Recent comments in /f/history

timesarewasting t1_j42dzfb wrote

Reply to comment by Xciccor in Earliest evidence of the use of the Mesoamerican 260-day calendar, ‘centuries earlier than its previously known use in textual records,’ revealed by the orientations of newly-uncovered ruins along Mexico’s southern Gulf Coast by marketrent

For people whose records were massively destroyed and deliberately, you claim to know a lot.

We barely understand the complexity of history of these people. All these statements like, their Empire lasted just a century before Spanish came, is certainly false.

Their complex and advanced civilizations are lost in the mist of time

1

BalakofShaam t1_j421i10 wrote

Reply to Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP

Good answer above on the soldiers themselves but a key thing to note is that during this time it wasn't "Muslims vs Other", that came later with Zengi and Saladin.

It was Aleppo vs Damascus vs Mosul. When the "Franks" first came, the three city states basically played a staring contest with each other, thinking of ways to use the invasion for their own upperhand. So lots of retreats, fake promises and betrayals.

Nobody actually thought the Franks were a threat until Jerusalem fell.

4

jumpmanzero t1_j41ueub wrote

Reply to comment by DJacobAP in Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP

Thanks for reminding me that we're not in ask historians, and thus have a bit more leeway in our cites:

>Sieges against Antioch had a history of costly failure. It was well known that the complicated instructions and long deployment time of their weaponry made Antioch's military an ineffective field force. At home, however, these disadvantages were irrelevant; with time for a careful, deliberate deployment, their "holy" hand grenades proved decisive against invaders, human and animal alike.

MPATHG (Cleese et al, 23.19)

6

TamerSpoon3 t1_j41tjb5 wrote

Reply to comment by zhivago6 in Deciphering ancient texts with modern tools, Michael Langlois challenges what we know about the Dead Sea Scrolls and biblical archaeology by MeatballDom

> Good try sport, you only missed it by a few centuries and an entire dynasty. It was Ahmose I that overthrew the Hyksos. His dynasty, with pharaohs like Thutmose I and Hatshepsut and Tutankhamun, came before the Ramesside. I do appreciate your wishful thinking about your bible myths though.

Yes, I meant the 18th dynasty. Whatever. The point remains. Everybody knows that the Pharaoh of Exodus 1 is a composite figure and not just 1 guy. Well, maybe you don't.

> I am afraid the archeology doesn't support that. The archeology of the Hyksos areas in Egypt shows that they were similar to Canaanites, and Canaanites in the Levant worshiped Yahweh and El among their gods, and Hebrew is a Canaanite language. The consensus among scholars is that Hebrews are a branch of Canaanites, and the Hebrew religion is an offshoot of Canaanite religion. I am sure it is painful to learn this for people who are emotionally invested, but that has no bearing on the evidence.

More debunked 1960s nonsense from people who can't even read the text and more imaginary sources. Israelite sites are clearly distinguishable from Canaanite sites in the stratigraphy. This comes from the idiots who can't read Joshua properly and think the Israelites are said to have destroyed and rebuilt all of their settlements.

Joel Hoffman points out that Yahweh isn't attested anywhere other than in Israelite sources. The claim that he was worshiped by Canaanites is absolute fantasy. And you have the audacity to accuse me of "misrepresenting the evidence". You're literally just making shit up.

> What other languages are you talking about here? Aramaic? Greek? Arabic? I didn't consider it before because it's something that doesn't mean anything without context, which you have not provided.

The other Bronze age Levantine languages like Akkadian and Moabite. All of them have Egyptian loanwords and, but none have as much as are used in the Pentateuch. Later Hebrew writings don't even have that much.

> There can be a debate about the meaning of Empire, but in general it is a position above king, a king of kings, as the Persians would say. The first pharaoh was Narmer, who united the Upper and Lower Kingdoms of Egypt. Over the millennium the land of Egypt would fragment into smaller kingdoms and then be united again. Various pharaohs would extract tribute from and station troops in the Nubia and the Levant and Libya. If you don't understand that to be an Empire, then fine, pick a different word, but Egypt still had a massive presence in what later became, for very short periods of time, an independent Israel.

The point is that Egypt never ruled over it directly like you implied. No, they didn't have a "massive presence." They had influence, and even that was waning by the 19th dynasty.

> I could go on but there is a lot of reading you need to do before you can catch up. Good luck buddy. Maybe don't get your information from "Biblical Archeology", because those folks start out with the answers and try to find evidence they can force to support.

This entire field is "Biblical Archeology", idiot, since the OT is one of the largest written sources we have for the this region at this time.

But just keep sticking to your 20th century nonsense. Whatever makes you feel better.

We're done here.

0

Stentata t1_j41pwhc wrote

Reply to Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP

Listen to Dan Harlan’s Hardcore History titled King of Kings. It predates Islam and covers the history of the near east up to Alexander the Great. However, it provides an extensive explanation of the geographic, and subsequent cultural and tactical differences between the “Asian” (mostly Persian) and European militaries. The geography doesn’t change much between antiquity and the crusades, so those differences carry through and are still applicable.

0

hibearmate t1_j41e4vn wrote

Reply to comment by Violentfascist in Of the 270,000 photographs commissioned by the US Farm Security Administration to document the Great Depression, more than a third were “killed”. by VinkyStagina

editor's edit, it's their job

>Most of the negatives Stryker killed, by all accounts, were redundancies nixed in favor of a similar image with stronger composition, clearer focus, and facial expressions better comporting with the themes of suffering and endurance he sought to draw out of the FSA’s subjects.

49

hibearmate t1_j41dxw2 wrote

Reply to comment by KnudsonRegime in Of the 270,000 photographs commissioned by the US Farm Security Administration to document the Great Depression, more than a third were “killed”. by VinkyStagina

The job of an editor is to "kill" photo's from a collection

>Most of the negatives Stryker killed, by all accounts, were redundancies nixed in favor of a similar image with stronger composition, clearer focus, and facial expressions better comporting with the themes of suffering and endurance he sought to draw out of the FSA’s subjects.

The "killed" photos provide an interesting alternative view

>Shot through, these unloved alternates have become almost more interesting than their perfect twins. In contrast to the carefully captioned File images, killed negatives have no names attached, often no notes on provenance: what little we know about them is only by analogy to those photos that were saved, clues about location gleaned from landscapes, clothing, faces. As such, the killed photos demand a more active viewer, one willing to piece together, to parse, to consign some things to the realm of the curious and unknowable.

41

Yungdaggerdick696969 t1_j41dizc wrote

Reply to Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP

Muslims have the same concept and belief about being a martyr (jihad) as everyone, we just fully believe it in every aspect of life. Studying and becoming a functioning member of society is jihad, raising your kids to be good people is jihad etc. Jihad is the way of sacrifice. You cut off one thing to gain two more, whatever your beliefs are ofc, so this translated heavily into warefare. Spain and Portugal didn’t become Muslim lands for close to eight centuries just like that did they. I advise you to read more about Muslim warfare because some of the acts are bordering on suicide missions without context

0