This is my first attempt at a podcast.
If you haven't seen it already, my new place for Historium is historium.motime.com
Saturday, September 24, 2005
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Complete Site Relocation
Since posting to two sites is getting hard, I have decided to completely put all my posting on Historium2. I urge all people with links here to change them. Just don't forget this blog's URL, I'm planning to keep it as an emergency site.
Just remember there are two URL's:
mysite.verizon.net/vzeqkaxu
or the shorter: embark.to/historium2
Just remember there are two URL's:
mysite.verizon.net/vzeqkaxu
or the shorter: embark.to/historium2
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Discussion: Marco Polo
Introduction: Marco Polo was the most important European of the Middle Ages who opened up Asia for the rest of the world. He spent almost two decades working for Kublai Khan of China and traveled to almost all the places under the Khan’s rule. Further, he also traveled both the overland and the water route between the Middle East and Orient. Throughout all these travels Polo made detailed observations of the lands that he saw. His gave information on the culture, people, and for that most importantly, the economy. Future European explorers who wanted to travel to the East, including Columbus, read his work widely.
Setting the scene: Marco Polo himself was too active of a person to sit down and start writing of his own choosing. In fact, after his travels Polo joined in the Venetian wars against their great foe and rival, the Genoese. During a naval battle Polo was captured and put in jail. It was in the confines of prison that Polo met the writer Rusticiano. It was to him that the traveler related his accounts of distant worlds in extraordinary detail and with much of the medieval European prejudice reduced.
Questions: What would have happened if Marco Polo managed not to get captured? What if he simply decided not to relate his experiences? What if he was killed in the battle? Anybody who reads this post is encouraged to give a response. It does not matter how much you know about the subject, just take what you already know and give the best prediction you can. Once again, this question will stay up for the week.
Setting the scene: Marco Polo himself was too active of a person to sit down and start writing of his own choosing. In fact, after his travels Polo joined in the Venetian wars against their great foe and rival, the Genoese. During a naval battle Polo was captured and put in jail. It was in the confines of prison that Polo met the writer Rusticiano. It was to him that the traveler related his accounts of distant worlds in extraordinary detail and with much of the medieval European prejudice reduced.
Questions: What would have happened if Marco Polo managed not to get captured? What if he simply decided not to relate his experiences? What if he was killed in the battle? Anybody who reads this post is encouraged to give a response. It does not matter how much you know about the subject, just take what you already know and give the best prediction you can. Once again, this question will stay up for the week.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Famous Last Words
gotten from: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/6537/real-a.htm
John Adams: Thomas Jefferson still survives. One of the founding fathers of America, also second president of the United States. He had a letter correspondence with Jefferson. Adams died on the Fourth of July, 1826, in reality Jefferson had died only few hours before Adams.
John Brown: I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood! Fanatical abolitionist who fought fervently for the cause. Tried to steal some weapons from the armory at Harpers' Ferry to arm a slave revolt, failed and tried for treason. His words are prophetic of the more than 500,000 Americans who died in a war just a few years later.
Genghis Khan: Let not my end disarm you, and on no account weep or keen for me, let the enemy be warned of my death. The Mongol ruler who conquered half the known world and united almost all of Northern Asia. His acts would revolutionize the world and his descendants would continue to expand the empire.
John Henry (Doc) Holiday: This is funny. Famous western gunfighter who fought with Wyatt Earp. Died of Tubercolosis in bed.
Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson: Order A.P. Hill to prepare for action! Pass the infantry to the front rapidly! Tell Major Hawks. . . . Let us cross over the river and sit under the shade of the trees. Confederate General during the Civil War, one of Lee's best soldiers. Was accidentally shot by his own troops who mistook him for Union cavalry. Eventually died from pneumonia, his last hours were spent in delerium.
John Adams: Thomas Jefferson still survives. One of the founding fathers of America, also second president of the United States. He had a letter correspondence with Jefferson. Adams died on the Fourth of July, 1826, in reality Jefferson had died only few hours before Adams.
John Brown: I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood! Fanatical abolitionist who fought fervently for the cause. Tried to steal some weapons from the armory at Harpers' Ferry to arm a slave revolt, failed and tried for treason. His words are prophetic of the more than 500,000 Americans who died in a war just a few years later.
Genghis Khan: Let not my end disarm you, and on no account weep or keen for me, let the enemy be warned of my death. The Mongol ruler who conquered half the known world and united almost all of Northern Asia. His acts would revolutionize the world and his descendants would continue to expand the empire.
John Henry (Doc) Holiday: This is funny. Famous western gunfighter who fought with Wyatt Earp. Died of Tubercolosis in bed.
Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson: Order A.P. Hill to prepare for action! Pass the infantry to the front rapidly! Tell Major Hawks. . . . Let us cross over the river and sit under the shade of the trees. Confederate General during the Civil War, one of Lee's best soldiers. Was accidentally shot by his own troops who mistook him for Union cavalry. Eventually died from pneumonia, his last hours were spent in delerium.
Friday, August 26, 2005
A Message to all Grammar Freaks (and food for thought for others)
This message is particularly directed for all grammar freaks, but anyone can read it just for entertainment or as something to spark thought on the subject. Why, o why do so many people spasm, convulse, and become insane whenever someone says “me too”, instead “I also”? Why do they insist that you follow the rules some board or committee picked? What gives a few people the right to establish rules for a language that has roots going back thousands of years, to its earliest ancestral tongues?
Language is a means of communication, that said, if somebody can understand you, it is enough.
Anybody can understand me if I make some grammar mistake, the point is whether I can get the message across. Yet the freaks insist you get everything right. Why do we insist on regulating a language that has always and always will change? I have a teacher who is a zealot in maintaining strict use of correct grammar, even in spoken language. This is the idea of language: when someone listens to another, they don’t think of the exact definition of each word heard and then try to put it together; they get a feeling for the tone and subject matter, and then apply a general meaning to the words that makes sense. Whether you say “me too” or “I also” won’t make a difference. Others will still understand what you are saying in general.
Just keep in mind, every change ever in language started out as a difference from the norm. If you say something that is very difficult or impossible to understand, then someone should correct you. But if someone corrects you even when most people would understand you, then that’s their problem.
Language is a means of communication, that said, if somebody can understand you, it is enough.
Anybody can understand me if I make some grammar mistake, the point is whether I can get the message across. Yet the freaks insist you get everything right. Why do we insist on regulating a language that has always and always will change? I have a teacher who is a zealot in maintaining strict use of correct grammar, even in spoken language. This is the idea of language: when someone listens to another, they don’t think of the exact definition of each word heard and then try to put it together; they get a feeling for the tone and subject matter, and then apply a general meaning to the words that makes sense. Whether you say “me too” or “I also” won’t make a difference. Others will still understand what you are saying in general.
Just keep in mind, every change ever in language started out as a difference from the norm. If you say something that is very difficult or impossible to understand, then someone should correct you. But if someone corrects you even when most people would understand you, then that’s their problem.
Monday, August 22, 2005
What if: Battle of New York City
Throughout history there have been countless close calls where things could have easily gone the other way. In this weekly series I will post on a particular moment in time and ask readers to give their thoughts and opinions on what would have happened if things went differently.
This week's what if will be during the Battle of New York. The setting: it is September of 1776, in New York City. The fledgling new American nation has recently declared independence but is far from winning a victory over the British. The army has almost no experience and training. Recently the British have just routed and pushed back many of the Americans to their fortifications at Brooklyn Heights, in Long Island. All the British have to do is bring together all their troops and artillery and make one final assault. Given their superior training, equipment, and morale, they probably would have succeeded. Yet their general, Howe, has decided to enjoy the day's victory and pull back his troops to camp.
Later at night, there is a second close call. The wind is coming from a northerly direction, which prevents the British ships from sailing up and blocking any hope of Washington's troops escaping across the river. This allows the Americans to silently slip into their boats and withdraw to Manhattan.
My questions are these: what would have happened if the British army had continued their assault and stormed Brooklyn Heights, if the wind was different and the British ships could sailed up, thus completely surrounding the Americans. I am not just talking about the American army or Washington, but also of the United States' situation, and maybe even the world too. Tell me whatever you think, any feedback related to this would be good. This question will be open until next Monday, when I will post another what if.
Note: don't forget to visit the other historium at http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeqkaxu.
This week's what if will be during the Battle of New York. The setting: it is September of 1776, in New York City. The fledgling new American nation has recently declared independence but is far from winning a victory over the British. The army has almost no experience and training. Recently the British have just routed and pushed back many of the Americans to their fortifications at Brooklyn Heights, in Long Island. All the British have to do is bring together all their troops and artillery and make one final assault. Given their superior training, equipment, and morale, they probably would have succeeded. Yet their general, Howe, has decided to enjoy the day's victory and pull back his troops to camp.
Later at night, there is a second close call. The wind is coming from a northerly direction, which prevents the British ships from sailing up and blocking any hope of Washington's troops escaping across the river. This allows the Americans to silently slip into their boats and withdraw to Manhattan.
My questions are these: what would have happened if the British army had continued their assault and stormed Brooklyn Heights, if the wind was different and the British ships could sailed up, thus completely surrounding the Americans. I am not just talking about the American army or Washington, but also of the United States' situation, and maybe even the world too. Tell me whatever you think, any feedback related to this would be good. This question will be open until next Monday, when I will post another what if.
Note: don't forget to visit the other historium at http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeqkaxu.
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Breaking Site News: New Historium!
I have the DSL now and also have set up the new Historium. I urge everyone to go and have a look at it, and tell me what you think. Since there is no commenting on it, you can either comment in blogger or e-mail me (historium@gmail.com). I am not planning yet on deleting this blog, but am waiting for what you think. Tell me soon!
Saturday, August 20, 2005
More Delays, New Plans
The Verizon DSL I was supposed to get during the middle of the month has been postponed for the 25th of August, hopefully I can start blogging then, though school is starting. From what I've read in the packet Verizon offers web hosting, where you can add videos and music. I will definitely look into it and probably switch, maybe I could finally make a historium.com. If you're wondering, this guy hasn't blogged regularly for months and now he's thinking of moving the whole site? i don't blame you. Still, with the new Internet it would be much easier to post daily, and it would be really interesting if I could make videos to help clarify the posts, some quiet background music would be nice too.
For subject matter, I'm planning to abandon the chronological study of the Crusades, it is more than a series of battles, it is an era. There are countless interesting strories that happened in that time. I'm also going to read Marco Polo's Travels, a book that I believe had a substantial impact on history. Further topics will include more studies of historical patterns, linguistics, influence, and maybe some short biographies. Reader suggestions for other topics are most welcome. Finally, I am considering a weekly "what if series". There are many close calls in history and it would be interesting to wonder what would have happened if history went the other way. What-if's can never be accurately created since there are too many variables that we may not know about. Still, any kind of debate that is backed up with evidence can lead to more knowledge.
Either way, keep visiting now and then and leave a few suggestions or comments. Thank you for still reading and see you soon.
For subject matter, I'm planning to abandon the chronological study of the Crusades, it is more than a series of battles, it is an era. There are countless interesting strories that happened in that time. I'm also going to read Marco Polo's Travels, a book that I believe had a substantial impact on history. Further topics will include more studies of historical patterns, linguistics, influence, and maybe some short biographies. Reader suggestions for other topics are most welcome. Finally, I am considering a weekly "what if series". There are many close calls in history and it would be interesting to wonder what would have happened if history went the other way. What-if's can never be accurately created since there are too many variables that we may not know about. Still, any kind of debate that is backed up with evidence can lead to more knowledge.
Either way, keep visiting now and then and leave a few suggestions or comments. Thank you for still reading and see you soon.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Gone for a few days
Since I'm getting a new Internet service and going on vacation for a few days, I won't be back until probably August 17 or 18, please check up around that time, but don't stop reading! See you until then.
Scriptor
Scriptor
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Putting all that Study of History Stuff to Work: How America Rose
When the United States of America finally ensured its independence by ending the Revolutionary war in 1783, the country was anything but a power. True it held huge tracts of land and countless rivers and possible mineral deposits, but for the most part the country was just starting to gear up. It was mostly made up of farms, and industrial and commercial activities were concentrated in a few coastal cities. The national government it had chosen was barely able to do anything. Each state considered itself an autonomous unit, banding together with the other states for protection. Still disputes flared between states and people. Barely able to manage foreign policy, the United States had little if any influence on the rest of the world. Yet in the decades to come the upstart, politically radical nation would prove itself to be able to create an effective government (Constitutional Convention of 1787), deploy its military in foreign lands (wars with the Barbary pirates of North Africa), defend it’s rights against foreign powers (War of 1812), adapt to changing economies (1st Industrial Revolution), expand it’s borders and become an emerging power of the Western Hemisphere (Louisiana Purchase and Mexican-American War), and overcome the toughest of crises (American Civil War), and the list goes on.
So how did it do it? well certainly it had gifted men and a spirit to move forward, but more of an answer could be found by looking farther in the past.
As far back as circa 500 B.C., in the Italian peninsula. According to legend, it was about this time that the city of Rome gained complete autonomy from the Etruscans and establish the Republic. Yet about 600 years later the Roman nation would be the power of the Mediterranean. Again, how did it do it? The answer is that it went through an almost perpetual series of war, uprisings, economic slump, and political revolutions, and for the first half-millennia, usually came out stronger. The Romans chose to adapt, or make the situation adapt to them. Instead of just swallowing every setback and continue they sought for ways to prevent the setback from happening again.
It is possible that the same happened in this country. The country is not the same as it was 100, 50, 25, or even 10 years ago. It has gone through perpetual change, to meet the perpetual challenges. It has grown in every direction it has been attacked on. Everything at every level, from multi-national alliances to the individual goes through a constant barrage of difficulties, hurdles, crises, and disasters, big and small. That is the source of change.
So how did it do it? well certainly it had gifted men and a spirit to move forward, but more of an answer could be found by looking farther in the past.
As far back as circa 500 B.C., in the Italian peninsula. According to legend, it was about this time that the city of Rome gained complete autonomy from the Etruscans and establish the Republic. Yet about 600 years later the Roman nation would be the power of the Mediterranean. Again, how did it do it? The answer is that it went through an almost perpetual series of war, uprisings, economic slump, and political revolutions, and for the first half-millennia, usually came out stronger. The Romans chose to adapt, or make the situation adapt to them. Instead of just swallowing every setback and continue they sought for ways to prevent the setback from happening again.
It is possible that the same happened in this country. The country is not the same as it was 100, 50, 25, or even 10 years ago. It has gone through perpetual change, to meet the perpetual challenges. It has grown in every direction it has been attacked on. Everything at every level, from multi-national alliances to the individual goes through a constant barrage of difficulties, hurdles, crises, and disasters, big and small. That is the source of change.
Friday, July 29, 2005
Another of those History Repeats
The ancient Greek philosophers accomplished major advances in, well, philosophy, and political theory. They provided a base of scientific knowledge that would be, together with the Romans, the main source of learning until the Rennaissance and Enlightenment scientists and philosophers. There are, however, two very similar sets of events both in classical Greece and later in Rennaissance Europe. In Greece Socrates was one of the early great philosophers. Eventually the Athenian Republic grew suspicious of him and charged him with accusations such as spreading heresy. One of Socrates' students, Plato, grew disillusioned of this and soon broke away from Athens. In part because of his anger Plato wrote a series of works, many or all of which had Socrates in them as a character. Some of these works were also written in dialogue form.
Around 2000 years later Copernicus pushed the idea of a sun-centered solar system. He died shortly after his works were published and therefore did not see much of the hurricane that followed. The Church, firmly entrenched in the Ptolemaic model of the Universe, led a campaign to batter down the Copernican model. Still the new model attracted followers among the new wave of scientists adhering to the scientific method. One of these was Galileo. His Dialogue sparked intense anger in the Pope and caused the inquisition of the astronomer shortly afterwards.
Both Plato and Galileo then each had their own "patrons", each published works that were based partly on these patrons' ideas. Ironically, the Copernican model goes against the Greek originated Ptolemaic model.
Around 2000 years later Copernicus pushed the idea of a sun-centered solar system. He died shortly after his works were published and therefore did not see much of the hurricane that followed. The Church, firmly entrenched in the Ptolemaic model of the Universe, led a campaign to batter down the Copernican model. Still the new model attracted followers among the new wave of scientists adhering to the scientific method. One of these was Galileo. His Dialogue sparked intense anger in the Pope and caused the inquisition of the astronomer shortly afterwards.
Both Plato and Galileo then each had their own "patrons", each published works that were based partly on these patrons' ideas. Ironically, the Copernican model goes against the Greek originated Ptolemaic model.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Posting Centennial
This post is the 100th post of this blog. So, now I'm stuck thinking about what this one will be about. Since it's a marker for my blog, should it be about my blog? Or maybe I should knock off my own Outline of History. Maybe I should make it like a sitcom and give links as a blog version of flashbacks. In some ways blogs really are like TV shows. Well, this is milestone in the number of posts so it could be related to that.
When it comes to the actual recording of happenings there are simply no accurate ways to do it. All we have to start with is physical evidence and oral/written records. Evidence no matter how solid and objective it is, has to be interpreted to fit it in the big puzzle. Oral records go through person after person and generation after generation of adaptation and erosion. Written records are but an interpretation of something by people, it is impossible to observe everything that's happening during a siege, or funeral, or voyage. What you don't see you have to get from someone else. And even then all the events can't be put on paper. Things have to be left out, and they are.
It'd be nice if we had some big movie studio or TV where we could just punch in the date and location of a place on Earth and see everything that happened, then again, maybe it wouldn't be so great. History is nothing more than educated (or dumb) guesses fitted with the latest interpretation of evidence and the most recent theory. No human can know everything everywhere at any moment, much less in all moments. It is therefore practically impossible to predict a future. But for every moment in the present there probably has been a similar moment in the past.
This then, is one of the major goals and purposes of the study of history: to break through all the technological, scientific, and all other change that has happened and to find common rythms and patterns that have always happened. Change, as the saying goes, is a neccessary evil, so it follows that at some level of thought and study of the past it's effect is gone. The emotions and instincts people had millenia ago are still the exact same ones we have today. Everything has it's role. The idea of a chain of events is then probably somewhat innacurate, a stack of world "snapshots" is more fitting.
When it comes to the actual recording of happenings there are simply no accurate ways to do it. All we have to start with is physical evidence and oral/written records. Evidence no matter how solid and objective it is, has to be interpreted to fit it in the big puzzle. Oral records go through person after person and generation after generation of adaptation and erosion. Written records are but an interpretation of something by people, it is impossible to observe everything that's happening during a siege, or funeral, or voyage. What you don't see you have to get from someone else. And even then all the events can't be put on paper. Things have to be left out, and they are.
It'd be nice if we had some big movie studio or TV where we could just punch in the date and location of a place on Earth and see everything that happened, then again, maybe it wouldn't be so great. History is nothing more than educated (or dumb) guesses fitted with the latest interpretation of evidence and the most recent theory. No human can know everything everywhere at any moment, much less in all moments. It is therefore practically impossible to predict a future. But for every moment in the present there probably has been a similar moment in the past.
This then, is one of the major goals and purposes of the study of history: to break through all the technological, scientific, and all other change that has happened and to find common rythms and patterns that have always happened. Change, as the saying goes, is a neccessary evil, so it follows that at some level of thought and study of the past it's effect is gone. The emotions and instincts people had millenia ago are still the exact same ones we have today. Everything has it's role. The idea of a chain of events is then probably somewhat innacurate, a stack of world "snapshots" is more fitting.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Why I'm so Obsessed with Early Human History...and some philosophy
Some of you are probably wondering why I'm posting so much about how things were like in early societies. Basically, it's cause I'm spending my summer not at the beach, or at some other vacation spot, but by pondering the meaning of life, society, and a bunch of other stuff.
The answers to life and society are connected, here's what I have come up with for the purposes of life:
-To live (it seems simple and obvious, but it is connected into everything alive.)
-Increase frequency of your DNA into gene pool (have kids, or anything alive that has your DNA in it)
Society was at the least an attempt to help in both. Humans, by themselves, are not really the greatest physical machines. They have intelligence, the ability to use natural objects and change them to suit their needs, and the ability to create some level of an artificial environment, (a bit off-topic, but sounds like the character traits from a video game). By combining the different talents of different people, society was able to get an edge in the struggle for survival. Large groups allow people to specialise in different jobs needed for the whole to survive and progress. Specialisation can lead to expertise and skill in a job. To pass on this knowledge, their were people who specialised in teaching, and perhaps general care for children while their parents where busy).
Speculating on early events in society is a way to understand the foundations of today's civilizations. It can explain some of the things happening now, and maybe we could then make better decisions.
Blog Update: Scroll down to the bottom if you want to see my blog advisor.
The answers to life and society are connected, here's what I have come up with for the purposes of life:
-To live (it seems simple and obvious, but it is connected into everything alive.)
-Increase frequency of your DNA into gene pool (have kids, or anything alive that has your DNA in it)
Society was at the least an attempt to help in both. Humans, by themselves, are not really the greatest physical machines. They have intelligence, the ability to use natural objects and change them to suit their needs, and the ability to create some level of an artificial environment, (a bit off-topic, but sounds like the character traits from a video game). By combining the different talents of different people, society was able to get an edge in the struggle for survival. Large groups allow people to specialise in different jobs needed for the whole to survive and progress. Specialisation can lead to expertise and skill in a job. To pass on this knowledge, their were people who specialised in teaching, and perhaps general care for children while their parents where busy).
Speculating on early events in society is a way to understand the foundations of today's civilizations. It can explain some of the things happening now, and maybe we could then make better decisions.
Blog Update: Scroll down to the bottom if you want to see my blog advisor.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Origins of Law
I've finally ended several weeks of constantly not posting. Lack of topics and simple laziness are both reasons. Hopefully I'll be able to continue the daily posting I used to have. For now I will start with laws, tomorrow or maybe later today I'll finish the First Sack of Rome posting, later I'll continue with linguistics, Mesopotamia, Crusades, and other topics. Also, I'll welcome any other topics proposed by readers, some basic info and/or Internet resources about the topic would also be nice. Last, if you have anything to say about a post, please tell it in a comment. Laws, in some way or other, are vital for efficient, long-lasting, and functioning societies. In the earliest nomadic tribes there probably were some sort of basic understood rules that all member abided by. They may have been obvious things like, don't murder other tribe members, or don't steal food. To break these rules would result in communal backlash. Also, there is evidence that these people had some ideas of an afterlife. Fear of not having a good time after you die would have been a great force too. As a tribe grew more complex the laws had to expand too. There may have been laws governing different occupations or situations. Laws helped clear up and establish procedures and customs. While they complexified life, they also took away many worries. They would have helped keep things in order and direct people in different situations as cultures grew more sophisticated. Of course, as the number of these laws increased, it would have been impossible for an ordinary person to remember every one of them, in times before writing and alphabets, the responsibility would have had to be passed on to a group of people. These could be any number of different types, priests, elders, wisemen, council members, or shamans. But of course, a growing society placed other demands on these people, and more people meant that you could have people who solely spend their lives memorizing legal rules. Whoever ruled the tribe could then draw on these as advisors in daily and long-term issues. As the number and complexity of the laws continued to grow, the specialists would have divided them up into common subjects, such as civil or criminal law. At this time society was probably already urbanized, and far from the nomadic life before. This new highly complexified and sophisticated culture was strongly influenced by three principal forces: laws, government, and religion. Laws served the function of protecting people’s rights or making sure that the economic or political systems functioned smoothly. Government had two jobs, apply its power to tackle everyday issues and situations, and plan and safeguard future growth and welfare. Religion served as an explanation of phenomena, and an important aspect in shaping culture.
Even small combinations of these three forces could produce very different civilizations, a comparison of that could be made in the differences of Egyptian and Mesopotamian lands. Ancient Egypt, during the times it was united, put together all three forces in the pharaoh. He was lawgiver, absolute ruler, and a descendant of the gods all in one. It is important to note that in Egypt all property was considered to belong to the Pharaoh, while the people were mere holders of it. Mesopotamia went an entirely different course, splitting up the three forces to a great degree. Rulers considered themselves only agents who carry out their god’s/gods’ commands. Government and religion have always been closely tied to each other.
But the important thing is that government and law were separated. Ever since writing laws could be set down on tablets, always able to be referred to later. This was completely solidified by Hammurabi’s Code of Laws (about 1800 B.C.), although earlier codes are known to exist. The significance of this was that a ruler could no longer change a law to suit his/her particular needs. This greatly protected the people’s rights. Also, private property was recognized and the rules of its exchange, along with many other commercial exchanges, were laid out in laws.
Of course laws would still have to be changed to fit changing ways. But changing often very old rules would not be easy, and public unrest or even revolt might happen if some king just did it by himself. The process of changing these laws would be a great facet of government in the future.
Even small combinations of these three forces could produce very different civilizations, a comparison of that could be made in the differences of Egyptian and Mesopotamian lands. Ancient Egypt, during the times it was united, put together all three forces in the pharaoh. He was lawgiver, absolute ruler, and a descendant of the gods all in one. It is important to note that in Egypt all property was considered to belong to the Pharaoh, while the people were mere holders of it. Mesopotamia went an entirely different course, splitting up the three forces to a great degree. Rulers considered themselves only agents who carry out their god’s/gods’ commands. Government and religion have always been closely tied to each other.
But the important thing is that government and law were separated. Ever since writing laws could be set down on tablets, always able to be referred to later. This was completely solidified by Hammurabi’s Code of Laws (about 1800 B.C.), although earlier codes are known to exist. The significance of this was that a ruler could no longer change a law to suit his/her particular needs. This greatly protected the people’s rights. Also, private property was recognized and the rules of its exchange, along with many other commercial exchanges, were laid out in laws.
Of course laws would still have to be changed to fit changing ways. But changing often very old rules would not be easy, and public unrest or even revolt might happen if some king just did it by himself. The process of changing these laws would be a great facet of government in the future.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Saturday, July 02, 2005
First Sack of Rome Part II
Here's Part I
The Celts continued to destroy large parts of Rome. The Roman defenders inside the Citadel were forced to look on as section after section was laid to waste. For some reason or another the Celts did not destroy the entire city, but left parts of it intact, though still looted. Eventually they tired of doing nothing but ransacking and burning empty buildings. Arraying themselves in a line, they proceeded to take the Citadel by assault.
The Romans noticed that and prepared myself. First guarding all the ways to the Citadel, they positioned their best men to face the incoming Celts. The Citadel was located on a rather steep hill so that a simple charge by the outnumbered Romans managed to send the entire Celtic army reeling back. Realizing that another attack would be too costly, the invaders prepared a siege. Also realizing that there was no food inside our directly outside the city walls part of the army was sent out to find food. This party then laid siege to a town named Ardea. The defenders of the town, led by Camillus, sallied outside and surprised the sleeping Celts in their camp, killing almost all.
The remnants of the Roman army which had been defeated before on the Tiber river still had a part to play. In their retreating march they stumbled upon, surprised, and drove away some Italic raiders taking advantage of the situation. In the process they managed to capture a large number of supplies and armaments, which they used to equip the citizens of Veii. One of the men then took it upon himself to sneak through the Celtic lines to give the news to the defenders. By swimming along a river he reached a cliff that had been forsaken by the Celts as too hard to climb. After some great difficulty the messenger reached the Romans and told them about the new army that was prepared to attack the invaders. After this the messenger managed to return to Veii.
The Celts spotted the tracks and decided they would be able to climb the cliff too. During the middle of the night some of them started to go up. The guards were not too watchful as they thought they were secure. However, some sacred geese at a temple noticed these climbers and started a fuss. The guards soon found and managed to stop the attackers and drive them off the cliff.
After this (and after a payment of gold) the Celts agreed to withdraw from the city. On their way back home they besieged another Roman city, this time the inhabitants attacked the Celts and recaptured most of the spoils.
Now the Romans had a nearly empty city and the job to rebuild it. To speed things up they allowed people to build wherever they wanted, thus resulting in the maze of twisting narrow roads and infamous dark alleys of old Rome. Also, if you read the first post, the people had refused to let the Senate give back the ambassador who had killed a Celt in a battle, even though there was no war between the two at the time. This was just the beginning of the deep split between the Senate and the People of Rome.
The Celts continued to destroy large parts of Rome. The Roman defenders inside the Citadel were forced to look on as section after section was laid to waste. For some reason or another the Celts did not destroy the entire city, but left parts of it intact, though still looted. Eventually they tired of doing nothing but ransacking and burning empty buildings. Arraying themselves in a line, they proceeded to take the Citadel by assault.
The Romans noticed that and prepared myself. First guarding all the ways to the Citadel, they positioned their best men to face the incoming Celts. The Citadel was located on a rather steep hill so that a simple charge by the outnumbered Romans managed to send the entire Celtic army reeling back. Realizing that another attack would be too costly, the invaders prepared a siege. Also realizing that there was no food inside our directly outside the city walls part of the army was sent out to find food. This party then laid siege to a town named Ardea. The defenders of the town, led by Camillus, sallied outside and surprised the sleeping Celts in their camp, killing almost all.
The remnants of the Roman army which had been defeated before on the Tiber river still had a part to play. In their retreating march they stumbled upon, surprised, and drove away some Italic raiders taking advantage of the situation. In the process they managed to capture a large number of supplies and armaments, which they used to equip the citizens of Veii. One of the men then took it upon himself to sneak through the Celtic lines to give the news to the defenders. By swimming along a river he reached a cliff that had been forsaken by the Celts as too hard to climb. After some great difficulty the messenger reached the Romans and told them about the new army that was prepared to attack the invaders. After this the messenger managed to return to Veii.
The Celts spotted the tracks and decided they would be able to climb the cliff too. During the middle of the night some of them started to go up. The guards were not too watchful as they thought they were secure. However, some sacred geese at a temple noticed these climbers and started a fuss. The guards soon found and managed to stop the attackers and drive them off the cliff.
After this (and after a payment of gold) the Celts agreed to withdraw from the city. On their way back home they besieged another Roman city, this time the inhabitants attacked the Celts and recaptured most of the spoils.
Now the Romans had a nearly empty city and the job to rebuild it. To speed things up they allowed people to build wherever they wanted, thus resulting in the maze of twisting narrow roads and infamous dark alleys of old Rome. Also, if you read the first post, the people had refused to let the Senate give back the ambassador who had killed a Celt in a battle, even though there was no war between the two at the time. This was just the beginning of the deep split between the Senate and the People of Rome.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
First Sack of Rome
Around 390 B.C., Rome was still a young city that was beginning to extend its power. However, it was still just a city-state with a strong controll over the nearest lands, few would have thought that it would later conquer the Mediterranean world. At about this time Celtic warriors had invaded Italy from the north and were settling into the land. One particular tribe, the Sennones, was engaged in a war with the Tyrhenians, one of the many Italic peoples living on the peninsula. The Romans sent ambassadors to gather information on these Celts, who had come very close to the city. These ambassadors then decided to fight in a battle between that was taking place between the Celts and Tyrhenians. One of them managed to kill an important noble of these people and this angered them. The Celts demanded the Roman Senate to give this ambassador up, this the Senate voted on and decided to do. Unfortunately, the father of the wanted man was a tribune of Rome, winning the support of the people, he managed to save his son from the Celts. This caused further anger.
When Brennus, the Celtic leader, was given the news he ordered a march on Rome at once. When Rome heard of this it armed everyone who was of the age at which he could fight and sent them to meet the barbarians. The following battle took place on the bank of the river Tiber that was farther from the city of Rome. Somehow, the weakest flank of the Roman line ended up facing the strongest Celtic troops. Soon these Romans were routed causing a domino effect that led to the entire Roman army to collapse. Those who survived this tried to swim across the river. Many more were drowned by the current or the hail of arrows and javelins that the Celts were firing. It was said that the river ran red. Those few that survived this then fled to the town of Veii, which the Romans had not long ago captured.
The news of the defeat sent a wave of fear through Rome. The Senate conferred on what to do, they decided that those of them who were able to fight should fortify the Capitoline Hill and one of their more important religious sites. All else, including the walls and the rest of the city, should be abandoned and all supplies should be sent to the strongholds. Most of the people then left the city, although many of the relatives of those defending the strongholds decided to join those. The elder Senators, in an act of remarkable courage, decided that since they were too weak to fight and that their time was already up, they should stay at their homes. Thus almost all the city was abandoned and the gates were left open for the imminent arrival of the Celts.
After some days the Celts lead by Brennus arrived at the city. Fearing some kind of trap when observing the unguarded walls and open gate, they camped outside the city for some time. When they finally decided that there would be no harm they entered the city. As they realised that there were only two places in the city where there was any resistance, the Celts soon began to loot the homes and buildings. After a little of this they returned to a forum where they all gathered. There they encountered the elderly nobles who were calmly seated in front of their homes. One of the Celts went close to these men, and was struck on the head. This put the Celts in a fury and they killed all the old nobles, then proceeded to completely pillage and then destroy the city.
To be continued
When Brennus, the Celtic leader, was given the news he ordered a march on Rome at once. When Rome heard of this it armed everyone who was of the age at which he could fight and sent them to meet the barbarians. The following battle took place on the bank of the river Tiber that was farther from the city of Rome. Somehow, the weakest flank of the Roman line ended up facing the strongest Celtic troops. Soon these Romans were routed causing a domino effect that led to the entire Roman army to collapse. Those who survived this tried to swim across the river. Many more were drowned by the current or the hail of arrows and javelins that the Celts were firing. It was said that the river ran red. Those few that survived this then fled to the town of Veii, which the Romans had not long ago captured.
The news of the defeat sent a wave of fear through Rome. The Senate conferred on what to do, they decided that those of them who were able to fight should fortify the Capitoline Hill and one of their more important religious sites. All else, including the walls and the rest of the city, should be abandoned and all supplies should be sent to the strongholds. Most of the people then left the city, although many of the relatives of those defending the strongholds decided to join those. The elder Senators, in an act of remarkable courage, decided that since they were too weak to fight and that their time was already up, they should stay at their homes. Thus almost all the city was abandoned and the gates were left open for the imminent arrival of the Celts.
After some days the Celts lead by Brennus arrived at the city. Fearing some kind of trap when observing the unguarded walls and open gate, they camped outside the city for some time. When they finally decided that there would be no harm they entered the city. As they realised that there were only two places in the city where there was any resistance, the Celts soon began to loot the homes and buildings. After a little of this they returned to a forum where they all gathered. There they encountered the elderly nobles who were calmly seated in front of their homes. One of the Celts went close to these men, and was struck on the head. This put the Celts in a fury and they killed all the old nobles, then proceeded to completely pillage and then destroy the city.
To be continued
Monday, June 27, 2005
Language Tree
All languages spoken by humans can be mixed, you can try to immitate or copy a word or sound of another language or dialect, maybe you won't get it exactly right, but you can try. Extensive mixing or isolation of languages can create a new language or dialect. But why is this. For now I can think of two reasons:
1. All languages originated from one ancient mother tongue or a group or very closely related tongues that eventually spread across the world. Therefore, they all must have some kind of very basic grammatical or phonetic foundation, that allows languages to mix.
2. Since all humans are one species, it may be genetic or physical characteristics that allow languages, no matter how long separated by time and distance, to still be able to blend.
Probably for this post I will work on studying these. First, let us look at some laws we can all aggree on. Note: All my linguistic posts will be about natural languages, unless I say so.
1. Languages change, no matter how slightly, over a period of time the spoken language will change.
2. Practically all modern languages were once dialects of a larger, more general language. English and Frisian from West Germanic, Indian and Bengali from Sanskrit, etc.
3. All languages can mix, I already explained this.
4. Any kind of event that influences people, politic, economic, or military, can also have an impact on the language(s) of those people.
5. Spoken language precedes written language, therefore, we can assume that most changes happen first in speech, then in writing.
That's if for now.
1. All languages originated from one ancient mother tongue or a group or very closely related tongues that eventually spread across the world. Therefore, they all must have some kind of very basic grammatical or phonetic foundation, that allows languages to mix.
2. Since all humans are one species, it may be genetic or physical characteristics that allow languages, no matter how long separated by time and distance, to still be able to blend.
Probably for this post I will work on studying these. First, let us look at some laws we can all aggree on. Note: All my linguistic posts will be about natural languages, unless I say so.
1. Languages change, no matter how slightly, over a period of time the spoken language will change.
2. Practically all modern languages were once dialects of a larger, more general language. English and Frisian from West Germanic, Indian and Bengali from Sanskrit, etc.
3. All languages can mix, I already explained this.
4. Any kind of event that influences people, politic, economic, or military, can also have an impact on the language(s) of those people.
5. Spoken language precedes written language, therefore, we can assume that most changes happen first in speech, then in writing.
That's if for now.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Pre-urban life
Again, I know my posting is irregular. I hope you still just drop by a day to check up.
When humans built started living in more or less settled and packed shelters and, usually, picked up agriculure, society was changed radically. Their needs, responsibilites, and priorities were altered as they turned to a different form of living.
Nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes were mainly concentrated about sustaining and keeping order among the members. There were numerous bands largely scattered across the Earth doing mainly this. Even in seemingly abundant places people would have to move around constantly. Their technological advances had already given them the ability to meet, and maybe go above their food needs. This significantly shifted things in nature as it meant even a small group needed a large and constant supply of food. Moving around all the time was a good way to limit their impact on an environment.
A nomadic life still meant hardships. And people devised means of dealing with them. Perhaps part of culture started off as different peoples used different ways to deal with their surroundings. This in itself represented a major break from nature, since now one environment could create people with very different forms of life. In a nomadic life it became increasingly important to have some form of leadership which would that could make a decision for a tribe. Human populations were getting larger and it was becoming less possible for everybody to decide. As a result, leaders emerged.
To call them rulers wouldn't be right, but the pieces of society were forming. Leaders may have been chosen based on several different ways. They may have had a record of good decisions and actions in the past and thus generally picked, without an actual election. Or there may have been contests or a trial period in which leaders were singled out. Remember, by now humans were well separated from other animals, and had to devise entirely new means of living and staying together.
I am kinda tired now, and it seems the more I write the more questions I come up on. I'll be back later soon.
When humans built started living in more or less settled and packed shelters and, usually, picked up agriculure, society was changed radically. Their needs, responsibilites, and priorities were altered as they turned to a different form of living.
Nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes were mainly concentrated about sustaining and keeping order among the members. There were numerous bands largely scattered across the Earth doing mainly this. Even in seemingly abundant places people would have to move around constantly. Their technological advances had already given them the ability to meet, and maybe go above their food needs. This significantly shifted things in nature as it meant even a small group needed a large and constant supply of food. Moving around all the time was a good way to limit their impact on an environment.
A nomadic life still meant hardships. And people devised means of dealing with them. Perhaps part of culture started off as different peoples used different ways to deal with their surroundings. This in itself represented a major break from nature, since now one environment could create people with very different forms of life. In a nomadic life it became increasingly important to have some form of leadership which would that could make a decision for a tribe. Human populations were getting larger and it was becoming less possible for everybody to decide. As a result, leaders emerged.
To call them rulers wouldn't be right, but the pieces of society were forming. Leaders may have been chosen based on several different ways. They may have had a record of good decisions and actions in the past and thus generally picked, without an actual election. Or there may have been contests or a trial period in which leaders were singled out. Remember, by now humans were well separated from other animals, and had to devise entirely new means of living and staying together.
I am kinda tired now, and it seems the more I write the more questions I come up on. I'll be back later soon.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Roman Republic, was it really a good one?
I have seen several books and essys that describe the beginning of Julius Ceasar's dictatorship as the time freedom and liberty in Rome fell. Some put this date earlier to the beginning of the war between Ceasar and the Senate (headed by Pompey). I feel some things need to be made clear.
The choice Ceasar was given was an impossible one. He could either become an enemy of Rome, or he could set aside his governorship of the territories he conquered and come back to Rome with virtually no military power. Here, let me explain to you how "democratic" the Roman Senate was.
The Senate was corrupt, period. Many of the Senators thought themselves above the ordinary commoners or plebians. Sometimes they even became afraid of the unpredictable plebs, the same ones who were voting for them. There was the threat of mass riots against a senator if he did something to anger the plebs. But truly, things were happening in Rome that the commoners barely knew of. Threats, blackmail, power, force and money were more important. A man who became immensely famous through conquests, battles, and good governorship often became feared by the Senate.
The Senate had ordered it Ceasar to give up his territories to another Roman and return as a regular politician. This was driven at least greatly by fear of the man. It was considered a way to disarm a threat to the Senators' power and wealth. The people liked Ceasar, but those who represented them were afraid of him. Sound familar?
And here's another thing, only Italians could vote for Senators. Yet Rome controlled lands all around the Mediterranean Sea. In fact, not too long ago it was only the people of the city of Rome itself who had suffrage. It was Ceasar's uncle, Gaius Marius, who fundamentally changed the entire military structure of Rome, and gave the vote to all Italians. This finally satisfied the rebellious Italic tribes. However, these changes were so great they were a part of the reason for the civil war that happened in Rome between Marius and Sulla, who were once co-consuls.
Marius's reforms would deeply affect the history of Imperial Rome. It gave much of the responsibility of managing and paying the costs of legions in the hands of the generals. Thus to the troops their general often became their heroes, and they were ready to follow him anywhere.
The choice Ceasar was given was an impossible one. He could either become an enemy of Rome, or he could set aside his governorship of the territories he conquered and come back to Rome with virtually no military power. Here, let me explain to you how "democratic" the Roman Senate was.
The Senate was corrupt, period. Many of the Senators thought themselves above the ordinary commoners or plebians. Sometimes they even became afraid of the unpredictable plebs, the same ones who were voting for them. There was the threat of mass riots against a senator if he did something to anger the plebs. But truly, things were happening in Rome that the commoners barely knew of. Threats, blackmail, power, force and money were more important. A man who became immensely famous through conquests, battles, and good governorship often became feared by the Senate.
The Senate had ordered it Ceasar to give up his territories to another Roman and return as a regular politician. This was driven at least greatly by fear of the man. It was considered a way to disarm a threat to the Senators' power and wealth. The people liked Ceasar, but those who represented them were afraid of him. Sound familar?
And here's another thing, only Italians could vote for Senators. Yet Rome controlled lands all around the Mediterranean Sea. In fact, not too long ago it was only the people of the city of Rome itself who had suffrage. It was Ceasar's uncle, Gaius Marius, who fundamentally changed the entire military structure of Rome, and gave the vote to all Italians. This finally satisfied the rebellious Italic tribes. However, these changes were so great they were a part of the reason for the civil war that happened in Rome between Marius and Sulla, who were once co-consuls.
Marius's reforms would deeply affect the history of Imperial Rome. It gave much of the responsibility of managing and paying the costs of legions in the hands of the generals. Thus to the troops their general often became their heroes, and they were ready to follow him anywhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)