I realize this question has a lot of nuance to it, (for example, the wealthy and educated likely had a different idea of lions than common peasants) but this question has really been nagging me lately.
I’ve tried to do some research into the issue, using this source it’s apparent that lions had been extinct in England and most of Western Europe for 1000s of years prior to the 12th century AD. This seemingly rules out the possibility that there was any sort of popular memory of lions by the time Richard I ascended to the throne.
Of course King Richard spent a substantial portion of his reign outside of England itself, particularly in the holy land crusading. That same source indicates that lions were often hunted by the ruling class in that region at the time, and didn’t go extinct for another century or so after Richard’s death. This to me would seem to leave open the possibility that Richard and the crusaders could have had first or second hand knowledge of lions, though I haven’t found any historical literature to lend any sort of credibility to this theory.
Finally I noted that lions are referenced several times in the scriptures. This might explain why “lionheart” had such a positive connotation (Christ was referred to as the Lion of the tribe of Judah). But this still leaves me wondering whether Richard or his subjects had any idea what a lion looked or acted like aside from what clergymen were able to convey to them using biblical sources.
Any insight on this question would be greatly appreciated! I acknowledge that often medieval imagery was mythical in nature (such as the flag of wales adopted in the 15th c) but I was wondering whether people living during or soon after the reign of Richard I (especially Richard himself) had any sort of real idea of what a lion was, or if it was just some sort of semi-mythical beast to them on par with unicorns and dragons. Thank you!
Edit: I’ve seen some of the medieval images of lions, many of which look very un-lion like. Would Richard’s idea of a lion have been exclusively based off of these?
1 Answers 2020-07-27
2 Answers 2020-07-27
Quite obscure, but, I was looking through the Turkestan Album and one of the pieces of architecture is the mausoleum of Emir Timur Kuragan's great-granddaughter Rabichi Begim. I have tried finding information on her life online, I figured there must be something, given she was important enough to warrant an ornate resting place, however I have failed to dig up much at all. I think the variance in latinisation of names is hindering me somewhat. Could anyone help provide me with information?
1 Answers 2020-07-27
I was looking at Google Maps in Montana, and I noticed an area with a clearly visible checkerboard pattern. ( see for example: here )
From what I've been able to gather from Google, this pattern exists because alternating square miles of land were granted to the Northern Pacific Railroad company to help pay for building a railroad. The other parcels remained federal land and many became part of national forests or parks. The rail company then sold off their chunks to timber companies, farmers, etc., leading to the visible pattern in satellite views.
The question that I have not been able to figure out an answer to is why a checkerboard pattern? Why alternating plots of a square mile each, and not just one big chunk of land?
1 Answers 2020-07-27
So i’ve seen a lot of history memes and stuff on the news about Isreal and Palestine, I know it could be a hard question to answer, but what’s going on between the two and how did it originate?
1 Answers 2020-07-26
Hi, all! So, a number of years ago Russian TV showed various WWII veterans for Normandy landings anniversary and one of them was told to have been a Soviet man who got captured by Nazi Germany and then, when the landings happened, he joined the Allies. I can't find anything on the internet so I thought I'd try my luck here. Are there any documented Soviet soldiers in WW2 who joined US, British or other Allies' forces after Western Front was opened? Thanks a lot.
1 Answers 2020-07-26
Unsurprisingly, this question comes on the back of me playing a recent game called Ghost of Tsushima, where the main character is a samurai who is forced to conduct a guerrilla-style war against an invading force. It depicts him struggling with taking “dishonourable” actions, such as attacking someone from concealment/stabbing an enemy in the back.
I’m just wondering whether there was ever truth in that, or whether it’s just a idealised picture of a time that never was?
2 Answers 2020-07-26
1 Answers 2020-07-26
I know he got in US war captivity in Africa (probably while the Tunisian campain) and was shipped into the US afterwards (probably Texas). He came back 1946 or 1947. I also know his name, profession and his birthyear (1905).
Edit: I don't know if I have to clarify that we are germans. I also know the 3 cities he lived in.
My grandmother told me he was forced to join the german troop in 1943 or 1944 (i don't exactly know if it was the Wehrmacht).
I got very suspicious because of these reasons:
So my question is: Where do I need to search to find out what he did in that time?
2 Answers 2020-07-26
I've heard that the Native Americans greatly feared the dogs brought by the Spanish conquistadores because they did not have dogs themselves--they only had access to Chihuahua-like animals. But, given that the Inuit people DID have access to dogs, why did their use never travel south considering how incredibly useful they would have been.
2 Answers 2020-07-26
1 Answers 2020-07-26
*Assuming they have a more stable society than portrayed nowadays seeing as there's been so many times China just "broke".
1 Answers 2020-07-26
1 Answers 2020-07-26
For the sake of simplicity, cause the Duke of Bavaria and the King of France isn't the same thing, let's consider petty kings within Holy Roman Empire.
1 Answers 2020-07-26
I know the answer will vary based on WHICH tribe (Asiatic steppe, Berber, Native American, etc.), so feel free to answer based on whichever you know the most about
1 Answers 2020-07-26
It always seemed curious to me that the Turkish language didn't take root in more places. I was curious if there were specific reasons as to why the Ottomans didn't enforce language/culture rules on the populations they controlled like other occupying powers?
If you look at former colonial states controlled by European powers, the language was many times changed and left behind after the fact.
This theme runs throughout history.
Meanwhile, Arabic maintained its foothold culturally even with Turkish occupation.
My assumption is Arabic and the religious significance of it acted as a multi-national unifying force much like how the Romans used Christianity as a unifying force. I was just curious if the situation was literally that simple or if the reasoning is more complicated?
1 Answers 2020-07-26
Source: The Well-Educated Mind (2 edn 2016), pp. 254-255.
Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides wrote tragedies; Aristophanes wrote comedies. Comedy, depending as it does on contemporary man- ners and morals to set up the jarring contrasts at its center, always dates more quickly than tragedy; a joke about politics loses its kick (try watch- ing a Jay Leno monologue from the Bill Clinton era), but the danger of wrong choices never goes away. The Romans, who came after the Greeks and stole most of their literary principles, wrote more comedies than tragedies—which is why neither the Roman playwrights nor Aristophanes are so widely read today as the Greek tragedians.
But even the tragedies of the Romans were inferior to those of the Greeks. Drama generally held a lower place in the Roman social scheme. Roman theater groups, like Greek troupes, acted at festivals. But while the Greek festival tended to be centered around play performance, Roman dramas had to compete with the more spectacular performances of lion fights, chariot races, and stadium sea battles. (In one of his prefaces, the tragedian Terence complains that the first two performances of his play were canceled because the audience left halfway through to go see the gladiator shows.) The Romans made no innovations in dramatic themes; these would come during the Middle Ages, when the Greek dramas had entirely slipped from view.
Wikipedia alleges the same scorn of Roman actors compared to Greek:
The public opinion of actors was very low, placing them within the same social status as criminals and prostitutes, and acting as a profession was considered illegitimate and repulsive. Many Roman actors were slaves, and it was not unusual for a performer to be beaten by his master as punishment for an unsatisfactory performance. These actions and opinions differ greatly from those demonstrated during the time of ancient Greek theatre, a time when actors were regarded as respected professionals, and were granted citizenship in Athens.[14][1]
1 Answers 2020-07-26
I've been reading a bit about the sheer volume of anti-aircraft fire used in WWII and became curious about this. Occasionally one hears about bullets fired into the air during celebrations falling back down at high speed and hitting people or property; given the massive amount of rounds put into the air during WWII, was accidental friendly fire a fear of people living near the batteries? Are there any records of civilian casualties as a result of spent anti-aircraft ammunition?
1 Answers 2020-07-26
I feel like there is a major difference between the names of late Achaemenid and early Sassanid rulers, especially when compared with Greek and Roman names over the same 500 year time period. I know that Achaemenid names are often more Romanized in history than Sassanid names are, but it still seems odd to me that Achaemenid names did not remain popular while Greek and Roman names such as Philip, Julia, and Marcus remain popular to this day. Is this solely due to the evolution of the Persian language or is there a greater cultural shift that explains the difference?
1 Answers 2020-07-26
Especially in places like Brazil, the U.S and alike
1 Answers 2020-07-26
I’m a Muslim and it’s very sickening to see my fellow Muslim brothers justify the recent conversion of Hagia Sophia into a mosque while most of us oppose the decision of the Indian government to convert the controversial Babri masjid into a Ram temple. It’s pretty hypocritical to oppose the Ram temple and support the Hagia Sophia conversion at the same time. The justification my friends give me for supporting the Hagia Sophia conversion is that it was BOUGHT from Christians by Islamic rulers. How true is that statement?
1 Answers 2020-07-26
Did the people who had been proudly flying the swastika flag mere weeks earlier just shut up and pretend it never happened? Did the rest of society just assume those people and their sentiments were gone? How did Germany make sure those supporters were no longer a threat to an open, free society? I'd also be interested to learn about the differences in how these people were treated differently in East and West Germany.
I ask because this is totally a thing that has never happened again, and we would never have another instance of a huge, powerful society fractured by a large segment of hateful fascists. Nope. Not fascists. Ahem.
1 Answers 2020-07-26
1 Answers 2020-07-26