serve as a deterrent for future rebels? Afaik, the claim that Adrian renamed Iudaea comes from the Christian 4th century scholar Eusebius and is not found in other sources (such as the Talmud). To Christians at the time, God punishing the Jews for crucifying Jesus by having the Romans destroying their temple and erasing their province would have made prefect sense. I.e. Eusebius may have been putting two and two together here.
Another problem with the "renaming as a punishment" theory is that in 135 the Philistines hadn't existed for several centuries. So if punishment was Hadrian's impetus for the renaming, he must have been well-versed in Hebrew religion, otherwise how could he have known that the Philistines was one of their worst enemies? That seems unlikely.
Herodotus in his travel diaries wrote about the region in the 5th century BC and he used the word Palaistine for the region and Palaistinian for the inhabitants. Aristotle in 340 BC wrote about the Dead Sea - "a fabled lake" - which he situated in Palaistine. This suggests that the Greeks thought Palaistine was a greater region than merely Philistia.
Why Hadrian choose to rename and reorganize the provinces of the southern Levant right after the end of the Bar Kokba revolt in 135 is a mystery. The record is silent. Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, if the renaming was intended to punish the Jews, why weren't the Romans explicit about it? If the renaming was to serve as a deterrent for future rebels? Afaik, the claim that Adrian renamed Iudaea comes from the Christian 4th century scholar Eusebius and is not found in other sources (such as the Talmud). To Christians at the time, God punishing the Jews for crucifying Jesus by having the Romans destroying their temple and erasing their province would have made prefect sense. I.e. Eusebius may have been putting two and two together here.
Another problem with the "renaming as a punishment" theory is that in 135 the Philistines hadn't existed for several centuries. So if punishment was Hadrian's impetus for the renaming, he must have been well-versed in Hebrew religion, otherwise how could he have known that the Philistines was one of their worst enemies? That seems unlikely.
It is undisputed the Philistines existed and were of Greek origin, that an area around today's Gaza was settled by them and later named after them, and that the name was known to Greeks - though even Gaza itself was assigned to the Judean province so it probably was much less used by Hadrian's time.
Of course Greeks used the name given to them by fellow Greeks (when they existed at the province) and weren't clear on borders. However, every empire and kingdom which actually ruled there knew very well how the locales called it and that's why the province was named as it was.
Now, Hadrian was acquainted enough with Judaism to specifically ban many of its practices like circumcision, reading the holy books, etc. Learning a tiny bit on a province after fighting a massive war there is rather expected. However, I believe it's much more likely that he chose the name from Greek language and history. This is a Roman Emperor we're talking about, Greek was a extremely popular language for the Roman elite, he must have been very familiar with Greek.
Renaming the province is consistent with Hadrian's other moves which do have a well known rational of suppressing the Jews. There's no reason to think renaming the province just after the massive rebellion is somehow different, accidental or separate from all the other moves, like renaming Jerusalem itself or banning many of Judaism's practices.
> the claim that Adrian renamed Iudaea comes from the Christian 4th century scholar Eusebius and is not found in other sources (such as the Talmud)
The Talmud has no reason to care about how the Romans name things in their own language for their own empire. It's a religious text, not a history book. It's actually noteworthy that there is an ancient text mentioning this - most ancient historians cared little for such details.
EDIT: I also note that Eusebius lived and wrote when the Roman Empire still existed, and probably did not have much need for guessing. A Roman historian living at that time could access Roman primary sources and common knowledge easily.
Of course Greeks used the name given to them by fellow Greeks (when they existed at the province) and weren't clear on borders. However, every empire and kingdom which actually ruled there knew very well how the locales called it and that's why the province was named as it was.
Now, Hadrian was acquainted enough with Judaism to specifically ban many of its practices like circumcision, reading the holy books, etc. Learning a tiny bit on a province after fighting a massive war there is rather expected. However, I believe it's much more likely that he chose the name from Greek language and history. This is a Roman Emperor we're talking about, Greek was a extremely popular language for the Roman elite, he must have been very familiar with Greek.
Renaming the province is consistent with Hadrian's other moves which do have a well known rational of suppressing the Jews. There's no reason to think renaming the province just after the massive rebellion is somehow different, accidental or separate from all the other moves, like renaming Jerusalem itself or banning many of Judaism's practices.
> the claim that Adrian renamed Iudaea comes from the Christian 4th century scholar Eusebius and is not found in other sources (such as the Talmud)
The Talmud has no reason to care about how the Romans name things in their own language for their own empire. It's a religious text, not a history book. It's actually noteworthy that there is an ancient text mentioning this - most ancient historians cared little for such details.
EDIT: I also note that Eusebius lived and wrote when the Roman Empire still existed, and probably did not have much need for guessing. A Roman historian living at that time could access Roman primary sources and common knowledge easily.
Undisputed is saying a lot.
The Talmud, not by coincidence, light on a lot of political (and religious) detail from this period. The political turmoil leading (in Talmudic text) to the temple's destruction are somewhat taboo.
Anyway... place names are resilient. The region is littered with Hebrew/Assyrian/etc place names that outsurvived the political/cultural entities for centuries.
That Philistia survived as a regional name is not that big a stretch, especially as a greek-related culture during a greek-dominated era. We don't even know with certainty why our current politicians do what they do.
The Talmud, not by coincidence, light on a lot of political (and religious) detail from this period. The political turmoil leading (in Talmudic text) to the temple's destruction are somewhat taboo.
Anyway... place names are resilient. The region is littered with Hebrew/Assyrian/etc place names that outsurvived the political/cultural entities for centuries.
That Philistia survived as a regional name is not that big a stretch, especially as a greek-related culture during a greek-dominated era. We don't even know with certainty why our current politicians do what they do.
Place names can be resilient. They can be also very political, e.g. the different spelling of places in Ukraine, which depends if one is looking at them from a Russian POV or not. Even Ukraine itself is spelt differently (Russia would rather people write "The Ukraine").
There was a rather documented political context back then, of erasing the local name to crush the local population. Wherever Hadrian took the name from a Greek regional slang or from a Greek history book, we need not to ignore that context for today's political reasons either - this doesn't really have any effect on anything.
I do find it odd the Romans used two names when switching 'Judea' to 'Syria-Palestine'. There are many Greek references that the describe the entire Levant as 'Syria', more than 'Judea' or 'Palestine' ever being used. Perhaps the Roman needed two names because the second name had become unfamiliar?
Come to think of it, there are many uses of 'Syria' for describing the entire Levant even up to the 20th century. The name derives from the Assyrians. We could take the same references and tell a story about how it's a local name etc., and have a better argument than the post starting the thread. However, just about everyone think the SSNP stink, so nobody does that anymore.
There was a rather documented political context back then, of erasing the local name to crush the local population. Wherever Hadrian took the name from a Greek regional slang or from a Greek history book, we need not to ignore that context for today's political reasons either - this doesn't really have any effect on anything.
I do find it odd the Romans used two names when switching 'Judea' to 'Syria-Palestine'. There are many Greek references that the describe the entire Levant as 'Syria', more than 'Judea' or 'Palestine' ever being used. Perhaps the Roman needed two names because the second name had become unfamiliar?
Come to think of it, there are many uses of 'Syria' for describing the entire Levant even up to the 20th century. The name derives from the Assyrians. We could take the same references and tell a story about how it's a local name etc., and have a better argument than the post starting the thread. However, just about everyone think the SSNP stink, so nobody does that anymore.
> There was a rather documented political context back then, of erasing the local name to crush the local population.
I don't know of any emperor who renamed provinces as retribution. Do you have any examples?
> I do find it odd the Romans used two names when switching 'Judea' to 'Syria-Palestine'.
Syria was a greater region back then and contained many provinces. See the Wikipedia map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coele_Syria_(Roman_province)#/...
I don't know of any emperor who renamed provinces as retribution. Do you have any examples?
> I do find it odd the Romans used two names when switching 'Judea' to 'Syria-Palestine'.
Syria was a greater region back then and contained many provinces. See the Wikipedia map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coele_Syria_(Roman_province)#/...
#/media/File:Roman_Empire_with_provinces_in_210_AD.png){kind=link}
I don't see the contradiction. Yes, Romans referred to the region as Syria and that also reflected the cultural/political scape for much of the time. Assyria did span the entire region, and even during the Roman era their dialect was spoken by most people (including Judeans).
Choice of names is political in the same region now too, and the games leverage the fact that there are many ancient place names making contradictory "claims."
Choice of names is political in the same region now too, and the games leverage the fact that there are many ancient place names making contradictory "claims."
That the Philistines existed is undisputed, whether they were of Greek origin or not. However they disappeared from history around the time of the Babylonian expansion in 600 BC, so it seems far-fetched to believe that educated people in 135 AD would have intimate knowledge of the Jews' relationship to them.
Hadrian was most likely not privy to details of Jewish culture. Both the Romans and the Greeks detested circumcision, but, for the most part, they tolerated it. At times, the Romans tried to outlaw the practice of castrating or circumcising slaves, but they never banned the practice altogether. However, in Palestine the governor may have implemented such decrees as retribution for uprisings. Note that Jews were far from the only people at the time who practiced circumcision.
> Renaming the province is consistent with Hadrian's other moves which do have a well known rational of suppressing the Jews. There's no reason to think renaming the province just after the massive rebellion is somehow different, accidental or separate from all the other moves, like renaming Jerusalem itself or banning many of Judaism's practices.
You are talking about Hadrian's decision to refound Jerusalem as the Roman colony Aelia Capitolina. This occurred at least a decade before the revolt and can hardly be thought of a move to suppress the Jews. A Roman city brought wealth and honor to the region and would have been cherished in other provinces. Hadrian perhaps wanted to mimic the great success of the Roman city Caesarea which had been built in Palestine 150 years earlier.
View it with Roman eyes. There are hundreds of peoples and religions in the empire. Most of them worship the Emperor and loves having statues of him around. So why on earth would it anger a poor Levatine people enough to revolt? Furthermore, emperors are surrounded by yes-men; no one wants to tell him that the people hates his statues.
> The Talmud has no reason to care about how the Romans name things in their own language for their own empire. It's a religious text, not a history book. It's actually noteworthy that there is an ancient text mentioning this - most ancient historians cared little for such details.
The Talmud actually describes the Bar Kokba revolt in great detail. So it is odd that the renaming of the Roman provinces (Iudaea wasn't the only province that was restructured at the same time) isn't mentioned at all.
> EDIT: I also note that Eusebius lived and wrote when the Roman Empire still existed, and probably did not have much need for guessing. A Roman historian living at that time could access Roman primary sources and common knowledge easily.
Yes, he was active in Caesarea and is one of the first Christian Scholars. He and many other Christian scholars weren't very fond of the Jews and much of their writings had a distinct anti-Jewish bent. Eusebius had a habit of characterizing all misfortunes that befell on the Jewish people as divine punishment for first having crucified Jesus and then rejecting Christianity. He also claimed that Aelia Capitolina was founded to punish the Jews for revolting, which we know now is incorrect.
Hadrian was most likely not privy to details of Jewish culture. Both the Romans and the Greeks detested circumcision, but, for the most part, they tolerated it. At times, the Romans tried to outlaw the practice of castrating or circumcising slaves, but they never banned the practice altogether. However, in Palestine the governor may have implemented such decrees as retribution for uprisings. Note that Jews were far from the only people at the time who practiced circumcision.
> Renaming the province is consistent with Hadrian's other moves which do have a well known rational of suppressing the Jews. There's no reason to think renaming the province just after the massive rebellion is somehow different, accidental or separate from all the other moves, like renaming Jerusalem itself or banning many of Judaism's practices.
You are talking about Hadrian's decision to refound Jerusalem as the Roman colony Aelia Capitolina. This occurred at least a decade before the revolt and can hardly be thought of a move to suppress the Jews. A Roman city brought wealth and honor to the region and would have been cherished in other provinces. Hadrian perhaps wanted to mimic the great success of the Roman city Caesarea which had been built in Palestine 150 years earlier.
View it with Roman eyes. There are hundreds of peoples and religions in the empire. Most of them worship the Emperor and loves having statues of him around. So why on earth would it anger a poor Levatine people enough to revolt? Furthermore, emperors are surrounded by yes-men; no one wants to tell him that the people hates his statues.
> The Talmud has no reason to care about how the Romans name things in their own language for their own empire. It's a religious text, not a history book. It's actually noteworthy that there is an ancient text mentioning this - most ancient historians cared little for such details.
The Talmud actually describes the Bar Kokba revolt in great detail. So it is odd that the renaming of the Roman provinces (Iudaea wasn't the only province that was restructured at the same time) isn't mentioned at all.
> EDIT: I also note that Eusebius lived and wrote when the Roman Empire still existed, and probably did not have much need for guessing. A Roman historian living at that time could access Roman primary sources and common knowledge easily.
Yes, he was active in Caesarea and is one of the first Christian Scholars. He and many other Christian scholars weren't very fond of the Jews and much of their writings had a distinct anti-Jewish bent. Eusebius had a habit of characterizing all misfortunes that befell on the Jewish people as divine punishment for first having crucified Jesus and then rejecting Christianity. He also claimed that Aelia Capitolina was founded to punish the Jews for revolting, which we know now is incorrect.
>so it seems far-fetched to believe that educated people in 135 AD would have intimate knowledge of the Jews' relationship to them.
Hadrian did not have to know anything whatsoever about the Philistines to make the choices he did. A Greek speaking Emperor decided to rename a province using Greek names. He chose Greek names as close as he could get, which he could have gotten from multiple sources. Why didn't he name it the Latin equivalent of 'Hadrian-ville'? We'll never know.
There may have been a message in the new names, but Hadrian would not have to know anything about Judaism to make it: perhaps the choice of Greek was motivated by being aware of the Maccabean fight against the Greek Seleucid Empire, a method of telling the world the Jews lost in the long run and that the 'superiour' culture won. But I'm just wildly guessing, we'll probably never know.
>You are talking about Hadrian's decision to refound Jerusalem as the Roman colony Aelia Capitolina. This occurred at least a decade before the revolt...
I note the chronology of this time is rather unclear. We aren't sure whether the Roman laws against Jewish practices started before the Bar Kochva revolt or after it. It has been argued that these laws preceded the Revolt and led to it, and were intensified after it.
>View it with Roman eyes. There are hundreds of peoples and religions in the empire. Most of them worship the Emperor and loves having statues of him around.
It's absurd to paint the Romans as ignorant. Rome conquered the entire Levant by 30BC. There was also the previous revolt, after which Josephus wrote to Roman elite. There were also Jewish communities outside the Levant, like the Iraqi one which dates to the end of the First Temple period. Rome had over a century of experience knowing exactly who they were dealing with.
Classicists have an image of Rome as tolerant, which is sometimes true, and sometimes brushes over all the times Rome was not tolerant. Romans were perfectly capable of crushing people and the local religion when they wanted to - just ask the Druids. Oh, we can't do that, because the Romans decided they should not exist anymore. It should not be a surprise that the Romans decided to fix their Jewish 'problem' also with violence and suppression.
>The Talmud actually describes the Bar Kokba revolt in great detail...
Actually, quite a bit we'd like to know is missing, for perfectly understandable reasons. Their viewpoint is religious and local, and not very interested in non-Jews.
It's like using the Bible alone as an historical source for the ancient East: leaving aside questions of reliability, it's very patchy regarding non-Jews. List of Egyptian kings? (Nope). What did the Egyptians really do with the pyramids? (Tombs not mentioned). How did the Egyptians called the land during all this period? (You won't find it there).
All these sources have their focus and care little about other things.
>Eusebius had a habit of characterizing all misfortunes that befell on the Jewish people as divine punishment... He also claimed that Aelia Capitolina was founded to punish the Jews for revolting..
So when Eusebius notes the renaming he sees it as a misfortune and punishment, but Hadrian doesn't see it as a punishment? Why should they assign a different meaning when they were members of the same culture?
Eusebius could have easily spun it had the Roman Empire meant well ('The great Emperor gave the Jews a gift and the ungrateful wretches reacted violently!'), and he had access to sources we do not have. It's much more likely Hadrian saw it the same way Eusebius did.
Hadrian did not have to know anything whatsoever about the Philistines to make the choices he did. A Greek speaking Emperor decided to rename a province using Greek names. He chose Greek names as close as he could get, which he could have gotten from multiple sources. Why didn't he name it the Latin equivalent of 'Hadrian-ville'? We'll never know.
There may have been a message in the new names, but Hadrian would not have to know anything about Judaism to make it: perhaps the choice of Greek was motivated by being aware of the Maccabean fight against the Greek Seleucid Empire, a method of telling the world the Jews lost in the long run and that the 'superiour' culture won. But I'm just wildly guessing, we'll probably never know.
>You are talking about Hadrian's decision to refound Jerusalem as the Roman colony Aelia Capitolina. This occurred at least a decade before the revolt...
I note the chronology of this time is rather unclear. We aren't sure whether the Roman laws against Jewish practices started before the Bar Kochva revolt or after it. It has been argued that these laws preceded the Revolt and led to it, and were intensified after it.
>View it with Roman eyes. There are hundreds of peoples and religions in the empire. Most of them worship the Emperor and loves having statues of him around.
It's absurd to paint the Romans as ignorant. Rome conquered the entire Levant by 30BC. There was also the previous revolt, after which Josephus wrote to Roman elite. There were also Jewish communities outside the Levant, like the Iraqi one which dates to the end of the First Temple period. Rome had over a century of experience knowing exactly who they were dealing with.
Classicists have an image of Rome as tolerant, which is sometimes true, and sometimes brushes over all the times Rome was not tolerant. Romans were perfectly capable of crushing people and the local religion when they wanted to - just ask the Druids. Oh, we can't do that, because the Romans decided they should not exist anymore. It should not be a surprise that the Romans decided to fix their Jewish 'problem' also with violence and suppression.
>The Talmud actually describes the Bar Kokba revolt in great detail...
Actually, quite a bit we'd like to know is missing, for perfectly understandable reasons. Their viewpoint is religious and local, and not very interested in non-Jews.
It's like using the Bible alone as an historical source for the ancient East: leaving aside questions of reliability, it's very patchy regarding non-Jews. List of Egyptian kings? (Nope). What did the Egyptians really do with the pyramids? (Tombs not mentioned). How did the Egyptians called the land during all this period? (You won't find it there).
All these sources have their focus and care little about other things.
>Eusebius had a habit of characterizing all misfortunes that befell on the Jewish people as divine punishment... He also claimed that Aelia Capitolina was founded to punish the Jews for revolting..
So when Eusebius notes the renaming he sees it as a misfortune and punishment, but Hadrian doesn't see it as a punishment? Why should they assign a different meaning when they were members of the same culture?
Eusebius could have easily spun it had the Roman Empire meant well ('The great Emperor gave the Jews a gift and the ungrateful wretches reacted violently!'), and he had access to sources we do not have. It's much more likely Hadrian saw it the same way Eusebius did.
In your link it says ”Hadrian's connection to the name change and the reason behind it is disputed”. So I’m sure some theorizing is still warranted.
Both cites following that sentence agree he's the likely suspect, and agree with the motivation. The difference is that the first is certain, while the second merely thinks the evidence points to Hadrian (though I wonder who else could have authority to change a province name quickly). Both agree with the motivation. It's a disagreement alright, but we should not overread it.
'Theorizing' that ignores well known data is suspect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina#cite_note-F90...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina#cite_note-FOO...
'Theorizing' that ignores well known data is suspect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina#cite_note-F90...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina#cite_note-FOO...
The linked article is about the bronze age: which to people living in biblical times was as far back in time as biblical times are to us.
"Biblical times" spans a lot of time. The Bronze Age ended about 1200 BC (per Wikipedia). That's within the book of Judges in the Bible, that is, some distance through the Old Testament History.
One interesting tidbit (and I'm going to be lazy and not look up the references): There is a time when the Israelites don't have iron working, but the Philistines do. The Israelites have to go to the Philistines to get their iron implements sharpened, taking them to a town that translates as "smith of the goyim".
One interesting tidbit (and I'm going to be lazy and not look up the references): There is a time when the Israelites don't have iron working, but the Philistines do. The Israelites have to go to the Philistines to get their iron implements sharpened, taking them to a town that translates as "smith of the goyim".
Was Rus Kievan Rus originally?
The Rus are the Vikings who started the original Russian states in Novgorod, Smolensk, Kiev, etc. together known as the Kievan Rus and ruled it for 8 centuries afterwards. The last Viking bloodline Russian tzar was Ivan the Terrible.
Yes, and the link of it to Russia is rather thin.
Not really. The Rus empire was a thing, capital was Kyiv. It was a decently large empire that encompassed most of eastern Europe. It certainly encompased Moscow, Novgorod, etc...
It eventually fell to the Mongols. 2 centuries later Moscow overthrew the Mongols and reunited (and grew) the empire.
There's no continuous history per se, but east slavic peoples (Russian, Ukrainian, Belarussian) have always been essentially the same people. The Rus and Russian empires were the same people even if there was an interruption and the capital changed because of historic circumstances.
When my family came to North-America from the Austro-Hungarian empire, they were even known as Rusyn/Ruthenian (they're Ukrainian)... No one has ever disputed that the modern Russian empire represented the same people as the (Kyivan) Rus empire until very recently. Like, I know a bunch of Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs and Slovaks and they can all more or less understand each other. Slavs are far more similar than different (language, culture, food, temperament, etc...).
Edit - it's ok to admit a shared history while also wanting some countries that weren't historically independent to stay independent and forge a new national identity. Trying to rewrite history is petty.
It eventually fell to the Mongols. 2 centuries later Moscow overthrew the Mongols and reunited (and grew) the empire.
There's no continuous history per se, but east slavic peoples (Russian, Ukrainian, Belarussian) have always been essentially the same people. The Rus and Russian empires were the same people even if there was an interruption and the capital changed because of historic circumstances.
When my family came to North-America from the Austro-Hungarian empire, they were even known as Rusyn/Ruthenian (they're Ukrainian)... No one has ever disputed that the modern Russian empire represented the same people as the (Kyivan) Rus empire until very recently. Like, I know a bunch of Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs and Slovaks and they can all more or less understand each other. Slavs are far more similar than different (language, culture, food, temperament, etc...).
Edit - it's ok to admit a shared history while also wanting some countries that weren't historically independent to stay independent and forge a new national identity. Trying to rewrite history is petty.
> There's no continuous history per se, but east slavic peoples (Russian, Ukrainian, Belarussian) have always been essentially the same people.
They appear to you the same due to few centuries of cultural subjugation by one dominant power. Otherwise they are as diverse as anywhere else in Europe.
> No one has ever disputed that the modern Russian empire represented the same people as the (Kyivan) Rus empire until very recently.
Outside of Russia, few cared for particular details of the founding lore of a backwater empire. Inside the empire, see above.
They appear to you the same due to few centuries of cultural subjugation by one dominant power. Otherwise they are as diverse as anywhere else in Europe.
> No one has ever disputed that the modern Russian empire represented the same people as the (Kyivan) Rus empire until very recently.
Outside of Russia, few cared for particular details of the founding lore of a backwater empire. Inside the empire, see above.
The "thinness" is subject to interpretation (and today especially because of Ukraine situation it has become a political issue with Ukraine actively developing its own independent history and claiming Kievan Rus for itself, and also in Russia there are people who don't like the idea of the state's Viking ie. non-Slavic origination) which one can decide for theselves by looking at historic facts. Yes, the south and western dukedoms (on the territory of modern Ukraine an Belarus) of Kievan Rus were for around 2 centuries under Mongols and Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and thus the link was pretty much broken there. Where is the north/east dukedoms have existed without interruption, growing and expanding and ultimately getting unified into Moscow dukedom (later tzardom) which continuing expanding became the Russian empire. The Russian aristocrats direct descendants of the one of the early Kievan Rus Viking ruler - Rurik (whose descendants ruled the Rus and later the Moscow dukedom for centuries) - are still around.
> Ukraine actively developing its own independent history and claiming Kievan Rus for itself
I mean, it is not like all "real" Rus people packed their bags and left for Moscow at some moment in time and then some "unrelated" people set shop in Kyiv bringing funny not-a-true-language with them. Obviously, Ukrainians are direct descendants of people who inhabited that part of Rus.
> Where is the north/east dukedoms have existed without interruption, growing and expanding and ultimately getting unified into Moscow dukedom
The norther part of Rus escaped the Mongol devastation because if was unimportant backwater. There was nothing there to "interrupt".
> The Russian aristocrats direct descendants of the one of the early Kievan Rus Viking ruler - Rurik (whose descendants ruled the Rus and later the Moscow dukedom for centuries) - are still around.
Rurik is a legendary figure. Who are these people who are "still around" claiming to be Rurik bloodline? Sound funny as hell.
I mean, it is not like all "real" Rus people packed their bags and left for Moscow at some moment in time and then some "unrelated" people set shop in Kyiv bringing funny not-a-true-language with them. Obviously, Ukrainians are direct descendants of people who inhabited that part of Rus.
> Where is the north/east dukedoms have existed without interruption, growing and expanding and ultimately getting unified into Moscow dukedom
The norther part of Rus escaped the Mongol devastation because if was unimportant backwater. There was nothing there to "interrupt".
> The Russian aristocrats direct descendants of the one of the early Kievan Rus Viking ruler - Rurik (whose descendants ruled the Rus and later the Moscow dukedom for centuries) - are still around.
Rurik is a legendary figure. Who are these people who are "still around" claiming to be Rurik bloodline? Sound funny as hell.
> The norther part of Rus escaped the Mongol devastation because if was unimportant backwater. There was nothing there to "interrupt".
That's nonsense. Nothgorod was the most important center maybe just after the capital.
The reason it was not directly destroyed is likely weather, swamps and smart politics by the merchants.
They still came under mongol rule anyway.
> Rurik is a legendary figure. Who are these people who are "still around" claiming to be Rurik bloodline? Sound funny as hell.
What is understood to be the case that the Kieven'Rus were a mix of Northern vikings/traders and local Slavic population. And those people would certainty still be around. However there was clearly much immigration as well. Russia had a policy of that at points in its history.
Vikings settling in locations and founding cities that then grow is really well established all over Europe where there was not a strong local resistance.
The cities founded by Rurik or whatever you want to call those Northern people are the cities that made the core of Kieven'Rus all across those river systems.
That's nonsense. Nothgorod was the most important center maybe just after the capital.
The reason it was not directly destroyed is likely weather, swamps and smart politics by the merchants.
They still came under mongol rule anyway.
> Rurik is a legendary figure. Who are these people who are "still around" claiming to be Rurik bloodline? Sound funny as hell.
What is understood to be the case that the Kieven'Rus were a mix of Northern vikings/traders and local Slavic population. And those people would certainty still be around. However there was clearly much immigration as well. Russia had a policy of that at points in its history.
Vikings settling in locations and founding cities that then grow is really well established all over Europe where there was not a strong local resistance.
The cities founded by Rurik or whatever you want to call those Northern people are the cities that made the core of Kieven'Rus all across those river systems.
>I mean, it is not like all "real" Rus people packed their bags and left for Moscow at some moment in time and then some "unrelated" people set shop in Kyiv bringing funny not-a-true-language with them. Obviously, Ukrainians are direct descendants of people who inhabited that part of Rus.
No. The area got depopulated by Mongols and largely stayed that way due to Crimean Tatars until Grand Duchy of Lithuania started the "Reconquista" in the modern West and Central Ukraine and later Grand Duchy of Moscow pushed south too with it culminating in the Russian Empire completely pushing Crimean Tatars out and taking over most of that territory, and it was gradually repopulated during that process with the Central and East Ukraine mostly with people migrating from Russia. As a result the "funny not-a-true-language" which is very close to the language of Russian peasants, and 100+ years ago Ukranian cities were speaking mostly Russian while villages - Ukranian. I'm half Ukranian myself and watch some modern Ukranian TV including in Ukranian, and i fail to see it as a separate language.
>The norther part of Rus escaped the Mongol devastation because if was unimportant backwater. There was nothing there to "interrupt".
No. The Mongols were generally stopped by forests, mountains and seas. In this case it was forest. Calling Novgorod in particular "unimportant backwater" is strange to say the least.
>Rurik is a legendary figure. Who are these people who are "still around" claiming to be Rurik bloodline? Sound funny as hell.
Rurik was in the 2nd half of 9th century. There are a lot of unknown about him. His descendants are pretty known though. Do you doubt the history of Vladimir the Great, a great grandson of Rurik? I mean do you doubt the whole dynasty or only starting from specific place? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rurik_dynasty (more in Russian https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%8E%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA...)
And there is nothing surprising in the dukes/tzars bloodline of 11 centuries recorded length - even for my minor aristocracy family (from Grand Duchy of Lithuania) the oldest documents i've seen so far are from the late 13xx and that is without digging deep into the family archive :)
No. The area got depopulated by Mongols and largely stayed that way due to Crimean Tatars until Grand Duchy of Lithuania started the "Reconquista" in the modern West and Central Ukraine and later Grand Duchy of Moscow pushed south too with it culminating in the Russian Empire completely pushing Crimean Tatars out and taking over most of that territory, and it was gradually repopulated during that process with the Central and East Ukraine mostly with people migrating from Russia. As a result the "funny not-a-true-language" which is very close to the language of Russian peasants, and 100+ years ago Ukranian cities were speaking mostly Russian while villages - Ukranian. I'm half Ukranian myself and watch some modern Ukranian TV including in Ukranian, and i fail to see it as a separate language.
>The norther part of Rus escaped the Mongol devastation because if was unimportant backwater. There was nothing there to "interrupt".
No. The Mongols were generally stopped by forests, mountains and seas. In this case it was forest. Calling Novgorod in particular "unimportant backwater" is strange to say the least.
>Rurik is a legendary figure. Who are these people who are "still around" claiming to be Rurik bloodline? Sound funny as hell.
Rurik was in the 2nd half of 9th century. There are a lot of unknown about him. His descendants are pretty known though. Do you doubt the history of Vladimir the Great, a great grandson of Rurik? I mean do you doubt the whole dynasty or only starting from specific place? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rurik_dynasty (more in Russian https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%8E%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA...)
And there is nothing surprising in the dukes/tzars bloodline of 11 centuries recorded length - even for my minor aristocracy family (from Grand Duchy of Lithuania) the oldest documents i've seen so far are from the late 13xx and that is without digging deep into the family archive :)
> No.
You are entitled to your opinions, but statement like this doesn't make intellectually curious conversation, to say the least.
> The area got depopulated by Mongols and largely stayed that way due to Crimean Tatars until Grand Duchy of Lithuania started the "Reconquista" in the modern West and Central Ukraine
When you read "depopulated" in history books it doesn't mean mongols literally executed every single man, woman and child and left barren wasteland behind them. Your own Lithuanian sources claim (semi-legendary) battle in early 14th century with Principality of Kiev led by Stanislav of Kiev[0], which is an obvious indication of some form of statehood and military in the region. Unless that guy named "Stanislav" was a just a mongol or tatarin with uncharacteristic name, of course...
> and later Grand Duchy of Moscow pushed south too with it culminating in the Russian Empire completely pushing Crimean Tatars out and taking over most of that territory,
Grand Duchy of Moscow pushing Crimean Tatars out of Kyiv? What?
> and it was gradually repopulated during that process with the Central and East Ukraine mostly with people migrating from Russia.
"The process" where Russia entered the game was actually massive (and successful) Kozak rebellion against Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in lands that you are alleging were "mostly unpopulated" at the time.
> As a result the "funny not-a-true-language" which is very close to the language of Russian peasants
So why don't Russian peasants speak Ukrainian now? Also where did Belarusian language came from? Some other Russian village nearby?
Even Russian scientists/linguists don't entertain that silly "peasant language" notion. You can read summary even on wikipedia[1], but here are some quotes: "According to Lomonosov, the differences that subsequently developed between Great Russian and Ukrainian (which he referred to as Little Russian) could be explained by the influence of the Polish and Slovak languages on Ukrainian and the influence of Uralic languages on Russian from the 13th to the 17th centuries.", "Soviet scholars set the divergence between Ukrainian and Russian only at later time periods (14th through 16th centuries). According to this view, Old East Slavic diverged into Belarusian and Ukrainian to the west (collectively, the Ruthenian language of the 15th to 18th centuries), and Old East Slavic to the north-east, after the political boundaries of the Kyivan Rus were redrawn in the 14th century. ".
Doesn't it surprise you that Lomonosov who was born in early 18th century doesn't immediately recognize Ukrainian as just a language of Russian peasants?
> 100+ years ago Ukranian cities were speaking mostly Russian while villages - Ukranian
Makes sense since Ukrainian-language schools were banned in territories controlled by Russian Empire in 1804. Also, you don't need to go as far as 100+ years ago because Kyiv was overwhelmingly Russian-speaking very recently (I am a Russian-speaking person from Kyiv). Doesn't have anything to do with "peasant language" though.
> I'm half Ukranian myself and watch some modern Ukranian TV including in Ukranian, and i fail to see it as a separate language.
I know a people from Western Ukraine who understand Polish without ever officially studying it. Does it make Polish not a "real" separate language? What about Italian? Language of Roman peasants, perhaps?
> No.
sigh
> The Mongols were generally stopped by forests, mountains and seas. In this case it was forest. Calling Novgorod in particular "unimportant backwater" is strange to say the least.
Isn't (wasn't) Novgorod situated in the marshes and Mongols supposedly stopped just couple of hundred kilometers on their way to it because they didn't want to traverse the marshlands? Anyway, Moscow was an insignificant outpost during Mongol invasion and Grand Duchy of Moscow is what eventually became Tsardom of Russia, not Novgorod.
> Rurik was in the 2nd half of 9th century. There are a lot of unknown about him.
There is nothing that is really "known" about him. I mean, the only "contemporary" written mention of the guy is Primary Chronicle. The Chronicle is a rare case of agreement between Russian and Ukrainian historians where both camps suggest it is mostly a work of literature (not history) which is mainly concerned with narrative and biblical undertones[2]. I'm sure there was a Varangian chieftain with similar name somewhere around that time and then some time later it was fashionable to claim his bloodline, but seriously "tracing" one's ancestry to the guy is laughable.
> Do you doubt the history of Vladimir the Great, a great grandson of Rurik? I mean do you doubt the whole dynasty or only starting from specific place?
As I said before I doubt some random dude in 2021 claiming his ancestry to legendary 9th century chieftain of some Varangian clan. Doesn't mean I doubt Vladimir the Great existed.
> And there is nothing surprising in the dukes/tzars bloodline of 11 centuries recorded length
Where is it recorded in that particular case though?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_on_the_Irpin_River [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_language [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Chronicle#Assessment_a...
You are entitled to your opinions, but statement like this doesn't make intellectually curious conversation, to say the least.
> The area got depopulated by Mongols and largely stayed that way due to Crimean Tatars until Grand Duchy of Lithuania started the "Reconquista" in the modern West and Central Ukraine
When you read "depopulated" in history books it doesn't mean mongols literally executed every single man, woman and child and left barren wasteland behind them. Your own Lithuanian sources claim (semi-legendary) battle in early 14th century with Principality of Kiev led by Stanislav of Kiev[0], which is an obvious indication of some form of statehood and military in the region. Unless that guy named "Stanislav" was a just a mongol or tatarin with uncharacteristic name, of course...
> and later Grand Duchy of Moscow pushed south too with it culminating in the Russian Empire completely pushing Crimean Tatars out and taking over most of that territory,
Grand Duchy of Moscow pushing Crimean Tatars out of Kyiv? What?
> and it was gradually repopulated during that process with the Central and East Ukraine mostly with people migrating from Russia.
"The process" where Russia entered the game was actually massive (and successful) Kozak rebellion against Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in lands that you are alleging were "mostly unpopulated" at the time.
> As a result the "funny not-a-true-language" which is very close to the language of Russian peasants
So why don't Russian peasants speak Ukrainian now? Also where did Belarusian language came from? Some other Russian village nearby?
Even Russian scientists/linguists don't entertain that silly "peasant language" notion. You can read summary even on wikipedia[1], but here are some quotes: "According to Lomonosov, the differences that subsequently developed between Great Russian and Ukrainian (which he referred to as Little Russian) could be explained by the influence of the Polish and Slovak languages on Ukrainian and the influence of Uralic languages on Russian from the 13th to the 17th centuries.", "Soviet scholars set the divergence between Ukrainian and Russian only at later time periods (14th through 16th centuries). According to this view, Old East Slavic diverged into Belarusian and Ukrainian to the west (collectively, the Ruthenian language of the 15th to 18th centuries), and Old East Slavic to the north-east, after the political boundaries of the Kyivan Rus were redrawn in the 14th century. ".
Doesn't it surprise you that Lomonosov who was born in early 18th century doesn't immediately recognize Ukrainian as just a language of Russian peasants?
> 100+ years ago Ukranian cities were speaking mostly Russian while villages - Ukranian
Makes sense since Ukrainian-language schools were banned in territories controlled by Russian Empire in 1804. Also, you don't need to go as far as 100+ years ago because Kyiv was overwhelmingly Russian-speaking very recently (I am a Russian-speaking person from Kyiv). Doesn't have anything to do with "peasant language" though.
> I'm half Ukranian myself and watch some modern Ukranian TV including in Ukranian, and i fail to see it as a separate language.
I know a people from Western Ukraine who understand Polish without ever officially studying it. Does it make Polish not a "real" separate language? What about Italian? Language of Roman peasants, perhaps?
> No.
sigh
> The Mongols were generally stopped by forests, mountains and seas. In this case it was forest. Calling Novgorod in particular "unimportant backwater" is strange to say the least.
Isn't (wasn't) Novgorod situated in the marshes and Mongols supposedly stopped just couple of hundred kilometers on their way to it because they didn't want to traverse the marshlands? Anyway, Moscow was an insignificant outpost during Mongol invasion and Grand Duchy of Moscow is what eventually became Tsardom of Russia, not Novgorod.
> Rurik was in the 2nd half of 9th century. There are a lot of unknown about him.
There is nothing that is really "known" about him. I mean, the only "contemporary" written mention of the guy is Primary Chronicle. The Chronicle is a rare case of agreement between Russian and Ukrainian historians where both camps suggest it is mostly a work of literature (not history) which is mainly concerned with narrative and biblical undertones[2]. I'm sure there was a Varangian chieftain with similar name somewhere around that time and then some time later it was fashionable to claim his bloodline, but seriously "tracing" one's ancestry to the guy is laughable.
> Do you doubt the history of Vladimir the Great, a great grandson of Rurik? I mean do you doubt the whole dynasty or only starting from specific place?
As I said before I doubt some random dude in 2021 claiming his ancestry to legendary 9th century chieftain of some Varangian clan. Doesn't mean I doubt Vladimir the Great existed.
> And there is nothing surprising in the dukes/tzars bloodline of 11 centuries recorded length
Where is it recorded in that particular case though?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_on_the_Irpin_River [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_language [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Chronicle#Assessment_a...
>Grand Duchy of Moscow pushing Crimean Tatars out of Kyiv? What?
i said nothing of sort.
>"The process" where Russia entered the game was actually massive (and successful) Kozak rebellion against Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in lands that you are alleging were "mostly unpopulated" at the time.
The Kozaks - runaway serves, criminals, and just various "free will" people - were there precisely because it was wild unpopulated area.
For the language - i stated my personal opinion. You have different, and as a person and as a country you're naturally entitled to speak whatever way you like and think whatever you like about it. Anyway in a few generations the divide will grow large and deep enough that the question will become moot. Enjoy a bit of humor (while about Ukranian, it is naturally applies to almost any language in use by large population) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukonBMs0WM0
>Anyway, Moscow was an insignificant outpost during Mongol invasion and Grand Duchy of Moscow is what eventually became Tsardom of Russia, not Novgorod.
It is the first time i see somebody excludes Novgorod from Russian history.
> Doesn't mean I doubt Vladimir the Great existed.
Sounds to me like you'd be ok if that dynasty was called "Vladimirovichi" (or "Svyatoslavichi" or "Igorevichi" for the Rurik's grandson or son) instead of "Rurikovichi". I don't see what is the difference though.
i said nothing of sort.
>"The process" where Russia entered the game was actually massive (and successful) Kozak rebellion against Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in lands that you are alleging were "mostly unpopulated" at the time.
The Kozaks - runaway serves, criminals, and just various "free will" people - were there precisely because it was wild unpopulated area.
For the language - i stated my personal opinion. You have different, and as a person and as a country you're naturally entitled to speak whatever way you like and think whatever you like about it. Anyway in a few generations the divide will grow large and deep enough that the question will become moot. Enjoy a bit of humor (while about Ukranian, it is naturally applies to almost any language in use by large population) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukonBMs0WM0
>Anyway, Moscow was an insignificant outpost during Mongol invasion and Grand Duchy of Moscow is what eventually became Tsardom of Russia, not Novgorod.
It is the first time i see somebody excludes Novgorod from Russian history.
> Doesn't mean I doubt Vladimir the Great existed.
Sounds to me like you'd be ok if that dynasty was called "Vladimirovichi" (or "Svyatoslavichi" or "Igorevichi" for the Rurik's grandson or son) instead of "Rurikovichi". I don't see what is the difference though.
>>Anyway, Moscow was an insignificant outpost during Mongol invasion and Grand Duchy of Moscow is what eventually became Tsardom of Russia, not Novgorod.
>It is the first time i see somebody excludes Novgorod from Russian history.
Surprised to say the least it took me a bit of pondering... Excluding Novgorod from Russian history the way you did is just like excluding Massachusetts from the history of US on the basis that Washington, DC was just a swamp at the time.
>It is the first time i see somebody excludes Novgorod from Russian history.
Surprised to say the least it took me a bit of pondering... Excluding Novgorod from Russian history the way you did is just like excluding Massachusetts from the history of US on the basis that Washington, DC was just a swamp at the time.
> i said nothing of sort.
Didn't I quote part of your message in my reply that says exactly that?
> The Kozaks - runaway serves, criminals, and just various "free will" people - were there precisely because it was wild unpopulated area.
They were common people that fled form populated places of Ukraine into unpopulated lower Dnieper areas to establish self governing communities. Obviously, these people needed to come from somewhere, unless you suggest they materialized in Zaporizya (since we are talking about Ukraine) out of thin air. It would also be reasonable to assume that such misfits constitute a significant minority of general population, so in order to have tens of thousands of kozaks you probably need hundreds of thousands of people populating nearby towns and villages.
> For the language - i stated my personal opinion.
Okay, lets go over your "opinions" one more time to address all points presented:
"I'm half Ukranian myself and watch some modern Ukranian TV including in Ukranian..." - the languages are somewhat similar in your opinion and it looks like you can understand both. Okay.
"...and i fail to see it as a separate language." - this is where it gets weird and I mentioned several other similar languages and asked for your clarification if you also don't consider them a "real distinct language" (which would also be a very weird opinion, from linguistic standpoint). But I guess this part of you message can still reasonably be considered an opinion.
""funny not-a-true-language" which is very close to the language of Russian peasants" - here you are apparently presenting some historic fact, which is in reality Russian nationalistic fringe talking point and is not supported by scientists from either Russian Empire, Soviet Union or modern Ukraine (I provided links and quotes). In fact, highly educated early 18th century Russian Lomonosov who studied in both Russia and Ukraine and should be able to immediately recognize the "language of Russian peasants" doesn't consider it such. Here it seems you also feel entitled to your own facts, not just opinions.
> It is the first time i see somebody excludes Novgorod from Russian history.
I don't think stating that Tzardom, Russian Empire and, consecutively, modern Russia is a continuation of Duchy of Moscow, which was and unimportant outpost during Mongol invasion, constitutes "exclusion" of Novgorod from Russian history. I just think that you position "Ukrainian making shit up about Rus since Russia is the obvious uninterrupted continuation of Rus because Mongols turned back hundred kilometers before reaching Novgorod or something" is rather strange. Let's just consider it another opinion and leave it at that.
> Sounds to me like you'd be ok if that dynasty was called "Vladimirovichi" (or "Svyatoslavichi" or "Igorevichi" for the Rurik's grandson or son) instead of "Rurikovichi". I don't see what is the difference though.
No, I'm totally okay with calling the dynasty whatever. I'm just saying that any person in 2021 who claims to _trace_ his bloodline from Rurik is full of shit.
Didn't I quote part of your message in my reply that says exactly that?
> The Kozaks - runaway serves, criminals, and just various "free will" people - were there precisely because it was wild unpopulated area.
They were common people that fled form populated places of Ukraine into unpopulated lower Dnieper areas to establish self governing communities. Obviously, these people needed to come from somewhere, unless you suggest they materialized in Zaporizya (since we are talking about Ukraine) out of thin air. It would also be reasonable to assume that such misfits constitute a significant minority of general population, so in order to have tens of thousands of kozaks you probably need hundreds of thousands of people populating nearby towns and villages.
> For the language - i stated my personal opinion.
Okay, lets go over your "opinions" one more time to address all points presented:
"I'm half Ukranian myself and watch some modern Ukranian TV including in Ukranian..." - the languages are somewhat similar in your opinion and it looks like you can understand both. Okay.
"...and i fail to see it as a separate language." - this is where it gets weird and I mentioned several other similar languages and asked for your clarification if you also don't consider them a "real distinct language" (which would also be a very weird opinion, from linguistic standpoint). But I guess this part of you message can still reasonably be considered an opinion.
""funny not-a-true-language" which is very close to the language of Russian peasants" - here you are apparently presenting some historic fact, which is in reality Russian nationalistic fringe talking point and is not supported by scientists from either Russian Empire, Soviet Union or modern Ukraine (I provided links and quotes). In fact, highly educated early 18th century Russian Lomonosov who studied in both Russia and Ukraine and should be able to immediately recognize the "language of Russian peasants" doesn't consider it such. Here it seems you also feel entitled to your own facts, not just opinions.
> It is the first time i see somebody excludes Novgorod from Russian history.
I don't think stating that Tzardom, Russian Empire and, consecutively, modern Russia is a continuation of Duchy of Moscow, which was and unimportant outpost during Mongol invasion, constitutes "exclusion" of Novgorod from Russian history. I just think that you position "Ukrainian making shit up about Rus since Russia is the obvious uninterrupted continuation of Rus because Mongols turned back hundred kilometers before reaching Novgorod or something" is rather strange. Let's just consider it another opinion and leave it at that.
> Sounds to me like you'd be ok if that dynasty was called "Vladimirovichi" (or "Svyatoslavichi" or "Igorevichi" for the Rurik's grandson or son) instead of "Rurikovichi". I don't see what is the difference though.
No, I'm totally okay with calling the dynasty whatever. I'm just saying that any person in 2021 who claims to _trace_ his bloodline from Rurik is full of shit.
Not an expert in Russian history by any means but I think that the instinct to associate Kievan Rus with Russian (and not necessarily Ukrainian only) history is also due to the fact that the Orthodox faith came to Muscovy Russia via Kiev, where it had been brought by the byzantines, of course.
Definitely. Until the rise of Ukranian nationalism during 19th century, it was only of Russian interest as Grand Duchy of Lithuania and later Poland, both Catholic, who owned those territories for several centuries actively suppressed the Orthodox church there.
> Around 3000 BC, a group of savage tribes now known as the Indo-Europeans invaded Europe from eastern Ukraine and southern Russia, destroying the EEF civilizations east of the Rhine in at most two centuries.
It detracts from the writer's argument to uniquely characterize the IE Europeans as savage here. Savagery was the norm for all groups at the time. Monopolies of violence didn't exist in any significant way, and institutions were also non-existent.
Some civilizations appear more egalitarian than others, i.e Crete, Indus Valley, but the idea of non-savagery as a virtue didn't emerge until much later, and we don't know how much savagery those civilizations might have engaged in because we have lost their histories.
It detracts from the writer's argument to uniquely characterize the IE Europeans as savage here. Savagery was the norm for all groups at the time. Monopolies of violence didn't exist in any significant way, and institutions were also non-existent.
Some civilizations appear more egalitarian than others, i.e Crete, Indus Valley, but the idea of non-savagery as a virtue didn't emerge until much later, and we don't know how much savagery those civilizations might have engaged in because we have lost their histories.
“Savage tribes” in this context means something like “less settled with a less specialized society/economy”, and is not intended to be a value judgment or indication of some ethnic group’s inherent qualities, or even a comment on their level of violence: it is possible for a tribe to be both peaceful and “savage”/“barbaric”/“uncivilized”, or both “civilized” and brutally violent.
For example, notice the author of this blog post starts with a description of a campaign of horrifying brutal violence perpetrated by “civilized” Greeks.
One feature of language (for better or worse) is that words whose denotation involves some associations considered to be negative in one context tend to be used as slurs, adding and intensifying negative connotations until they eventually become confusing when used in the original non-normative sense.
The word “savage” originally just meant “wild” (literally, “from the forest”), i.e. not domesticated. Under this original definition, a rabbit is “savage” but an aggressive guard dog is not.
For example, notice the author of this blog post starts with a description of a campaign of horrifying brutal violence perpetrated by “civilized” Greeks.
One feature of language (for better or worse) is that words whose denotation involves some associations considered to be negative in one context tend to be used as slurs, adding and intensifying negative connotations until they eventually become confusing when used in the original non-normative sense.
The word “savage” originally just meant “wild” (literally, “from the forest”), i.e. not domesticated. Under this original definition, a rabbit is “savage” but an aggressive guard dog is not.
I understand what you are saying, but why then didn't the writer apply the term "savage" to the "Western Hunter Gatherer" groups they describe earlier:
> By the mid to late 5th millennium, the peoples of Greece had diverged from their cousins. Europe was convulsed in a parallel set of conflicts involving tribes of WHGs conquering their EEF neighbors and establishing themselves as a new ruling class, catalyzing a new synthetic culture with their new subjects.
The WHG by your definition are just as "savage" than the Indo-Europeans but they are described as "conquering" (which is a term of glorification), and "catalyzing a new synthetic culture". In contrast, the Indo Europeans are described as "destroying" and "not content their new lands".
I have a hard time believing the intent, process, and outcome behind either circumstance was appreciably different from the other, at least in any way we can infer from archaeology.
If the term "savage" as used in the article is simply a matter of "civilization" and not brutality, then the Indo-Europeans should be considered far less savage than the WHGs, since they had created the spoked wheel and chariot technologies, and were pastoralists who practiced wheat/barley agriculture and animal husbandry - they were not forest-dwelling hunter-gatherers. In this way, they were far more similar to the EEF in lifestyle.
Therefore, I don't think that the author is using the term "savage" denotatively as you suggest, but rather is coloring their otherwise fascinating article with their own anachronistic opinions of the ancient Indo Europeans.
> By the mid to late 5th millennium, the peoples of Greece had diverged from their cousins. Europe was convulsed in a parallel set of conflicts involving tribes of WHGs conquering their EEF neighbors and establishing themselves as a new ruling class, catalyzing a new synthetic culture with their new subjects.
The WHG by your definition are just as "savage" than the Indo-Europeans but they are described as "conquering" (which is a term of glorification), and "catalyzing a new synthetic culture". In contrast, the Indo Europeans are described as "destroying" and "not content their new lands".
I have a hard time believing the intent, process, and outcome behind either circumstance was appreciably different from the other, at least in any way we can infer from archaeology.
If the term "savage" as used in the article is simply a matter of "civilization" and not brutality, then the Indo-Europeans should be considered far less savage than the WHGs, since they had created the spoked wheel and chariot technologies, and were pastoralists who practiced wheat/barley agriculture and animal husbandry - they were not forest-dwelling hunter-gatherers. In this way, they were far more similar to the EEF in lifestyle.
Therefore, I don't think that the author is using the term "savage" denotatively as you suggest, but rather is coloring their otherwise fascinating article with their own anachronistic opinions of the ancient Indo Europeans.
I did not get the impression that the author intended to uniquely characterize them as savages. Yes, it's the first instance of that word, but the preceding paragraphs are about replacements/displacements/invasions by other groups.
Well said
If you are interested in the collapse of the bronze age with some comments about the sea people
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M4LRHJlijVU
Eric clines lectures are really cool
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M4LRHJlijVU
Eric clines lectures are really cool
"1177 B.C. The Year Civilization Collapsed" by Cline is also good. Focusing on the "sea peoples" is almost a distraction. The real story is about the world of city-states and trading relationships in 2000 B.C. and the sudden collapse, across the Eastern Med, of those same states resulting in several hundred year dark ages.
I like this video from Historia Civilis on youtube. It’s a little more casual and shorter but it does address those major points.
https://youtu.be/aq4G-7v-_xI
https://youtu.be/aq4G-7v-_xI
sorry, meant to say 1200 B.C. - 1100 B.C., not 2000 B.C. (or B.C.E. if you like.)
And one more resource with the history of many civilizations:
https://www.youtube.com/c/FallofCivilizationsPodcast
I especially enjoyed https://youtu.be/d2lJUOv0hLA, as I had no idea the first cities were already so advanced and lasted for so many centuries.
EDIT: fixed youtube link.
I especially enjoyed https://youtu.be/d2lJUOv0hLA, as I had no idea the first cities were already so advanced and lasted for so many centuries.
EDIT: fixed youtube link.
Whenever someone mentions the age of Stonehenge or the Egyptian pyramids, it's fun to point out that we have tax records from Sumeria from before either of those.
I've watched all the Fall of Civilizations episodes because they are really well done. An amazing amount of work went into them to good effect. I am not a historian so I can't judge if they are alt-history or not, like the episode "Easter Island - Where Giants Walked" which completely refutes Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel and the theory that the inhabitants destroyed their environment.
Thoroughly enjoyed these.
There is the tv version (not podcast) with nice video alongside each of the current podcasts. Sometimes they release a podcast and it takes a month or two for the tv one to come out.
I'm watching the second link. Very very well made.
It's astonishing to me that there's so much high-quality stock footage of the area that someone can create such a high-quality historical documentary while only calling it a "podcast".
It's astonishing to me that there's so much high-quality stock footage of the area that someone can create such a high-quality historical documentary while only calling it a "podcast".
This podcast/series is so intensely good it is hard to describe to people. Partially because it is devoid of any commercial intent, it's simply raw history presented in an extremely accessible digest.
Getting "This video isn't available anymore" on the youtube link
Excellent lecture. The slick TED talk guys at the beginning kind of freaked me out but Eric Cline did not disappoint. This guy is a beast. Wish I had known about him back when I was teaching Art Hist.
[deleted]
So much wrong despite so much right.
Making the sea peoples all Greek totally flies in the face of the written records at the time, for example where Ugaritic leaders wrote to Cypress for help given the ships attacking them and got the response "it's your own ships."
SOME of the sea peoples were Greek. But a single genetic result most closely matching Crete (which was only 40% not "almost completely") shouldn't be extrapolated to be all the sea peoples. And it ignores the research that the Minoan ancestry was in line with the Anatolian farmers of the Neolithic period.
It also ignores the role of Lybia in the early Egyptian records of sea peoples battles, as well as Ramses II's capture of many peoples following Sherden/Lybian battles and then Hittite battle of Kadesh (where he captured 12 groups of tribes).
And arguably the biggest oversight (not just by OP but by many looking at this period) is failing to put aside the myth of ethnocentrism and monotheism from the Israelite story of 12 tribes fleeing Egypt under Moses with oldest part of that story referring to Dan "staying on their ships."
The Greek story of the Exodus claimed many different people left, and placed the fleeing of Danaus alongside them. Danaus, the likely eponymous leader claimed to be a brother of the Pharoh with 50 sons and connected with Lybia. Sounds kind of like Ramses II, who had 50 sons and whose forensic report identified him as appearing to have been a Lybian Berber.
Sure weird that a lot of the sea peoples conquered territories were then named for Mopsus/Muksus, including the Denyen of Adana who centuries later still had a ruling "House of Mopsus."
I wonder if that has anything to do with Dan, who "stayed on their ships" in the Song of Deborah - the earliest part of the Bible, in Judges 18 ending up with a grandson of Moses as chief priest.
There's a lot more, especially in the Cretan/Lybian genetic overlap with the Ashkenazi, particularly given the 80% pre-history European mtDNA lineages. Or in Aegean archeology for details in claimed Biblical history. But suffice to say the sea peoples shouldn't be as much a mystery as it remains if only people would do a better job looking at what's clearly myth (Abrahamic lineages given Y-haplogroups and early Israelite monotheism) and who was writing the story (Judah, who wasn't a group present earlier on).
Making the sea peoples all Greek totally flies in the face of the written records at the time, for example where Ugaritic leaders wrote to Cypress for help given the ships attacking them and got the response "it's your own ships."
SOME of the sea peoples were Greek. But a single genetic result most closely matching Crete (which was only 40% not "almost completely") shouldn't be extrapolated to be all the sea peoples. And it ignores the research that the Minoan ancestry was in line with the Anatolian farmers of the Neolithic period.
It also ignores the role of Lybia in the early Egyptian records of sea peoples battles, as well as Ramses II's capture of many peoples following Sherden/Lybian battles and then Hittite battle of Kadesh (where he captured 12 groups of tribes).
And arguably the biggest oversight (not just by OP but by many looking at this period) is failing to put aside the myth of ethnocentrism and monotheism from the Israelite story of 12 tribes fleeing Egypt under Moses with oldest part of that story referring to Dan "staying on their ships."
The Greek story of the Exodus claimed many different people left, and placed the fleeing of Danaus alongside them. Danaus, the likely eponymous leader claimed to be a brother of the Pharoh with 50 sons and connected with Lybia. Sounds kind of like Ramses II, who had 50 sons and whose forensic report identified him as appearing to have been a Lybian Berber.
Sure weird that a lot of the sea peoples conquered territories were then named for Mopsus/Muksus, including the Denyen of Adana who centuries later still had a ruling "House of Mopsus."
I wonder if that has anything to do with Dan, who "stayed on their ships" in the Song of Deborah - the earliest part of the Bible, in Judges 18 ending up with a grandson of Moses as chief priest.
There's a lot more, especially in the Cretan/Lybian genetic overlap with the Ashkenazi, particularly given the 80% pre-history European mtDNA lineages. Or in Aegean archeology for details in claimed Biblical history. But suffice to say the sea peoples shouldn't be as much a mystery as it remains if only people would do a better job looking at what's clearly myth (Abrahamic lineages given Y-haplogroups and early Israelite monotheism) and who was writing the story (Judah, who wasn't a group present earlier on).
Why do you say that Judges 18 (or all of Judges, if that was your meaning) is the earliest part of the Bible?
TL;DR: Moses did the Late Bronze Age collapse?
I followed this writer for awhile, listened to his seminars and even interacted with him occasionally over Twitter, and over time gathered the impression that narrative takes precedence over precision. I was always entertained, but couldn't distinguish between known, speculative, and even fictional elements in his writing.
> After the terrible droughts that caused the Bronze Age Collapse
This is still a matter of considerable debate. An alternate explanation for the LBA collapse was offered by Drews: a shift in military tactics from chariots with composite bows to armored infantry armed with Naue Type II swords (as well as javelins).
This is still a matter of considerable debate. An alternate explanation for the LBA collapse was offered by Drews: a shift in military tactics from chariots with composite bows to armored infantry armed with Naue Type II swords (as well as javelins).
Like any complex system failure the best theories in my opinion for the causes of collapse aren’t “this one thing did it” but several unrelated causes happening at once. Weather, warfare, a somewhat fragile interdependent system of trade, the somewhere between migrant, pirate, and raider sea peoples, and plain old state failure happening together.
Why should that be the best explanation? Surely many factors affected the collapse, but that doesn't mean many factors caused the collapse.
The systems collapse theory strikes me as a theory that's been elaborated to the point of untestability, and a violation of Ockham's Razor.
The systems collapse theory strikes me as a theory that's been elaborated to the point of untestability, and a violation of Ockham's Razor.
Because when you study complex systems and how they fail from famous examples (Chernobyl, Challenger, Air France Flight 447, etc. etc.) to (for me) personal experience addressing software systems downtimes... what you find is single causes are quite rare. What you do usually find is a dozen independent things, all of which need to be fixed, any of which if it were fixed would have prevented the failure.
Attributing "cause" to any of them is an exercise in preference of importance. Do you pick the last one that happened? Do you decide which one had the biggest impact? Do you pick the one that was the easiest/hardest to find? It's a silly exercise to pick one. You will find that the failure was caused by a concert of things working together, the only reason to pick one is a personal preference for there to be one thing to pick.
A common pattern is the "straw that broke the camel's back" in a relatively small aberration or mistake which pushes a system from a working state into a phase change to a non-working one revealing all sorts of structural deficiencies. Do you say that last straw was the "cause"? Only if you're particularly short sighted.
I've experienced this personally many times. No we didn't have 3 days of downtime because there was a 5% performance regression in the last release, we had 3 days of downtime because systems A through G were constantly on the edge of collapse and nobody noticed until all hell broke loose.
Attributing "cause" to any of them is an exercise in preference of importance. Do you pick the last one that happened? Do you decide which one had the biggest impact? Do you pick the one that was the easiest/hardest to find? It's a silly exercise to pick one. You will find that the failure was caused by a concert of things working together, the only reason to pick one is a personal preference for there to be one thing to pick.
A common pattern is the "straw that broke the camel's back" in a relatively small aberration or mistake which pushes a system from a working state into a phase change to a non-working one revealing all sorts of structural deficiencies. Do you say that last straw was the "cause"? Only if you're particularly short sighted.
I've experienced this personally many times. No we didn't have 3 days of downtime because there was a 5% performance regression in the last release, we had 3 days of downtime because systems A through G were constantly on the edge of collapse and nobody noticed until all hell broke loose.
That's true in engineered systems. It happens because when you make many copies of a thing and use them for a while, all the simple failure modes get worked out.
But societies aren't like that. The world didn't make N copies of the bronze age Mediterranean. If, as Drews suggests, the collapse was a near-deterministic consequence of the overshadowing of expensive chariot-based centralized armies by armored sword bearing infantry forces, then it would have occurred the first time this technology came out (and it became widely known that previously protected rich cities were ripe for the sacking by Joe Conan and friends.)
But societies aren't like that. The world didn't make N copies of the bronze age Mediterranean. If, as Drews suggests, the collapse was a near-deterministic consequence of the overshadowing of expensive chariot-based centralized armies by armored sword bearing infantry forces, then it would have occurred the first time this technology came out (and it became widely known that previously protected rich cities were ripe for the sacking by Joe Conan and friends.)
A couple of questions:
How would you test that theory?
Who introduced the armored sword-bearing infantry? It's not exactly cheap. If it was an existing civilization, would they not have simply taken over the region, like the Macedonians, Romans, and assorted others? If it were a migration of people, as the Egyptian writings indicate, why were they migrating?
Why were the Egyptians and Babylonians able to survive, albeit with considerable losses, while others such as the Mycenaeans didn't? Why weren't the existing civilizations able to adapt and adopt?
How would you test that theory?
Who introduced the armored sword-bearing infantry? It's not exactly cheap. If it was an existing civilization, would they not have simply taken over the region, like the Macedonians, Romans, and assorted others? If it were a migration of people, as the Egyptian writings indicate, why were they migrating?
Why were the Egyptians and Babylonians able to survive, albeit with considerable losses, while others such as the Mycenaeans didn't? Why weren't the existing civilizations able to adapt and adopt?
The Egyptians adopted the new fighting style; it's how they defeated the "Sea Peoples" attack in the Nile delta (there are famous depictions of this battle in Egypt).
Babylonia was soon afterward conquered by militaristic Assyria; Assyria also adopted the new approach and, later in the early iron age (as the neo-Assyrian empire), became the dominant superpower in the Fertile Crescent.
The others? The Mycenaeans were closest to the part of Europe where the new sword technology had evolved and matured.
I suggest you read both Cline's book (there's a new edition out) and Drews', and compare and contrast their takes on the subject.
Babylonia was soon afterward conquered by militaristic Assyria; Assyria also adopted the new approach and, later in the early iron age (as the neo-Assyrian empire), became the dominant superpower in the Fertile Crescent.
The others? The Mycenaeans were closest to the part of Europe where the new sword technology had evolved and matured.
I suggest you read both Cline's book (there's a new edition out) and Drews', and compare and contrast their takes on the subject.
Cline mentions a goodly stack of other explanations, including migrations into the region as well as out of the major civilizations of the area.
Reading a book of that title on the Polynesians:
* https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/40536236-sea-people
* https://www.npr.org/2019/03/13/702505578/sea-people-examines...
* https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/40536236-sea-people
* https://www.npr.org/2019/03/13/702505578/sea-people-examines...
> Even today, sea transport is cheaper than land transport. In the Bronze and Classical Ages the advantage of sea transport was even more extreme. There was no need for the construction of roads and tens of tons could be transported long distances. Travel times by sea were considerably less than those on land, and armies could be resupplied far away. Bronze Age states with strong navies would have a tremendous advantage over their rivals
This is a fascinating observation to consider even terms of our modern era. Prior to the pandemic, the cost to ship a $20-retail pair of athletic shoes to the US from Asia via the sea was only $.30. [1]
Every passing technological wave that triggers growth seems to concentrate it most in strategic maritime areas (even if much of the raw materials and goods flowing through maritime channels originate in landlocked/inland areas).
One theory of these historical invasions is that that wealth eventually attracts the attention of inland peoples who eventually band together to attack the maritime cultures.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d5d_HXGeMA
This is a fascinating observation to consider even terms of our modern era. Prior to the pandemic, the cost to ship a $20-retail pair of athletic shoes to the US from Asia via the sea was only $.30. [1]
Every passing technological wave that triggers growth seems to concentrate it most in strategic maritime areas (even if much of the raw materials and goods flowing through maritime channels originate in landlocked/inland areas).
One theory of these historical invasions is that that wealth eventually attracts the attention of inland peoples who eventually band together to attack the maritime cultures.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d5d_HXGeMA
If we continue the observations, sea transport is so dominant that the English language uses the word "shipping" even in context of sending goods over land [0]. All the e-shops speak about "shipping", even if it just involves a small truck on a distance of ten miles from the warehouse to your door.
[0] Not my native language, though; landlocked nations use other expressions.
[0] Not my native language, though; landlocked nations use other expressions.
Can someone tell me why archaeologists don't believe that Minoans were the Sea People?
I think there are 2 primary reasons:
First, if they were Minoan that would have been recorded in the annals of civilizations like Egypt and others which kept good records. The Egyptians and others of the Eastern Mediterranean had long links with Crete and the Minoans. It doesn't stand to reason that the Minoan could launch such a large movement (in the sense impact so many areas of the Eastern Mediterranean) and no one notices.
Secondly - the nature of the sea peoples attacks, assaults suggests a group of people moving, migrating - not looting and returning. If the Minoan were doing this - why would they not return with their gathered spoils to their homeland. If they did return - where is the physical and archeological evidence?
Those are the pressing ones that come to mind first. There's also the question why would the Minoan embarknon something so foolish as invading Egypt. Egypt was what a hundred times bigger? If you failed - first you'd expose yourself to retribution and secondly - you'd weaken yourself severely leaving you exposed to others.
First, if they were Minoan that would have been recorded in the annals of civilizations like Egypt and others which kept good records. The Egyptians and others of the Eastern Mediterranean had long links with Crete and the Minoans. It doesn't stand to reason that the Minoan could launch such a large movement (in the sense impact so many areas of the Eastern Mediterranean) and no one notices.
Secondly - the nature of the sea peoples attacks, assaults suggests a group of people moving, migrating - not looting and returning. If the Minoan were doing this - why would they not return with their gathered spoils to their homeland. If they did return - where is the physical and archeological evidence?
Those are the pressing ones that come to mind first. There's also the question why would the Minoan embarknon something so foolish as invading Egypt. Egypt was what a hundred times bigger? If you failed - first you'd expose yourself to retribution and secondly - you'd weaken yourself severely leaving you exposed to others.
Because of Egyptian inscriptions. If it was only one group, why do Egyptian inscriptions list 5+ groups? Here's the relevant article section:
"The Philistines (known to the Egyptians as the Peleset) were among several groups listed as the Sea Peoples by the Egyptians. The other Sea Peoples were the Tjekker, the Shekelesh, the Ekwesh, the Shardana, the Danuna, and the Weshesh. An inscription on the tomb of Ramses III reads:
“The foreign countries made a conspiracy in their islands. All at once the lands were removed and scattered in the fray. No land could stand before their arms, from Khatte, Qode, Carchemish, Arzawa, and Alashiya on, being cut off at [one time]. A camp [was set up] in one place in Amurru. They desolated its people, and its land was like that which has never come into being. They were coming forward toward Egypt, while the flame was prepared before them. Their confederation was the Peleset, Tjekker, Shekelesh, Danuna, and Weshesh, lands united. They laid their hands upon the lands as far as the circuit of the earth, their hearts confident and trusting.”
Arzawa is in western Anatolia, Khatte is the Hittite realm in central Anatolia, Qode is Cilicia in modern southeastern Turkey, Carchemish was a city on the banks of the Euphrates River, Amurru was an Egyptian vassal in northern Lebanon and coastal Syria, and Alashiya is Cyprus. The Danuna are the Greek tribe of Danaans referenced by Homer in “The Iliad”. The ruins of the Hittite capital of Hattusa have been excavated, and the destruction of the city was between 1190 and 1180 BC. In the same decade, the city of Troy was destroyed as well, likely in what is remembered as the Trojan War.
The identity of the other groups is less certain. The Mycenaean Greeks are known to have had contact with the EEF peoples of Sardinia - the Nuragics - from pottery finds. The etymology of Sardinia’s name is unknown, but the the name predates the arrival of the Phoenicians. The Shardana referenced by the Egyptians as being among the Sea Peoples may be Sardinians, Nuragics recruited by Mycenaean Greek sailors for campaigns of plunder and conquest. The Sardinians certainly knew of the wealth of the east - their copper, valuable in the Bronze Age as one of the ingredients for bronze, originated from Cyprus.
Similarly, the name of the Shekelesh may refer to the aforementioned Sicanians in Sicily. Alternatively, it could refer to the Italic-speaking Sicels (relatives of the Romans) who invaded southern Italy and Sicily in the late 13th or early 12th century during a massive drought in their home, the Po River Basin of northern Italy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples#Primary_documentar...
"The Philistines (known to the Egyptians as the Peleset) were among several groups listed as the Sea Peoples by the Egyptians. The other Sea Peoples were the Tjekker, the Shekelesh, the Ekwesh, the Shardana, the Danuna, and the Weshesh. An inscription on the tomb of Ramses III reads:
“The foreign countries made a conspiracy in their islands. All at once the lands were removed and scattered in the fray. No land could stand before their arms, from Khatte, Qode, Carchemish, Arzawa, and Alashiya on, being cut off at [one time]. A camp [was set up] in one place in Amurru. They desolated its people, and its land was like that which has never come into being. They were coming forward toward Egypt, while the flame was prepared before them. Their confederation was the Peleset, Tjekker, Shekelesh, Danuna, and Weshesh, lands united. They laid their hands upon the lands as far as the circuit of the earth, their hearts confident and trusting.”
Arzawa is in western Anatolia, Khatte is the Hittite realm in central Anatolia, Qode is Cilicia in modern southeastern Turkey, Carchemish was a city on the banks of the Euphrates River, Amurru was an Egyptian vassal in northern Lebanon and coastal Syria, and Alashiya is Cyprus. The Danuna are the Greek tribe of Danaans referenced by Homer in “The Iliad”. The ruins of the Hittite capital of Hattusa have been excavated, and the destruction of the city was between 1190 and 1180 BC. In the same decade, the city of Troy was destroyed as well, likely in what is remembered as the Trojan War.
The identity of the other groups is less certain. The Mycenaean Greeks are known to have had contact with the EEF peoples of Sardinia - the Nuragics - from pottery finds. The etymology of Sardinia’s name is unknown, but the the name predates the arrival of the Phoenicians. The Shardana referenced by the Egyptians as being among the Sea Peoples may be Sardinians, Nuragics recruited by Mycenaean Greek sailors for campaigns of plunder and conquest. The Sardinians certainly knew of the wealth of the east - their copper, valuable in the Bronze Age as one of the ingredients for bronze, originated from Cyprus.
Similarly, the name of the Shekelesh may refer to the aforementioned Sicanians in Sicily. Alternatively, it could refer to the Italic-speaking Sicels (relatives of the Romans) who invaded southern Italy and Sicily in the late 13th or early 12th century during a massive drought in their home, the Po River Basin of northern Italy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples#Primary_documentar...
For one there is no "the" Sea People. It is a uselessly broad term like barbarian, stranger, or foreigner. It is a xenophobic mark from the insular to those not known and liked as opposed to a group in itself. The users of such a term essentially prided themselves as land based empires.
The Minoan civilization had been on a downward arc for several hundred years (i.e. since 1600-1500BCE, including possibly being conquered by Mycenaeans around 1400BCE) by the time of the Sea Peoples' antics (about 1200BCE).
"The Sea Peoples are a purported seafaring confederation that attacked ancient Egypt and other regions of the East Mediterranean prior to and during the Late Bronze Age collapse (1200–900 BCE).", interesting. I think the author is convinced they were Greeks, then?
Calling them "Greeks" is more than a bit incorrect and a kind of back-porting of the concept of Hellenism into a very pre-Hellenic time. Even if it's true that the Sea Peoples were Mycenaeans or Achaeans, they did not call themselves "Hellenes" nor have anything like the sense of a Hellenic identity that developed much later in the iron age.
I think of these people as groupings of war chieftans and landholding warrior aristocracies and their crews, conducting raids abroad and territory at home, similar to the crews of Viking ships. Similar in that they had skill with ships, and similar in holding onto older Indo-European traditions of raiding (back to Yamnayan cattle raids on the Pontic steppe), class structures (warrior/priest/farmer) and systems of managing subjects and fiefdoms.
Calling them "Greeks" is about as accurate as calling the old Vikings "Norwegians" or "Swedish". Related by descent, but not nearly the same, and almost 1000 years separating them.
I think of these people as groupings of war chieftans and landholding warrior aristocracies and their crews, conducting raids abroad and territory at home, similar to the crews of Viking ships. Similar in that they had skill with ships, and similar in holding onto older Indo-European traditions of raiding (back to Yamnayan cattle raids on the Pontic steppe), class structures (warrior/priest/farmer) and systems of managing subjects and fiefdoms.
Calling them "Greeks" is about as accurate as calling the old Vikings "Norwegians" or "Swedish". Related by descent, but not nearly the same, and almost 1000 years separating them.
>Calling them "Greeks" is about as accurate as calling the old Vikings "Norwegians" or "Swedish". Related by descent, but not nearly the same, and almost 1000 years separating them.
I mean... wouldn't the people of the British Isles during the Viking Age have called the raiders Danes, or Norsemen? Not vikings?
If your invaders speak Greek and come from the area of Greece, calling them Greek seems to make sense, albeit obviously not in a way equivalent to Hellenes.
I mean... wouldn't the people of the British Isles during the Viking Age have called the raiders Danes, or Norsemen? Not vikings?
If your invaders speak Greek and come from the area of Greece, calling them Greek seems to make sense, albeit obviously not in a way equivalent to Hellenes.
They didn't speak Greek. They spoke a bunch of languages that predated Greek. There was no place called Greece then, and the people of the time had all sorts of words for the various groupings, but Greek/Hellene wasn't one of them.
It's best not to transplant our national identities into the past where they don't make sense. Nationalist mythologies can and have been used for some pretty awful things.
It's best not to transplant our national identities into the past where they don't make sense. Nationalist mythologies can and have been used for some pretty awful things.
Mycenaeans spoke Greek. I've didn't say anything about national identities. If you don't think there was some ethno/cultural/religious/linguistic category in the rough shape of "Greek" before they started calling themselves Hellenes... that's weird.
[deleted]
The article references some of the evidence that a part of the Sea People were Greeks.
The ancient sources list a large number of different tribes which composed the Sea People.
Whether all of them were Greeks or some of them had a completely different origin, nobody knows.
Of the Greeks we know more, as they had later known descendants, so we have a chance to identify their ancestors, either by DNA tests or by some cultural aspects.
Of the many other people that had existed in Southern Europe and who are mentioned in ancient sources, but who were later assimilated by the Greeks or by the Romans, we know much less, so it is difficult to identify any of the Sea People who might have been related to them.
The ancient sources list a large number of different tribes which composed the Sea People.
Whether all of them were Greeks or some of them had a completely different origin, nobody knows.
Of the Greeks we know more, as they had later known descendants, so we have a chance to identify their ancestors, either by DNA tests or by some cultural aspects.
Of the many other people that had existed in Southern Europe and who are mentioned in ancient sources, but who were later assimilated by the Greeks or by the Romans, we know much less, so it is difficult to identify any of the Sea People who might have been related to them.
I thought Nuragic peoples (Sardinians) were in pole position?
Its questionable if they were a confederation, or how connected they were to each other. I don't think people would usually call the vikings a confederation.
I think there is fair evidence that some names refer to places in Greek. At the same time seem to refer to cities in other places. Those however could be Greek colonies in Italy and Sicily. Or maybe non Greeks in those places.
I don't think single origin explanations work all that well.
I think there is fair evidence that some names refer to places in Greek. At the same time seem to refer to cities in other places. Those however could be Greek colonies in Italy and Sicily. Or maybe non Greeks in those places.
I don't think single origin explanations work all that well.
Yes he makes this case in the blog, supported by some recent discoveries. It also has a good overview of population flows in the region up to that time. Really a great blog with lots of references.
References, perhaps, but no footnotes.
He makes confident assertions about which current scholarly consensus is far less certain. It would be nice if he highlighted that.
For instance, contrast the tone of his blog post with the tone of this article, quoting the researcher whose findings Nimitz references[*]:
> "Some interpretations of ancient texts have suggested that the Philistines were one of the groups that comprised the Sea Peoples," study leader Michal Feldman, from the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, told Newsweek.
> "Our genetic results could fit with this hypothesis since we detect a movement of people that crossed the Mediterranean and reached Ashkelon in the relevant time period—around the 12th century B.C. However, from the genetics we cannot determine whether these ancestors of the Philistines that migrated to Ashkelon were indeed part of the Sea Peoples or not." [emph. mine]
I think footnotes, particularly for assertions like this that he believes to be true - or that he chooses to gloss over for the sake of narrative - but that scholars are not so convinced, would lift his writings out of the realm of entertainment. As it is, unfortunately, his writings - as entertaining as they are - could mislead readers like me who prefer accurate uncertainty over inaccurate but consistent and entertaining narrative.
[*] https://www.newsweek.com/biblical-philistines-sea-peoples-dn...
He makes confident assertions about which current scholarly consensus is far less certain. It would be nice if he highlighted that.
For instance, contrast the tone of his blog post with the tone of this article, quoting the researcher whose findings Nimitz references[*]:
> "Some interpretations of ancient texts have suggested that the Philistines were one of the groups that comprised the Sea Peoples," study leader Michal Feldman, from the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, told Newsweek.
> "Our genetic results could fit with this hypothesis since we detect a movement of people that crossed the Mediterranean and reached Ashkelon in the relevant time period—around the 12th century B.C. However, from the genetics we cannot determine whether these ancestors of the Philistines that migrated to Ashkelon were indeed part of the Sea Peoples or not." [emph. mine]
I think footnotes, particularly for assertions like this that he believes to be true - or that he chooses to gloss over for the sake of narrative - but that scholars are not so convinced, would lift his writings out of the realm of entertainment. As it is, unfortunately, his writings - as entertaining as they are - could mislead readers like me who prefer accurate uncertainty over inaccurate but consistent and entertaining narrative.
[*] https://www.newsweek.com/biblical-philistines-sea-peoples-dn...
>>>>> Tyre was well fortified, and the city-state included a walled island off the coast.
Unfortunately the sea castle is no longer due to centuries of silt accumulation on the causeway, effectively "merging" old tyre with mainland.
However, another walled island is in Sidon ("Saida"), nearby. It is quite a sight.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidon_Sea_Castle
Going back to Tyre - The hippodrome of Al Bass, with a bit of luck (ex: concert or wedding lightining placement, etc) would rival Baalbeck itself as the most extraordinary site in Lebanon
Unfortunately the sea castle is no longer due to centuries of silt accumulation on the causeway, effectively "merging" old tyre with mainland.
However, another walled island is in Sidon ("Saida"), nearby. It is quite a sight.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidon_Sea_Castle
Going back to Tyre - The hippodrome of Al Bass, with a bit of luck (ex: concert or wedding lightining placement, etc) would rival Baalbeck itself as the most extraordinary site in Lebanon
I am so curious about the use of mushrooms and alcohol in ancient times. The historical record contains almost no evidence for psychoactive mushroom use, despite rather widespread availability. In the absence of evidence (and the assumption that people generally like drugs), I speculate that a cultural taboo arose after the brewers (agriculturalists) beat the trippers (nomads).
And yet, “Mycenaean” translates roughly to the mushroom people…
And yet, “Mycenaean” translates roughly to the mushroom people…
A relationship between "Mycenaean" and mushrooms is very unlikely.
"Mycenaean" comes from a feminine name, which in the older pronunciation before the 1st millennium BC would have been "Mukaanaa".
The Greek name of the mushroom, in the older pronunciation would have been either "mukeet" or "mukaat", which is likely to be derived from a word meaning "mud".
While the feminine name "Mukaanaa" starts with "muk", like mushroom, it is not formed according to the usual Greek rules for word derivation and there are also many other Greek words starting with "muk".
There was indeed someone (Solmsen) who, in 1912, proposed seriously this etymology, but others (e.g. Krahe) presented counterarguments that this etymology cannot be true, which were considered much more convincing.
"Mycenaean" comes from a feminine name, which in the older pronunciation before the 1st millennium BC would have been "Mukaanaa".
The Greek name of the mushroom, in the older pronunciation would have been either "mukeet" or "mukaat", which is likely to be derived from a word meaning "mud".
While the feminine name "Mukaanaa" starts with "muk", like mushroom, it is not formed according to the usual Greek rules for word derivation and there are also many other Greek words starting with "muk".
There was indeed someone (Solmsen) who, in 1912, proposed seriously this etymology, but others (e.g. Krahe) presented counterarguments that this etymology cannot be true, which were considered much more convincing.
A detailed rebuttal to Krahe is presented by Wasson, p129. Note that you are basing your argument on Greek, but this is a preGreek term.
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Road_to_Eleusis.htm...
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Road_to_Eleusis.htm...
Thanks for the link.
I have found online a fragment of Wasson, but unfortunately the fragment stops before page 129, so I could not see the rebuttal, only a mention by Wasson that some colleague derided him for believing that there is a connection between the name Mycenae and mushrooms.
Wasson might be right about the use of mushrooms at the Greek mysteries, but that has nothing to do with the name of the city Mycenae.
We know that the female name from which Mycenae is derived has been in use, e.g. in the Odyssey some nymph with this name is mentioned.
It does not make much sense for a woman's name to refer to mushrooms.
Assuming that you are right and the woman/city name is pre-Greek, then that removes any connection with the Greek name of the mushroom, which is likely to be Indo-European, derived from the same word with the Latin "mucus".
I have found online a fragment of Wasson, but unfortunately the fragment stops before page 129, so I could not see the rebuttal, only a mention by Wasson that some colleague derided him for believing that there is a connection between the name Mycenae and mushrooms.
Wasson might be right about the use of mushrooms at the Greek mysteries, but that has nothing to do with the name of the city Mycenae.
We know that the female name from which Mycenae is derived has been in use, e.g. in the Odyssey some nymph with this name is mentioned.
It does not make much sense for a woman's name to refer to mushrooms.
Assuming that you are right and the woman/city name is pre-Greek, then that removes any connection with the Greek name of the mushroom, which is likely to be Indo-European, derived from the same word with the Latin "mucus".
Here is Wasson’s argument. The idea that it is preGreek comes from this etymology website. https://etymology_el_en.en-academic.com/6991/%CE%9C%CF%85%CC...
“The etymology of Mykenai from mykes, although frequently proposed, was rejected by Krahe (Gnomon 17, 1945, 472). There seems, however, no reason why the city's name is not correctly associated with mykes. The declensional stem of mykes alternates between myket- (third declension) and myke- (first declension); the lack of -t-in Mykenai is therefore not significant. For a city related to a plant, cf. Mekone from the opium poppy mekon. Mykenai, furthermore, is a feminine plural, like Thebes (Thebai) and Athens (Athenai); as in the names of those cities, Mykenai derived from the nymph of the place, Mykene (Homer, Odyssey 2. 120; Hesiod, frg. 246, Merkelbach and West; etc.), the primordial bride whose descent into death there established, or continually re-established, the compact with the chthonic realm upon which union. the living city could be founded. There was also a tradition about an eponymous male founder, Mykeneus, whose father was Sparton, the 'sown man,' apparently an autochthonous inhabitant like the Spartoe at Thebes growing from the land (Acusilaus, frg. 16, Jacoby Eustathius on Homer, Iliad 2. 569 p. 289. 47; cf. scholia to Euripides, Orestes 1239). It is formulaic in foundation myths for the narrative to show a pattern of mediation between two versions of origin, autochthony and in migration; the autochthonous inhabitant quite naturally displays botanic characteristics and the mediation between opposite claimants to the place is effected via the sacred marriage. The name of the city Mykenai, therefore, would suggest that the mykes figured in Mycenaean religion. There was a tradition that at the neighboring city of Corinth, the original inhabitants were mushrooms that Sisyphus converted into men (Ovid, Metamorphoses 7.392-3; cf. Apollodorus 1. 9. 3).”
“The etymology of Mykenai from mykes, although frequently proposed, was rejected by Krahe (Gnomon 17, 1945, 472). There seems, however, no reason why the city's name is not correctly associated with mykes. The declensional stem of mykes alternates between myket- (third declension) and myke- (first declension); the lack of -t-in Mykenai is therefore not significant. For a city related to a plant, cf. Mekone from the opium poppy mekon. Mykenai, furthermore, is a feminine plural, like Thebes (Thebai) and Athens (Athenai); as in the names of those cities, Mykenai derived from the nymph of the place, Mykene (Homer, Odyssey 2. 120; Hesiod, frg. 246, Merkelbach and West; etc.), the primordial bride whose descent into death there established, or continually re-established, the compact with the chthonic realm upon which union. the living city could be founded. There was also a tradition about an eponymous male founder, Mykeneus, whose father was Sparton, the 'sown man,' apparently an autochthonous inhabitant like the Spartoe at Thebes growing from the land (Acusilaus, frg. 16, Jacoby Eustathius on Homer, Iliad 2. 569 p. 289. 47; cf. scholia to Euripides, Orestes 1239). It is formulaic in foundation myths for the narrative to show a pattern of mediation between two versions of origin, autochthony and in migration; the autochthonous inhabitant quite naturally displays botanic characteristics and the mediation between opposite claimants to the place is effected via the sacred marriage. The name of the city Mykenai, therefore, would suggest that the mykes figured in Mycenaean religion. There was a tradition that at the neighboring city of Corinth, the original inhabitants were mushrooms that Sisyphus converted into men (Ovid, Metamorphoses 7.392-3; cf. Apollodorus 1. 9. 3).”
Thanks.
However I do not see here any convincing argument here.
While it is true that there was an alternative stem mukaa- for mukaat- (though attested only in the plural), deriving a female name as Mukaanaa from mukaa- is not a normal derivation in Greek.
In my opinion, the most likely is that the woman name Mukaanaa and the city name Mukaanai were indeed pre-Greek, so of completely unknown meaning.
A millennium later, the Greeks did not know more than us about what Mycenae might mean, so, as it always happens in such cases, they also thought about fanciful etymologies of the word, e.g. that it might be related to mushrooms, and they introduced such elements in their legends.
However I do not see here any convincing argument here.
While it is true that there was an alternative stem mukaa- for mukaat- (though attested only in the plural), deriving a female name as Mukaanaa from mukaa- is not a normal derivation in Greek.
In my opinion, the most likely is that the woman name Mukaanaa and the city name Mukaanai were indeed pre-Greek, so of completely unknown meaning.
A millennium later, the Greeks did not know more than us about what Mycenae might mean, so, as it always happens in such cases, they also thought about fanciful etymologies of the word, e.g. that it might be related to mushrooms, and they introduced such elements in their legends.
Other Greek words starting with "μυκ-" include "μυκηθμός", roaring, "Μυκηναίοι" (Myceneans) could well be "those who roar" and their land, Μυκήναι (Mycenae) be "the land of the people who roar" [see edit below].
Although I guess we could imagine that they roared because of all the mushrooms.
Btw, my favourite para-etymology is that of "Xochicalco" [1], the name of a Pre-Columnbian settlement which was explained as "The countryside temple of the Goddess Kali" by one over-zealous Greek nationalist. In Greek, "exochi" (εξοχή) is "countryside" and I guess "calco" ...sounds a little bit like "kali"? That "Xochicalco" is the name of a city built by pre-Columbian Americans is a feature, not a bug, as, if I remember correctly, the book I found this para-etymology in was one of those that claim that the Ancient Greeks had been there before everyone else (bonus: they came from Sirious in spaceships, or something like that. It was a long time ago I read that book, or rather only the first few pages thereof).
So, you know, morale of the story and so on, some caution is adviseable when taking the fact that two words "sound like" each other (we have no idea how ancient Myceaneans pronounced anything btw) as proof that they have a common origin. The French even have a word for this kind of word: "faux ami". False friend. You say "Chaire s' il vous plait" and you think you asked for a chair, but, no. "Chaire" is French for "flesh". Now imagine the faux amis you can find lying about after a few thousand years of language evolution.
____________
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xochicalco
Edit: To be more precise, "μυκηθμός" describes the roraring _of an ox_ so more like a... cow moo. If you think about it, that's not at all an unlikely name for a city that would count part of its richess in the number of its cattle. So Myceneans could be "the people of the cows". Or, I guess, "the people of the moos".
Although I guess we could imagine that they roared because of all the mushrooms.
Btw, my favourite para-etymology is that of "Xochicalco" [1], the name of a Pre-Columnbian settlement which was explained as "The countryside temple of the Goddess Kali" by one over-zealous Greek nationalist. In Greek, "exochi" (εξοχή) is "countryside" and I guess "calco" ...sounds a little bit like "kali"? That "Xochicalco" is the name of a city built by pre-Columbian Americans is a feature, not a bug, as, if I remember correctly, the book I found this para-etymology in was one of those that claim that the Ancient Greeks had been there before everyone else (bonus: they came from Sirious in spaceships, or something like that. It was a long time ago I read that book, or rather only the first few pages thereof).
So, you know, morale of the story and so on, some caution is adviseable when taking the fact that two words "sound like" each other (we have no idea how ancient Myceaneans pronounced anything btw) as proof that they have a common origin. The French even have a word for this kind of word: "faux ami". False friend. You say "Chaire s' il vous plait" and you think you asked for a chair, but, no. "Chaire" is French for "flesh". Now imagine the faux amis you can find lying about after a few thousand years of language evolution.
____________
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xochicalco
Edit: To be more precise, "μυκηθμός" describes the roraring _of an ox_ so more like a... cow moo. If you think about it, that's not at all an unlikely name for a city that would count part of its richess in the number of its cattle. So Myceneans could be "the people of the cows". Or, I guess, "the people of the moos".
> And yet, “Mycenaean” translates roughly to the mushroom people…
This has got to be my top-contender for wackiest HN comment if the week.
Please: could you show any sources for this assertion? Start with the sctual Greek; because, the actual Greek words are about as related as "moose" and "mouse".
This has got to be my top-contender for wackiest HN comment if the week.
Please: could you show any sources for this assertion? Start with the sctual Greek; because, the actual Greek words are about as related as "moose" and "mouse".
Most of that comment is kind of goofy but the etymology isn't absurd. Per https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Paus.+2.16.3&f... :
So the prediction of the god to Acrisius found its fulfillment, nor was his fate prevented by his precautions against his daughter and grandson. Perseus, ashamed because of the gossip about the homicide, on his return to Argos induced Megapenthes, the son of Proetus, to make an exchange of kingdoms; taking over himself that of Megapenthes, he founded Mycenae. For on its site the cap （myces） fell from his scabbard, and he regarded this as a sign to found a city. I have also heard the following account. He was thirsty, and the thought occurred to him to pick up a mushroom （myces） from the ground. Drinking with joy water that flowed from it, he gave to the place the name of Mycenae.
So the prediction of the god to Acrisius found its fulfillment, nor was his fate prevented by his precautions against his daughter and grandson. Perseus, ashamed because of the gossip about the homicide, on his return to Argos induced Megapenthes, the son of Proetus, to make an exchange of kingdoms; taking over himself that of Megapenthes, he founded Mycenae. For on its site the cap （myces） fell from his scabbard, and he regarded this as a sign to found a city. I have also heard the following account. He was thirsty, and the thought occurred to him to pick up a mushroom （myces） from the ground. Drinking with joy water that flowed from it, he gave to the place the name of Mycenae.
It's actually in the etymology section on Wikipedia too:
> Legend has it that the name was connected to the Greek word mykēs (μύκης, "mushroom"). Thus, Pausanias ascribes the name to the legendary founder Perseus, who was said to have named it either after the cap (mykēs) of the sheath of his sword, or after a mushroom he had plucked on the site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenae
Even if that's true then it is still a leap from "People from Mushroom City" to "Mushroom People"
> Legend has it that the name was connected to the Greek word mykēs (μύκης, "mushroom"). Thus, Pausanias ascribes the name to the legendary founder Perseus, who was said to have named it either after the cap (mykēs) of the sheath of his sword, or after a mushroom he had plucked on the site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenae
Even if that's true then it is still a leap from "People from Mushroom City" to "Mushroom People"
Could as well be folk etymology.
"Mykes" has stem myket- (*mykets > mykes, genetive "myketos") The -t- isn't found in "Mykenai"
There was also "mykon" meaning "I mooed", and if you have enough fantasy you can link it to Minotaurus, for example.
There was also "mykon" meaning "I mooed", and if you have enough fantasy you can link it to Minotaurus, for example.
The worldwide distribution of Psilocybe Cubensis hallucinogenic mushrooms are strongly correlated to the domestication and worldwide spread of cattle. And the Minoans certainly involved cattle/bulls as a part of their worship practices.
That is very compelling. And yet, no textual or visual evidence of deliberate psilocybin mushroom use in Europe until 1957. It’s the strangest thing.
Why is it strange?
Strange because there were psychedelic mushrooms growing all over Europe for thousands of years and undiscovered till the late 50s. Therefore, we have to believe that 1. Nobody ever tried them or 2. people tried them but didn’t like them, 3. They were liked at some point but were later forgotten or suppressed.
There is the story of Thracian wine that required dilution with water of 20 parts to 1 — and in Roman times,still required dilution of 8 to 1. Since you can’t make wine that strong, maybe it’s another case for mushrooms. But, tantalizing though it may be, it’s not evidence.
There is the story of Thracian wine that required dilution with water of 20 parts to 1 — and in Roman times,still required dilution of 8 to 1. Since you can’t make wine that strong, maybe it’s another case for mushrooms. But, tantalizing though it may be, it’s not evidence.
I don't think it's strange. There's datura growing all over the countryside
where I live and magic mushrooms too, probably (although I wouldn't recognise
them). I don't go plucking and using it. Neither do most people I know. Why is
that strange?
Can you say where you have heard about the Thracian wine thing? I know the ancients diluted their wine (not just Thracian wine, also Rhodian wine which was something like French wines today, the top of the tops), but they also added all sort of taste enhancers to it.
Can you say where you have heard about the Thracian wine thing? I know the ancients diluted their wine (not just Thracian wine, also Rhodian wine which was something like French wines today, the top of the tops), but they also added all sort of taste enhancers to it.
The use of Datura is much better attested than mushrooms in ancient history. Mushrooms are super popular today—even though they have to compete with tv and alcohol. Mushrooms are generally a very swell time. And, people generally like drugs. Even animals like drugs. Furthermore, magic mushrooms are easy to identify— they are either bright red (amantia muscara) or they turn blue (psilocybin). So, yes, I think it is strange that they weren’t used— which is why I think cultural taboos emerged around them (that persist today).
Here’s some bits about the wine: https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-ancient-traditions/m...
Here’s some bits about the wine: https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-ancient-traditions/m...
Thanks for the link, I'll have a look. I don't think it's true that "people generally like drugs". Some people like drugs. Most people don't, with the exception of alcohol and milder "drugs" like coffee and nicotine. Most people like to get drunk, but only occasionally. Even the people who like to get drunk prefer to do it in well circumscribed contexts, like social occasions or rituals etc. That actually goes for the traditional consumption of entheogens also, btw.
In particular -and I'm aware you'll probably find that hard to believe right now, but- most people really don't like the idea of hallucinogens. Crossing the doors of perception to enter a different reality is not most peoples' idea of a fun time. Quite the contrary. See "bad trip". I've heard of junkies, I've heard of alkies, but I've never had anyone having a "bad trip" with wine or beer.
Incidentally, when I first started hearing about datura, it was all from people saying that it's the worst imaginable trip one could ever have and they never wanted to touch it again.
Anyway, my personal advice is to not do drugs. One only wastes their time, time they will never get back and that they could be spending in developing their knowledge and skills instead.
In particular -and I'm aware you'll probably find that hard to believe right now, but- most people really don't like the idea of hallucinogens. Crossing the doors of perception to enter a different reality is not most peoples' idea of a fun time. Quite the contrary. See "bad trip". I've heard of junkies, I've heard of alkies, but I've never had anyone having a "bad trip" with wine or beer.
Incidentally, when I first started hearing about datura, it was all from people saying that it's the worst imaginable trip one could ever have and they never wanted to touch it again.
Anyway, my personal advice is to not do drugs. One only wastes their time, time they will never get back and that they could be spending in developing their knowledge and skills instead.
> He was thirsty, and the thought occurred to him to pick up a mushroom （myces） from the ground. Drinking with joy water that flowed from it, he gave to the place the name of Mycenae.
This is fabulous, thank you. Very compelling.
There are giant Neolithic carvings of mushrooms in Thrace. But apart from these small scatterings of ambiguous evidence—almost nothing supports the idea that psychoactive mushrooms were known to the Greeks. Which is just, well, odd.
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-ancient-traditions/m...
This is fabulous, thank you. Very compelling.
There are giant Neolithic carvings of mushrooms in Thrace. But apart from these small scatterings of ambiguous evidence—almost nothing supports the idea that psychoactive mushrooms were known to the Greeks. Which is just, well, odd.
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-ancient-traditions/m...
I’m sure you must know of Kykeon, the psychoactive beverage that ancient Greeks drank as part of the initiation into the Eleusinian Mysteries. Psychedelic mushrooms are one of the theorized ingredients, but as you say there is no hard evidence of that. However, residue of ergot fungus sclerotia has been found in Kykeon vessels. Another strong candidate is datura (Jimsonweed), based on it’s regional availability and description of the effects of Kykeon.
Fabulous!
I hope you are satisfied by the sources provided and your mind is sufficiently blown. Isn’t it nice to reset one’s standards for what sounds like unhinged craziness?
This is my favorite kind of knowledge to collect.
This is my favorite kind of knowledge to collect.
Mycenaeans get their name from Mycenae, but i doubt they ever called themselves mycenean. There are various theories about the use of mushrooms in the Eleusinian and the Dionysian mysteries among others.
You've got to listen to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History episode :
"History Under the Influence".
(In case you don't know, Dan Carlin hosts a series of amazing, breathtaking almost, history podcasts. Series ranging from ancient times through WW1 and WW2. He truly brings history alive, and is addictive. Especially great for long road trips.)
>> And yet, “Mycenaean” translates roughly to the mushroom people…
We don't know where the name comes from. The association with mushrooms is the popular etymology but that's not to say it's right. Wikipedia has this to say:
Legend has it that the name was connected to the Greek word mykēs (μύκης, "mushroom"). Thus, Pausanias ascribes the name to the legendary founder Perseus, who was said to have named it either after the cap (mykēs) of the sheath of his sword, or after a mushroom he had plucked on the site.[11]
So even this apocryphal explanation for the name doesn't imply any close association of the Myceneans with mushrooms. Certainly not for the use you suggest, that really didn't feature much in the tales of ancient Mediterranneans.
We don't know where the name comes from. The association with mushrooms is the popular etymology but that's not to say it's right. Wikipedia has this to say:
Legend has it that the name was connected to the Greek word mykēs (μύκης, "mushroom"). Thus, Pausanias ascribes the name to the legendary founder Perseus, who was said to have named it either after the cap (mykēs) of the sheath of his sword, or after a mushroom he had plucked on the site.[11]
So even this apocryphal explanation for the name doesn't imply any close association of the Myceneans with mushrooms. Certainly not for the use you suggest, that really didn't feature much in the tales of ancient Mediterranneans.
I think it's still fairly mainstream in Vedic scholarship that "soma" mentioned in ancient India was a psychoactive mushroom, even though which one is still contentious.
Some is not a mushroom, but an ephedra tea. Works like a very strong coffee. Can't believe you can get 10 years for it in some countries.
So, your claim is that the modern substance called soma is the same thing as the ancient substance called soma. Do you have any evidence that supports this claim?
> widespread availability
Was it really widespread? Compared to fields of grain?
Was it really widespread? Compared to fields of grain?
The Phoenicians have always been considered the merchant sea people of the Levant. I'm not too clear on why the article doesn't seem to make that connection. The Phoenicians made glass, and a prized purple dye harvested from the murex snail. Cedar wood that was in abundance was used to make ships. With these things, the Phoenicians were able to establish trade routes with far off cities to the West of them.
The Bible certainly doesn't think the people of Tyre and Sidon were the same people as those of Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron and Gath.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithobaal_I and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithobaal_I and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines
I'm not sure what connection you refer to.
The Phoenicians are not referred to until ~1500BCE, by which time the Mycenaean and Minoans had been doing their things (mostly trading) for a few hundred years. The Phoenicians didn't peak until after the Late Bronze Age Situation (~1200BCE).
The Phoenicians are not referred to until ~1500BCE, by which time the Mycenaean and Minoans had been doing their things (mostly trading) for a few hundred years. The Phoenicians didn't peak until after the Late Bronze Age Situation (~1200BCE).
I think he’s writing more about where the sea people came from rather than where they ended up afterwards. But yes, the Phoenicians, and hence the Carthaginians, being descendants of the Mycenaean Greeks does provide yet another example of Greek/Italic conflict.
Well written article considering the very diverse time frames and sources.
"Around 3000 BC, a group of savage tribes now known as the Indo-Europeans invaded Europe from eastern Ukraine and southern Russia, destroying the EEF civilizations east of the Rhine in at most two centuries. Not content with their new lands, the Indo-Europeans learned how to build boats and launched a new wave of bloody conquests 350-600 years later."
"Two branches of the second Indo-European wave play a role in this story. The first was was the early Greeks themselves, who arrived in northern Greece (Macedonia and Thessaly) at the end of the 3rd millennium BC."
"Ancient DNA finds from the Elati-Logkas site in western Macedonia confirm the identity of the invaders. The earliest known Greeks are found in this site, and despite several centuries of time separating them from the initial conquest, they were quite distinctive from their predecessors. About 2/5ths of their ancestry came from the original Indo-Europeans. Even more of their ancestry came from the subjects of the Indo-Europeans further north, who by the time of the invasion had mixed considerably with their conquerors."
"Thucydides writes that the Greeks of the centuries before the Trojan War had no conception of national identity. Instead, they identified with their tribes, some of them named in Homer’s epic poem “The Iliad”."
A common theme of steppe peoples- settled tribes identify with lands; nomads identify with cultures.
This source identifies the sea peoples as a mixture of middle eastern groups, using the Egyptian inscription on Ramses III tomb as a reference. Western Anatolia, Hittite (central Anatolia), Cilicia (modern southeastern Turkey), Carchemish (city on the banks of the Euphrates River), Amurru (Egyptian vassal in northern Lebanon and coastal Syria), and Alashiya (Cyprus). The Danuna are the Greek tribe of Danaans, among the groups (and some others whose identity is uncertain) that the Egyptians claimed were aligned as "Sea Peoples".
The identity of the Sea People is a very important group to know because they were a major force in the Bronze Age Collapse; a collapse which set the stage for the rise of the Phoenicians, and 500 years later the Greeks.
This article is confusing however, because it asserts that the Sea Peoples were Greek: "Alexander’s destructive path down the Levantine coast was not unprecedented, even among Greeks. Over 800 years before, other Greeks had laid waste to the Levant, known only to their adversaries as the mysterious “Sea Peoples”."
Yet as also quoted this article reads the Egyptian burial inscription of Ramses III as a conglomerate of Middle Eastern peoples- not Greek (except for Danaan).
This chart from wiki is beautifully done and shows the evidence we have for the movements of peoples quite well, and might help explain the identity of the Sea Peoples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse#/medi...
Notably, we see the black arrow (Proto-Indo-European/steppe/PIE peoples probably) pressing into Anatolia/Hattusa. Were these the same people rolling through the Greeks? Was it the pressure of these forces that forced the Sea Peoples to attack Egypt (because they lost access to safe coastlines for trade)? Did Phoenicia know this was going to happen, and made an alliance that history has long since lost?
Here's the overall effect the Bronze Age Collapse had, from wiki: "The palace economy of Mycenaean Greece, the Aegean region and Anatolia that characterized the Late Bronze Age disintegrated, transforming into the small isolated village cultures of the Greek Dark Ages. The Hittite Empire of Anatolia and the Levant collapsed, while states such as the Middle Assyrian Empire in Mesopotamia and the New Kingdom of Egypt survived but were considerably weakened. Conversely, some peoples such as the Phoenicians enjoyed increased autonomy and power with the waning military presence of Egypt and Assyria in the Levant."
Well summarized; the only certain winner here was Phoenicia. Thus, one would assume that if anyone wanted the Bronze Age Collapse, it was Phoenicia. A waning Egypt and Assyria meant stronger profits for long distance traders.
Another question I've had about the Bronze Age Collapse is why the Sea Peoples fought on both sides of the Egyptian empire. I don't see the strategic value in doing this, and from what I remember the battles fought on the Western Egyptian border were years apart from the North-Eastern battles. Were fleeing Greeks pressing into Northern Africa, causing local tribes to attack Egypt?
"Around 3000 BC, a group of savage tribes now known as the Indo-Europeans invaded Europe from eastern Ukraine and southern Russia, destroying the EEF civilizations east of the Rhine in at most two centuries. Not content with their new lands, the Indo-Europeans learned how to build boats and launched a new wave of bloody conquests 350-600 years later."
"Two branches of the second Indo-European wave play a role in this story. The first was was the early Greeks themselves, who arrived in northern Greece (Macedonia and Thessaly) at the end of the 3rd millennium BC."
"Ancient DNA finds from the Elati-Logkas site in western Macedonia confirm the identity of the invaders. The earliest known Greeks are found in this site, and despite several centuries of time separating them from the initial conquest, they were quite distinctive from their predecessors. About 2/5ths of their ancestry came from the original Indo-Europeans. Even more of their ancestry came from the subjects of the Indo-Europeans further north, who by the time of the invasion had mixed considerably with their conquerors."
"Thucydides writes that the Greeks of the centuries before the Trojan War had no conception of national identity. Instead, they identified with their tribes, some of them named in Homer’s epic poem “The Iliad”."
A common theme of steppe peoples- settled tribes identify with lands; nomads identify with cultures.
This source identifies the sea peoples as a mixture of middle eastern groups, using the Egyptian inscription on Ramses III tomb as a reference. Western Anatolia, Hittite (central Anatolia), Cilicia (modern southeastern Turkey), Carchemish (city on the banks of the Euphrates River), Amurru (Egyptian vassal in northern Lebanon and coastal Syria), and Alashiya (Cyprus). The Danuna are the Greek tribe of Danaans, among the groups (and some others whose identity is uncertain) that the Egyptians claimed were aligned as "Sea Peoples".
The identity of the Sea People is a very important group to know because they were a major force in the Bronze Age Collapse; a collapse which set the stage for the rise of the Phoenicians, and 500 years later the Greeks.
This article is confusing however, because it asserts that the Sea Peoples were Greek: "Alexander’s destructive path down the Levantine coast was not unprecedented, even among Greeks. Over 800 years before, other Greeks had laid waste to the Levant, known only to their adversaries as the mysterious “Sea Peoples”."
Yet as also quoted this article reads the Egyptian burial inscription of Ramses III as a conglomerate of Middle Eastern peoples- not Greek (except for Danaan).
This chart from wiki is beautifully done and shows the evidence we have for the movements of peoples quite well, and might help explain the identity of the Sea Peoples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse#/medi...
Notably, we see the black arrow (Proto-Indo-European/steppe/PIE peoples probably) pressing into Anatolia/Hattusa. Were these the same people rolling through the Greeks? Was it the pressure of these forces that forced the Sea Peoples to attack Egypt (because they lost access to safe coastlines for trade)? Did Phoenicia know this was going to happen, and made an alliance that history has long since lost?
Here's the overall effect the Bronze Age Collapse had, from wiki: "The palace economy of Mycenaean Greece, the Aegean region and Anatolia that characterized the Late Bronze Age disintegrated, transforming into the small isolated village cultures of the Greek Dark Ages. The Hittite Empire of Anatolia and the Levant collapsed, while states such as the Middle Assyrian Empire in Mesopotamia and the New Kingdom of Egypt survived but were considerably weakened. Conversely, some peoples such as the Phoenicians enjoyed increased autonomy and power with the waning military presence of Egypt and Assyria in the Levant."
Well summarized; the only certain winner here was Phoenicia. Thus, one would assume that if anyone wanted the Bronze Age Collapse, it was Phoenicia. A waning Egypt and Assyria meant stronger profits for long distance traders.
Another question I've had about the Bronze Age Collapse is why the Sea Peoples fought on both sides of the Egyptian empire. I don't see the strategic value in doing this, and from what I remember the battles fought on the Western Egyptian border were years apart from the North-Eastern battles. Were fleeing Greeks pressing into Northern Africa, causing local tribes to attack Egypt?
"After six months of exhaustive siegecraft, Alexander was able to breach the walls of Tyre and storm the fortress island. 6,000 defenders were killed in the storm, 2,000 locals were crucified afterwards, and what was left of the population was sold into slavery."
Well then.
Well then.
Alexander wasn't a fan of people who defied him. The Spartans wouldn't join him because they refused if they couldn't lead the army so after a major battle he sent back 300 suits of captured armor as spoils of war to the Parthenon with this inscription:
‘Alexander and the Greeks, except the Lacedaemonians(Spartans), set up these spoils from the barbarians dwelling in Asia.’
Have to respect a pretty good diss, the 300 suits of armor is an obvious reference to Thermopylae
‘Alexander and the Greeks, except the Lacedaemonians(Spartans), set up these spoils from the barbarians dwelling in Asia.’
Have to respect a pretty good diss, the 300 suits of armor is an obvious reference to Thermopylae
> Alexander and the Greeks
my next band name
my next band name
This tale of this siege encapsulates the unwavering determination of Alexander to overcome and conquer. Anyone interested should read the accounts in Arrian and Quintus Curtius Rufus' biographies.
It's particularly striking how much skin in the game generals like Alexander had, fighting on the front lines. From Thucydides and Xenophon gives the impression that the casualties for pitched hoplite battles weren't particularly large as a proportion of the army, but it's surprising how often the general was killed in action. Alexander himself was hit in the head strong enough to be dismounted at Granicus, suffered a projectile would to the shoulder at the siege of Gaza, and nearly lost his life when he was shot in the chest by an arrow at the Mallian stronghold. Of course recounting those wounds and showing off the scars formed a part of his speech when he later tried and failed to persuade his army to advance further.
It was an effective way to make sure the next city surrendered quickly didn't bog you down with a six month siege.
Wait until you hear about the Assyrians. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_1856-0909-...
And, well, everyone else. I have a very difficult time taking the number of people kill during or after an assault. Many inscriptions refer to the complete destruction of a city, where the city is back in business apparently untouched a few years later.
And, well, everyone else. I have a very difficult time taking the number of people kill during or after an assault. Many inscriptions refer to the complete destruction of a city, where the city is back in business apparently untouched a few years later.
Alexander the Great was one of the great, bloody butchers of history.
Surpri-ise!
Surpri-ise!
Welcome to the ancient world, where such things are common! Turns out the modern one made some sort of progress morally since then.
Mao was starving the Chinese into the sixties, sixty years ago. Soviets maintained a massive system of forced labour into the fifties. So whatever moral progress modern world achieved it is pretty recent, and imho remains shaky, based largely on the fact that we're too wealthy thanks to tech to bother with more brutal forms forms of exploitation.
That gets it slightly backwards. The decline of slavery has to do with the fact it kind of sucks as an economic system from a productivity and incentive standpoint. (The moral is a no, duh.) And that is before the economic effects of slaves as inferior to even free paupers, and overall efficiency.
It literally incentivizes only working hard enough to not be punished and effort and investment of owners is into more slaves instead of improving productivity. Slavery is an economic trap of local maxima to the slaveholder. It is no coincidence that late abolishers are worse off than their neighbors who abolished earlier.
Not bothering with slavery is what helped acquire technology to massively beat out the short term. In spite of the emphasis on lower per unit cost slavery also is terrible in an industrial context, especially in a war one. The gulags weren't closed from kindness but because they looked at the infastructure produced and saw how awful it was. Using it for war materiale you may as well not bother with any locks or posted guards and outright invite in any foreign spies and saboteurs you find because you have them all literally incentivized to work just good enough to make it appear initially good to inspection and then fail in practice.
In all fairness to slavery it was the alternative to genocide historically. Yes, that previous sentence is horrifying on many levels. Genocide was the prior status quo and fights were over food supplies in the first place meaning displacement to a hostile undesirable wilderness or outright genocide were the common outcome for losers and being taken as a mate was "being lucky".
Food was too expensive to keep non-working captives for anything less than a suitably huge ransom. Human sacrifice had a habit of appearing and then falling out of favor once slavery was instituted (seen well in early Chinese tombs). The implications of human tendencies towards rationalization to justify what they want are clear and disturbing.
It literally incentivizes only working hard enough to not be punished and effort and investment of owners is into more slaves instead of improving productivity. Slavery is an economic trap of local maxima to the slaveholder. It is no coincidence that late abolishers are worse off than their neighbors who abolished earlier.
Not bothering with slavery is what helped acquire technology to massively beat out the short term. In spite of the emphasis on lower per unit cost slavery also is terrible in an industrial context, especially in a war one. The gulags weren't closed from kindness but because they looked at the infastructure produced and saw how awful it was. Using it for war materiale you may as well not bother with any locks or posted guards and outright invite in any foreign spies and saboteurs you find because you have them all literally incentivized to work just good enough to make it appear initially good to inspection and then fail in practice.
In all fairness to slavery it was the alternative to genocide historically. Yes, that previous sentence is horrifying on many levels. Genocide was the prior status quo and fights were over food supplies in the first place meaning displacement to a hostile undesirable wilderness or outright genocide were the common outcome for losers and being taken as a mate was "being lucky".
Food was too expensive to keep non-working captives for anything less than a suitably huge ransom. Human sacrifice had a habit of appearing and then falling out of favor once slavery was instituted (seen well in early Chinese tombs). The implications of human tendencies towards rationalization to justify what they want are clear and disturbing.
[deleted]
looks at genocides, civil wars, etc. in the Middle East and Africa right now
uh, maybe we just disrupted the market for slaves, so it isn’t so profitable it justifies the risk/backlash anymore (for all but a tiny subset anyway)? Which is good.
Mass murder still seems to be on the menu though, unfortunately.
uh, maybe we just disrupted the market for slaves, so it isn’t so profitable it justifies the risk/backlash anymore (for all but a tiny subset anyway)? Which is good.
Mass murder still seems to be on the menu though, unfortunately.
how much "moral progress" is simply due to having choices due to technology?
Pretty much every culture around the world in ancient times had some sort of moral explanation for why infanticide was allowed. Now that extra mouths to feed aren't an imminent threat of everybody dying, the practice is considered immoral
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide
we aren't genetically different from those people, we just happen to live in a time where we don't have to make as many tough choices
Pretty much every culture around the world in ancient times had some sort of moral explanation for why infanticide was allowed. Now that extra mouths to feed aren't an imminent threat of everybody dying, the practice is considered immoral
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide
we aren't genetically different from those people, we just happen to live in a time where we don't have to make as many tough choices
How does technology or lack therof explain 2000 crucifixions?
I don't think anyone is claiming a genetic evolution. It has been a memetic evolution.
I don't think anyone is claiming a genetic evolution. It has been a memetic evolution.
By "explain" I hope no one hears "justify" (although someone will do it anyway):
You see this with the Romans, too: they tell a city to surrender, it doesn't, the Romans conquer it and practice unspeakable brutality on whomever's left.
So what's happening? They have very limited resources, you forced us to expend them, maybe lose some of our own soldiers, and waste a valuable campaigning season - ok, now you pay the price, and let this be a warning to the next city: if we tell you to surrender, you'd better surrender.
What if the city does surrender? Are those people killed or sold into slavery anyway? I don't think historians bother recording those episodes.
You see this with the Romans, too: they tell a city to surrender, it doesn't, the Romans conquer it and practice unspeakable brutality on whomever's left.
So what's happening? They have very limited resources, you forced us to expend them, maybe lose some of our own soldiers, and waste a valuable campaigning season - ok, now you pay the price, and let this be a warning to the next city: if we tell you to surrender, you'd better surrender.
What if the city does surrender? Are those people killed or sold into slavery anyway? I don't think historians bother recording those episodes.
"What if the city does surrender? Are those people killed or sold into slavery anyway?"
Typically, no. The attacker may leave the city entirely intact, or may place their own proxy government. They may take the elites of the city as prisoners, either as punishment or as insurance.
Typically, no. The attacker may leave the city entirely intact, or may place their own proxy government. They may take the elites of the city as prisoners, either as punishment or as insurance.
It's not quite so simple, since we are looking at single examples. Alexander was predated by leaders (Cyrus the Great) who ruled in a much more progressive gentle way. Recent history has shown major powers performing very cruelly (genocides under colonialism) and there's definitely at least minor world leaders who would want to be just as cruel. So the question becomes more of why was it effective and strategic to be cruel at that scale in the past but not in the present world, and I would attribute that to technology: better communication, travel, and interconnectedness of trade.
Cyrus the Great gets a lot of great press. Partly because he replaced really unpopular empires. And party because those that he really didn't like didn't give us many sources.
Its very questionable if he was all that nice to the Medians and Assyrian cities.
Its very questionable if he was all that nice to the Medians and Assyrian cities.
I would attribute it to democracy. It's very hard to sell war to an electorate unless you can persuade them you're the 'good guys'. Which is harder to sell when you're openly butchering thousands of people.
Many ancient societies had a very different conception of 'good guys' than the modern one. It was very easy to justify very aggressive war with some of these alternative conceptions.
'Good guys are the ones who worship the right god(s) and therefore we get to kill the bad people next door', or 'Good guys are guys who serve the King/Emperor and anything that advances his glory is good', 'Good guys are cultured people and everyone else is a barbarian' etc.
'Good guys are the ones who worship the right god(s) and therefore we get to kill the bad people next door', or 'Good guys are guys who serve the King/Emperor and anything that advances his glory is good', 'Good guys are cultured people and everyone else is a barbarian' etc.
Democracy didn’t stop the Athenians from exterminating the Melians, every adult male being killed and the rest of the population sold into slavery, all because (according to Thucydides), “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”
Athenians weren't really democratic by modern standards. Only about 10% the population could vote[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy
But why and how is democracy a thing?
Eh, I bet it’s more the wide spread, high fidelity mass communication.
You’d previously get word of mouth of what was happening (with lots of us vs them, dehumanizing, etc.). Now you’d get to see it ‘in person’ in 4K @ 60fps on YouTube.
It’s easier to say (and think) ‘yeah, those bastards deserved it’ when you aren’t seeing a very human person have it done to them up close.
Which is a good thing.
You’d previously get word of mouth of what was happening (with lots of us vs them, dehumanizing, etc.). Now you’d get to see it ‘in person’ in 4K @ 60fps on YouTube.
It’s easier to say (and think) ‘yeah, those bastards deserved it’ when you aren’t seeing a very human person have it done to them up close.
Which is a good thing.
I don't think it's that. The main reason behind the brutality was precisely so that people elsewhere would find out about it, to set an example for other cities that they should surrender instead of forcing a protracted siege.
I think it comes down to economics.
Ancient cities were primarily administrative and trading centers for the surrounding territory. Most of the wealth was coming from outside of the cities, it was just collected in the cities. You could kill off most of the people in the city and still keep most of the value because you still have the infrastructure that lets you control the surrounding territory.
By the time you get to the modern era, cities are producing a lot of value of their own. If you kill off the people, you've gotten rid of the whole reason why you want to capture the city.
I think it comes down to economics.
Ancient cities were primarily administrative and trading centers for the surrounding territory. Most of the wealth was coming from outside of the cities, it was just collected in the cities. You could kill off most of the people in the city and still keep most of the value because you still have the infrastructure that lets you control the surrounding territory.
By the time you get to the modern era, cities are producing a lot of value of their own. If you kill off the people, you've gotten rid of the whole reason why you want to capture the city.
>Pretty much every culture around the world in ancient times had some sort of moral explanation for why infanticide was allowed.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide
At least half of the history in the wiki describes major civilizations and religions which absolutely banned the practice. Ancient Egypt, all Abrahamic religions, ancient China... Apparently many people did thought infanticide was immoral and did ban it.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide
At least half of the history in the wiki describes major civilizations and religions which absolutely banned the practice. Ancient Egypt, all Abrahamic religions, ancient China... Apparently many people did thought infanticide was immoral and did ban it.
The Ancients were amateurs when it came to slaughtering civilians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing
I'm convinced this is a massive step in humanity's evolution.
While yes, there remains some underground slavery, and it is indeed terrible.
The world uniting and deciding to end this terrible practice is a hugely positive step for our species.
While yes, there remains some underground slavery, and it is indeed terrible.
The world uniting and deciding to end this terrible practice is a hugely positive step for our species.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Reading that makes it abundantly clear that, as a species, humanity is pretty despicable.
What a load of nonsense...
This alleged historical article calls Alexander the Great Greek. He is Macedonian. Macedonians are a completely different people with a different language and different alphabet. Would you take an alleged historical article on Stalin if the article mentioned Stalin to be German or that Cleopatra was Spanish.
Macedons invaded and took over the Greek kingdoms:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)
Macedons invaded and took over the Greek kingdoms:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)
As we are being pedantic, technically Alexander the Great was Greek by standards of his time, since he could trace his lineage back to Alexander I, who had to prove they were a descendant of a Greek man in order to participate in the Olympic Games.
> different alphabet
Where is the source on this? According to this[0]:
> The surviving public and private inscriptions found in Macedonia indicate that there was no other written language in ancient Macedonia but Ancient Greek
So Macedonia was a kingdom where the aristocracy spoke Attic and later Koine Greek, and the vernacular being either a Greek dialect or other Hellenic language. So the written language would have been Attic/Koine. Alexander, being royalty, would have spoken and written in Attic/Koine Greek.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonian_language
Where is the source on this? According to this[0]:
> The surviving public and private inscriptions found in Macedonia indicate that there was no other written language in ancient Macedonia but Ancient Greek
So Macedonia was a kingdom where the aristocracy spoke Attic and later Koine Greek, and the vernacular being either a Greek dialect or other Hellenic language. So the written language would have been Attic/Koine. Alexander, being royalty, would have spoken and written in Attic/Koine Greek.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonian_language
>Macedonians are a completely different people with a different language and different alphabet.
Sure but... Alexander and his countrymen didn't speak that language or use that alphabet, and were not of that people. You might as well say he was an Ottoman Turk, or a Roman.
Sure but... Alexander and his countrymen didn't speak that language or use that alphabet, and were not of that people. You might as well say he was an Ottoman Turk, or a Roman.
>> Macedonians are a completely different people with a different language and different alphabet.
To clarify, are you talking about modern Macedonians, or ancient Macedonians? The modern Macedonians speak a language similar to Bulgarian and use the Cyrilic alphabet, both of which were not around in the time of Alexander.
To clarify, are you talking about modern Macedonians, or ancient Macedonians? The modern Macedonians speak a language similar to Bulgarian and use the Cyrilic alphabet, both of which were not around in the time of Alexander.
Whatever calls itself "macedonian" these days is completely unrelated to what used to live there BC.
I’m not sure what he means by the most Slavic ancestry being from female slaves in the Middle Ages. Who was taking slaves besides the Turks?
Most accounts I've read of ancient battles include the winners enslaving the losers, so it seems to have been common practice.
Another theory is that Palestine came to be known as Palaistine after the Philistines via "pars pro toto", which means that a part becomes the name of the whole. One example is Russia, named after the Rus people who inhabited merely a small fraction of modern-day Russia. In other words, the Philistines may have been the dominant people in Palestine and the Greeks may have referred to the whole region as Palaistine, just as many people (sloppily) refer to the United Kingdom as "England". Numismatic evidence shows that the Philistine cities were large trading centers and minted coins earlier and in larger quantities than in other Palestinian cities.