[deleted]

I was reading Meditations today and came across this passage:

"From my “brother” [Claudius] Severus... and from him I received the idea of a polity in which there is the same law for all, a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed;"

Although Rome had long had law courts, they were famously partisan and classist at times. Free speech was certainly curtailed and punished by Rome's dictators and emperors. And I've rarely heard the sentiment that a government should respect most of all the freedom of its citizens used so early in the history of civilizations.

Although prior philosophers had touched on some of these topics, this was the first time I'd heard of a ruler or government trying to bring them about in a concerted manner. I tend to think of the adoption of these ideas as being the product of the enlightenment, not the classical era.

Was did Marcus's stated intent original among rulers, or were prior rulers supportive of the same goals? What does the historical progress of the implementation of these goals look like?

I've read that nationalism is essentially an early 19th century belief in Europe, which led to the 1848 revolutions, and eventually to the creation of Germany and Italy.

​

But... who started it? What were the key early books and philosophers?

The book, A People's History of Science by Clifford Conner, goes on and on for pages with one criticism after another, saying that Plato and Aristotle ruined the practice of science, transforming it from an empirical practice of learning from nature to a purely abstract, theoretical study that was totally divorced from reality. The book essentially blamed the stagnation of science for the next several hundred years on their influence.

Here are a few quotes to try to summarize it better:

On Plato:

Plato adopted this kind of geometry [without reference to measurement] as the basis of an 'independent world created out of pure intelligence.' [...] Under the influence of Plato's disdain for anything 'contaminated by practical uses,' [arithmetic] fell into disrepute in the elite intellectual circles of the Greek world. [...] [Plato's ideology] certainly played a significant role in a two-thousand-year retardation of scientific thought--arguably the greatest damage any scientific elite has ever inflicted on science in all of human history. [...]

On Aristotle:

The intellectual elite of the European Middle Ages looked to Aristotle as the ultimate authority on all aspects of natural knowledge. Disputes over scientific questions were not resolved by appeal to observation or experiment, but by poring over the Philosopher's sacred texts [...] Aristotelianism represented a very long detour in the history of science. It was thought to have solved all of science's general problems, but 'the first task of modern science after the Renaissance was to show that for the most part these solutions were meaningless or wrong. As this process took the best part of 1400 years it might be argued that Greek science was a hindrance rather than a help.'

​

The Odyssey has quite detailed passages describing how they served wine back in Ancient Greece - seems that the wine itself was sort of a concentrate that had to be watered down before serving. Polyphemus, a cyclops, gets quite drunk when he drinks undiluted wine, suggesting that the undiluted version was quite potent.

But yeast dies above a certain ABV, right? Unless you're using some distilled alcohol to fortify the wine like port, wouldn't wine (assuming it's made in the same general method) not be much stronger than 15-16% ABV?

Was Ancient Greek wine much stronger than this? If not, why did they dilute it (so that they could drink longer without getting too drunk?), and when did wine drinkers stop diluting wine?

I am reading The Scarlet Pimpernel for the first time and the author (writing in the late 19th century) is constantly referring to children being executed. Were they really putting 8 year olds to the maws of Madame Guillotine? Or is it a case of children as we'd see them now but adults then, like 15 year olds? (Googling "reign of terror executions children" naturally produces articles on the Reign of Terror for children, apparently a big market for this.)

What was the actual mechanism of colonization? The popular understanding is that Europeans pretty much walked ashore and said "What's up, we have guns and you don't so we'll be in charge now." Is this accurate? And did any nations or tribes become colonies willingly?

Hi, so I'm looking at progressing to a PhD on a topic relating to the early Middle Ages in Ireland. I'd be doing this somewhere in Ireland most likely. I know it's very niche, and I've already been told I'm crazy for wanting to do this, I know I know. But I'm just wondering if anybody knows about jobs related to this? Does anyone known of universities anywhere in the world that teach medieval Irish history? Even within Ireland, are there many academic positions? Please don't tell me to not do it, because my mind is made up, I'm just wondering about where I might go with my career afterwards.

Thanks!

Today in history class, I was explaining to someone what fascism is (I'm speaking of Fascism, as Mussolini described it). I started off by telling him that fascism is a "right-wing" ideology, when I was interrupted by an eavesdropper? Anyways, the intruder, told me I was wrong and that fascism can be left wing and right wing, I told him, that a system can have traits of both, but they're the total opposite in theory. He then proceeded to tell me, that nationalism is Fascism which in a way is true but a Nationalist is not the same thing as a Fascist . I then asked the teacher, and he said that even the Nazi's were sort of left wing-ish? Because of the name National Socialists. Then after that, people didn't really pay attention to me. I don't believe I'm wrong, am I? Weren't the Nazis "right-wing"? Regardless of the word "Socialism" in the name? It's like saying the USSR was communist because everyone said it. Was it really? In theory? Was it a stateless, classless. moneyless society? No. Anyways, I feel dumb now. But I still have an ounce of skepticism in me, am I wrong?

When Descartes studied at the Jesuit college at La Flèche, the Trent catechism was already in circulation. But was the earlier Fundamentum Aeternae Felicitatis still in usage?

Watching any movie or tv show with cops in them before and during the 80's you can see they use revolvers. It seems like sometime after that cops around the country start carrying the classic Beretta's. When did this switch happen and why? Was there an uptick in crime or a lobbying interest that funded this?

Edit: from revolvers to semi-automatics

To my knowledge people back then, especially in the colonies, did not think of themselves as a united entity. But did the British make a distinction between the Canadian and the 13 colonies in the US? Wasn't Vermont considered apart of Canada, but if Canada as a consent didn't exist, how does that work? And was the identity of the "13 colonies" existent before the American Revolution

I work for a defense contractor, and this type of history fascinates me. I've read Ian W. Toll's book Six Frigates and it doesn't go into detail about this other than to say it was a "then-colossal sum" to be appropriated.

Chandragupt's empire had like most part the indian subcontinent in his hand . What happened exactly after his grand son became a monk. Did he just abandoned the kingdom or passed it on to someone

I'm looking for both good translations (English) and Spanish sources.

Being (not behind)

I was reading something about Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire and the idea that she had a lesbian relationship with a few women in France and England. I have no opinion on that but there were some authors suggesting it was relatively common amongst aristocratic women. What evidence is there for this? How do we know? And what were the reactions to these women (if it wasn’t uncommon)?

From what I understand, the Scots language is derived from Old English.

From my point of view, the Lowlands of Scotland are like England, in the sense that they are a mix of Germanic and Celtic.

The English people are descended from Angles, Saxons and Jutes who assimilated and absorbed the Celtic people and land of England.

Isn’t this the same case with the Lowland Scots? They absorbed the Celtic land and people of Lowland Scotland?

Both English and Scots are Anglic languages.

In contrast, Scottish Gaelic is a a Celtic language, brought over by an Irish tribe called the Scotti who assimilated most the Pictish Highlands.

In Scottish Gaelic, the word for the Highlands translates to Gaidhealtachd, which means the Gaeldom. This ‘Gaeldom’ doesn’t include the traditionally Scots speaking Lowlands.

To me, it seems like the Scottish Lowlands and England are Anglic, with the Scottish Highlands (+ The Western Isles, which is usually included in the term Gaidhealtachd), Ireland, Cornwall, Isle of Man, Brittany and Wales being Celtic.

Can someone try and explain the situation better to me?