Remove ads

Controversial Historical Opinions You Have

Mre said:
Because having a situation where someone who lives in your society for years and has no path to become a citizen is anti-democratic.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As I've said, one could see it the entirely other way round: They are allowed, as foreigners, to make a living in a prosperous city.

Sparta didn't allow that at all, for the most part.

One should consider that in Ancient Greece, the Polis was not the physical city, not the buildings and walls and streets. The Polis were the people. If Spartans or Athenians were on campaign, then they would quite naturally hold their popular assemblies in the field, if they had a sufficient quorum, because it was "the Polis" being in the field - the physical structures of Sparta or Athens itself really didn't matter much. Likewise, when the Persians kept control of Ionia after the rebellion, there were many ideas floating around there and on the Greek mainland to relocate the poleis of Ionia to Italia and Gaul. Phocaia, for the most part, did up and go and move to the colony of Aleria. There, too, the attitude was that it wasn't the structures who mattered, but the people. The people made up the Polis.

Basically, before the Macedonian conquest, poleis were quite simply tribes of blood, so to speak. Which meant, to answer @Axslashel , it didn't matter in what physical environment you have lived your whole life. As I have said, the physical city didn't really matter. Whether you were Athenian or Corinthian or whatever was a category, an inborn category at that. That was what poleis were (at that time).

Nyvis said:
Because there was no path for representation despite them having to live with the city's decisions, including wars, while they contributed to its prosperity. It's either grant the same right to long terms residents you grant your citizens, or give them citizenship.

Of course, that's a modern standard. But most judgments about them are.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Indeed. In the ancient attitude - well, they still got to make a livelihood in a foreign city, didn't they? Without that, they wouldn't be able to make a living at all. And starvation and deadly poverty was still around every corner for the common people in ancient times, so this mattered arguably much more than political rights.
 
Susano said:
As I've said, one could see it the entirely other way round: They are allowed, as foreigners, to make a living in a prosperous city.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

"As a Mexican, you are allowed to make a living in the prosperous US, but you will never be able to vote for the people who could legislate to kick you out at any time".

How does that sound?

I get that the issue is rooted in the culture of the era, and I imagine in that context, quite a few Metis liked keeping their tie of blood to their origin city, with the possibility to just go back there if things got bad. But "blood tribe" is a pretty bad way to run things all told.
 
Last edited:
ExNihilo said:
Do you count current reconstructions as remnants? Apparently, Czechslovak Hussites are a thing, even if there is no direct line of connection.

And some did survive, after a fashion, the Copts of Alexandria are still Miaphysites, I think.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
azadi said:
What about the Nestorians and the Miaphysites? The Nestorians and the Miaphysites both arose in the 5th century CE in the Middle East. The Nestorians emphasize the distinction between the divine and the human in Jesus Christ, and the Miaphysites emphasize the unity between the divine and the human in Jesus Christ. In addition, the Nestorians support aniconism. The Nestorians and the Miaphysites have both existed continuously until today. The Copts are Miaphysites, and the Christian Church in the lands ruled by the Sassanid (Neo-Persian) Empire were Nestorian. The Nestorians and the Miaphysites are however far closer to mainstream Christianity than the other "heretic" movements you mention.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This is all interesting to know and I'm glad for the sake of diversity and historic preservation that these divergent sects exist.

But I suppose my interest has always been in a particular type of Christian heresy.

I'm a big fan of all things Platonic and there is a decent bit of overlap with what we call Gnosticism. (also it just so happens Gnosticism was in fashion when I was growing up and featured in many popular works) That's probably why I have a particular interest in Marcion and the Cathars and of course all the so-called Gnostic sects.

Still, as was pointed out to me by Unhappy Anchovy over on SB, despite all that was lost in the centuries of Early Christianity, we might be living in the most diverse time ever for Christians. The unprecedented level of connectedness across the planet as well as the similarly unequaled access to information has probably helped spread ideas and create new ideas in a way never before seen. New forms of Christianity, attempts to rediscover old forms of Christianity, Neopagans, old Pagan reconstructionists....

It doesn't feel like it sometimes but we're all very blessed to be alive right now.
 
Nyvis said:
"As a Mexican, you are allowed to make a living in the prosperous US, but you will never be able to vote for the people who could legislate to kick you out at any time".

How does that sound?

I get that the issue is rooted in the culture of the era, and I imagine in that context, quite a few Metis liked keeping their tie of blood to their origin city, with the possibility to just go back there if things got bad. But "blood tribe" is a pretty bad way to run things all told.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The citizenship rules were tightened in order to defend the boundaries of who could be a citizen for the sake of a democratic state's stability, and this was generally the case throughout the ancient world. The states more willing to grant others citizenship were also states in which citizenship afforded fewer rights and privileges than it did elsewhere. Rome's expansions of citizenship were positive for those for whom it was provided but came at a time when their republican system of government was in decay (the Social War) or, for the rest of the empire, when it was moribund (Caracalla). Athens tightened its citizenship at the same time as it expanded its franchise, and the general establishment of the process of citizenship in Greek states constricted citizenship to prevent aristocratic ties between cities that could undermine the polis' independence. Aristocrats with loyalties to cities abroad happened and could result in terrible consequences for citizens of a given polis, because the end-result was that any effort to redistribute land or wealth would be met with the opposition not only of a given city's aristocrats but those of other cities.

The idea of jus soli is an extraordinarily unique idea and constricted to a few countries (mostly settler colonial) in the modern world even today. As it happened at the time when Metics ceased to matter as a social class citizenship became purchasable. Don't think that's a very good system either, because it also came at a time when Athenian democracy was significantly reduced. These were the actual choices that were available at the time, because citizenship was guarded jealousy in an era of deep internecine polis warfare, and modern ideas of citizenship and immigration didn't really exist. It was possible for multiple poleis to merge, or for a new polis to be founded with citizenship in that new polis (as with Thurii, which had a very multicultural establishment), but policing the bounds of who was and who was not a citizen was essential to maintaining the identity of a given city in the face of potential aristocratic pressures (to weaken what citizenship stood for) and regional pressures (that undermined the city's independence).

Over time we might have seen a shift in the idea of citizenship in the face of new pressures but we never really got the opportunity given that Makedon subjugated Greece.
 
I trust you on the historical side of thing. As I said, the judgement was one made with modern standards.

Cetashwayo said:
The idea of jus soli is an extraordinarily unique idea and constricted to a few countries (mostly settler colonial) in the modern world even today.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As I said, the other alternative it to grant rights based on residence rather than citizenship, something modern states tend to do quite a bit. But my views are probably coloured by being from one of the European countries where jus soli does happen, even if it requires residing long enough.
 
Nyvis said:
As I said, the other alternative it to grant rights based on residence rather than citizenship, something modern states tend to do quite a bit. But my views are probably coloured by being from one of the European countries where jus soli does happen, even if it requires residing long enough.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The initial context was about someone attempting to cast aspersions on Athenian democracy by bringing up the Metics. My point is that it's neither here nor there, because few states of any kinds afforded those kinds of rights of residence even to long-time residents of many generations, and regardless of its slavery, treatment of women, and the fact that it had a metic class, Athens remained among the freest and most equal states in the ancient world. Athens and its ideals explicitly threatened the elites of the Greek world, which is why democratic states were so often put down with extreme bloodshed and cruelty, and any attempt at social revolution in the Hellenistic period was put down.
 
My opinion on Athens begins and ends with the Peloponnesian War, and their atrocities. Athens was a mob of greedy murderers, and in the end they got their just crushing by a very savage murderer state, and the only sane state until you reached India, The Achaemenids.

This leads into my next controversial opinion, the ancient Greeks and Romans are fucking overrated. Ironically the Roman Empire wasn't anywhere near interesting to me until it was a medieval Greek empire.
 
Silvrose said:
My opinion on Athens begins and ends with the Peloponnesian War, and their atrocities. Athens was a mob of greedy murderers, and in the end they got their just crushing by a very savage murderer state, and the only sane state until you reached India, The Achaemenids.

This leads into my next controversial opinion, the ancient Greeks and Romans are fucking overrated. Ironically the Roman Empire wasn't anywhere near interesting to me until it was a medieval Greek empire.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean...Inventing democracy earns you some kudos. While the Persians definitely had a lot of moral high ground, mostly in the form of not doing slavery, if they'd won, not only would democracy be strangled in its crib, but so much art, literature, science, the very word "music", the entirely of western culture as we know it, would be wiped out.
 
woweed said:
I mean...Inventing democracy earns you some kudos. While the Persians definitely had a lot of moral high ground, mostly in the form of not doing slavery, if they'd won, not only would democracy be strangled in its crib, but so much art, literature, science, the very word "music", the entirely of western culture as we know it, would be wiped out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And? Something else would have replaced it.
 
Silvrose said:
My opinion on Athens begins and ends with the Peloponnesian War, and their atrocities. Athens was a mob of greedy murderers, and in the end they got their just crushing by a very savage murderer state, and the only sane state until you reached India, The Achaemenids.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The Persian Empire wasn't actually a state, though. Serfdom was still entirely fine at the local level, because the empire more or less maintained whatever traditional customs had been there at the time. The empire also had to do a lot of 'greedy murdering' in order to get to the point of being the Persian Empire.

woweed said:
I mean...Inventing democracy earns you some kudos. While the Persians definitely had a lot of moral high ground, mostly in the form of not doing slavery, if they'd won, not only would democracy be strangled in its crib, but so much art, literature, science, the very word "music", the entirely of western culture as we know it, would be wiped out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The Persians allowed the preservation of local customs, including in the Ionian poleis. In fact, a number of Ionian poleis benefited greatly from the Persian Empire's enforced peace and stability which provided a common peace between them. There would be little stopping the expression of Greek culture in the empire, though of course Athens may not benefit from the enrichment of Laurion. But then again, the Greeks were an energetic and industrious people, and were they subjugated and integrated into the empire they may find themselves hellenizing and persianizing each other over time. Perhaps they might have benefited from the lack of excessive, vicious, and continuous bloodshed which characterized classical Greek warfare and ended up being their own destruction.

On the other hand, the initial conquest was likely to result in a number of deportations and the destruction of several cities. There's that greedy murdering we were talking about.
 
Last edited:
Cetashwayo said:
The Persian Empire wasn't actually a state, though. Serfdom was still entirely fine at the local level, because the empire more or less maintained whatever traditional customs had been there at the time. The empire also had to do a lot of 'greedy murdering' in order to get to the point of being the Persian Empire.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
this is all true, however, I have spent my entire life under the American education system. It's constant desire to fellate the Greeks has turned me against the Greek city-states of Athens and Sparta.

woweed said:
I mean...Inventing democracy earns you some kudos. While the Persians definitely had a lot of moral high ground, mostly in the form of not doing slavery, if they'd won, not only would democracy be strangled in its crib, but so much art, literature, science, the very word "music", the entirely of western culture as we know it, would be wiped out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So? Somebody, somewhere would have created equivalents or substitutes. It would have been utterly alien, yes, but that ain't a bad thing. Hell, an injection of Persian culture into "Western Culture" would something fascinating to think about.
 
Silvrose said:
So? Somebody, somewhere would have created equivalents or substitutes. It would have been utterly alien, yes, but that ain't a bad thing. Hell, an injection of Persian culture into "Western Culture" would something fascinating to think about.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
True enough, as it goes. Just feels like a loss to me. Again, the loss of democracy as we understand it alone would be a major blow.
 
woweed said:
True enough, as it goes. Just feels like a loss to me. Again, the loss of democracy as we understand it alone would be a major blow.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
For all we know, something better might have come out of it. Counterfactuals are useless, but counterfactuals over a course of 2 and a half millenia are beyond useless.

Anything might have happened. We don't know, we can't know.
 
Silvrose said:
this is all true, however, I have spent my entire life under the American education system. It's constant desire to fellate the Greeks has turned me against the Greek city-states of Athens and Sparta.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't think the Greeks particularly deserve the disdain you've given to them thanks to the poor teaching in the American curriculum. Ultimately Ancient Greece and Rome were Mediterranean cultures and insofar as they provided to a 'western canon', that was a canon whose definition and boundaries was set far after both civilizations had ceased to exist in their idealized mode. They should be understood as they were.
 
Last edited:
Nikkolas said:
This is all interesting to know and I'm glad for the sake of diversity and historic preservation that these divergent sects exist.

But I suppose my interest has always been in a particular type of Christian heresy.

I'm a big fan of all things Platonic and there is a decent bit of overlap with what we call Gnosticism. (also it just so happens Gnosticism was in fashion when I was growing up and featured in many popular works) That's probably why I have a particular interest in Marcion and the Cathars and of course all the so-called Gnostic sects.

Still, as was pointed out to me by Unhappy Anchovy over on SB, despite all that was lost in the centuries of Early Christianity, we might be living in the most diverse time ever for Christians. The unprecedented level of connectedness across the planet as well as the similarly unequaled access to information has probably helped spread ideas and create new ideas in a way never before seen. New forms of Christianity, attempts to rediscover old forms of Christianity, Neopagans, old Pagan reconstructionists....

It doesn't feel like it sometimes but we're all very blessed to be alive right now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If Marcionism had become the mainstream version of Christianity, Christian anti-Semitism would have been far worse. Marcionism rejected the Old Testament and claimed, that Adonai was an evil god. Christian anti-Semitism has been mitigated by the Christians considering God the Father identical to Adonai and making the Tanakh the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. The theology of the pro-Nazi German Christians were similar to Marcionism. In addition, the historical Jesus wanted to reform the Jewish religion.
 
azadi said:
If Marcionism had become the mainstream version of Christianity, Christian anti-Semitism would have been far worse. Marcionism rejected the Old Testament and claimed, that Adonai was an evil god. Christian anti-Semitism has been mitigated by the Christians considering God the Father identical to Adonai and making the Tanakh the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. The theology of the pro-Nazi German Christians were similar to Marcionism. In addition, the historical Jesus wanted to reform the Jewish religion.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Marcion obviously had no concept of Aryanism so I don't think likening him to Nazis is fair... Similarly, it should be clear the Nazi rejection of the Old Testament was not out of humanistic concerns.

Marcion's idea that the depiction of God in the OT and the NT are incompatible is still alive and well today and I don't think it has much or anything to do with Antisemitism. There could be, in some AU where Marcionism became orthodox Christianity, potential repercussions for Jews, I won't deny that. But we have no way of knowing if, being blunt, things could actually be any worse for Jews than they already were.

Religion is a tricky subject. You can't live with it and you can't live without it. Spirituality will always be with us but for all the good it can do, it can also do great evil.
 
Nikkolas said:
Marcion obviously had no concept of Aryanism so I don't think likening him to Nazis is fair... Similarly, it should be clear the Nazi rejection of the Old Testament was not out of humanistic concerns.

Marcion's idea that the depiction of God in the OT and the NT are incompatible is still alive and well today and I don't think it has much or anything to do with Antisemitism. There could be, in some AU where Marcionism became orthodox Christianity, potential repercussions for Jews, I won't deny that. But we have no way of knowing if, being blunt, things could actually be any worse for Jews than they already were.

Religion is a tricky subject. You can't live with it and you can't live without it. Spirituality will always be with us but for all the good it can do, it can also do great evil.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's true, that medieval Christendom was very anti-Semitic, but the Catholic church supported the Jews being allowed to practice Judaism, because according to Augustine of Hippo, the most important church father in Western Christianity, the Jews must be protected because of their ability to explain the Old Testament. The idea, that the depiction of God in the Tanakh/Old Testament and the depiction of God in the New Testament are incompatible is contrary to the intentions of the historical Jesus. The historical Jesus wanted to reform Judaism, not to replace it with a new religion, and he definitely believed in Adonai.

Here is an early Christian "heresy", which I consider very interesting: Ebionites - Wikipedia
They are the opposite of the Marcionites. They consider Jesus the Jewish Messiah while rejecting his divinity and the virgin birth.
 
Last edited:
Warning: Stay Relevant!
  • Staff Post
    • let's stay relevant everyone
    azadi said:
    It's true, that Erdogan isn't history, but the actions I mention are history.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    azadi said:
    I'm not speaking about current events concerning Erdogan. Erdogan ending repression of the Kurdish language in Turkey happened gradually in the 2000's and the early 2010's.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    As far as SV is concerned, this is a contemporary issue that is inappropriate for this thread. Please refrain from diverting the thread from its intended subject.
     
    Last edited:
  • Staff Post
    • Eliar said:




    Roman army diet
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Eh.... The evidence of a dietary difference between Roman legionnaires and officers is rare and is based off Egyptian records and then letters from the equestrian class.

    A Roman legion in peacetime and enjoying access to Rome granary and trade would arguably have a more different diet than one on campaign, especially since food parcels from home and the money to buy them is part of our histiography. So, yes, legionnaires might had ate less well than officers, but that would be the result of pay as opposed to official rations. On campaign in hostile environment, their rations, except save perhaps wine and beer would had been similar. The equestrian did get more grain, but then, he had a horse to feed.

    although the fact that Trajan and Hadrian made special note that they are and lived like the common soldier,making their own bread also suggests that officers had a better life compared to legionnaires normally. So...
     
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top