Recent comments in /f/history

28lobster t1_jbabufj wrote

Reply to comment by rainer_d in First archaeological correlate of the Egyptian rebellion described on the Rosetta Stone, 196 BCE — Evidence of violent destruction across the ancient city of Thmouis, in Egypt’s Nile delta, ca. 204-186 BCE by marketrent

Ptolemy V was 6 when he became pharaoh after Ptolemy IV died under suspicious circumstances. Kingdom was led by unpopular regents and lost the Fifth Syrian War to the other diadochi. All of this meant legitimacy was low and the state was somewhat rudderless.

Larger context is the Ptolemaic line is Greek but they're trying to rule over Egyptian people, traditional Egyptian priesthood wasn't super stoked to have Hellenic people at the top of the totem pole. Egypt also has a long tradition of throwing off foreign rulers (28th dynasty throwing off the Persians is mentioned in the paper, 16th and 17th dynasties existed at the same time as the Hyksos while the 18th overthrew the Hyksos) so it's plausible this revolt aimed for a restoration of local rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy_V_Epiphanes - There's no wiki about the rebellion in particular but Ptolemy V's page has some details.

Edit: Found a better source about the revolt itself https://www.lib.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/files/TheGreatRevoltoftheEgyptians.pdf

28

HonorableAssassins t1_jba1ow0 wrote

Reply to comment by Kholzie in Medieval babycare: from breastfeeding to developmental toys by nemo_to_zero

Most of what we think they werr wrong about is total myth anyways.

Medicine, sure, but even then they succeeded in doing surgery to remove cataracts and other crazy shit to restore sight to the blind. They had less science but they werent stupid, they were still people.

The worst myth of all, im not sure if is the one where they 'only drank beer' because they found out a small amount of alcohol could quickly purify water without causing intoxication, or 'were all illiterate' because they didnt read latin in england or France. 'They never bathed' when bathhouses existed pretty mich everywhere and were considered a fun night out is also pretty close.

5

OsoCheco t1_jb9qlgw wrote

Reply to comment by Outrageous-Door8924 in Weekly History Questions Thread. by AutoModerator

It's weird take. Why wouldn't restaurants be accessible? There always were food-serving places, for all income levels. It doesn't really matter if you call them restaurants, pubs, cafeterias, guest house etc.

The change after WW2 wasn't really related to restaurants, but to the general increase of prosperity, when even middle class people suddenly had surplus income.

1

OsoCheco t1_jb9pm10 wrote

Reply to comment by bangdazap in Weekly History Questions Thread. by AutoModerator

Well, even today, armed helicopters are... questionable. They are great against inferior enemy, but in open conflicts, they are just giant slow target waiting to be shot down. Their main selling point is the ability to hover over battleground, which is simply not possible if the enemy has proper AA weapons.

0

uncle-icepick t1_jb9m8ce wrote

Reply to comment by mdizzle106 in Medieval babycare: from breastfeeding to developmental toys by nemo_to_zero

>It was touching to me because it flew in the face of everything we know about life at the time. Rather than stern punishments (send him to the rack!) people were understanding of tragedy and merciful.

In Jeffrey Singman's "The Middle Ages: Everyday Life in Medieval Europe," he makes an interesting point about this - that mercy was fairly common in local rulings (in certain times in certain places) precisely because the punishments were so harsh, which elicited sympathy for the accused. Especially in the case of mitigating circumstances, as you mentioned.

7

StingerAE t1_jb92qrp wrote

Reply to comment by marketrent in First archaeological correlate of the Egyptian rebellion described on the Rosetta Stone, 196 BCE — Evidence of violent destruction across the ancient city of Thmouis, in Egypt’s Nile delta, ca. 204-186 BCE by marketrent

For those, who like me, forget which ptolomy is which and had to check the relevence of IV, V and VI, the Rosetta was a record of a decree issued by preists in support of Ptolomy V who was subject to the rebellions and generally struggled after his dad died when he was young.

Hence IV coins below and VI coins above the destruction ties in v nicely.

35

Doctor_Impossible_ t1_jb890gn wrote

Reply to comment by Outrageous-Door8924 in Weekly History Questions Thread. by AutoModerator

>The fact that it was Slavic land? The sparsely populated areas there?

Prior to WWI, Germany had tried expansion overseas, and found itself promptly cut off, as war commenced, by much superior navies. This expansion was explained by German politicians and thinkers as a natural consequence of population expansion; one required the other, whichever way you worked it out, so post-WWI, with overseas colonies gone, the natural place for territorial expansion would be somewhere safe from naval interference, where Germans could travel back and forth without any other country intervening. Somewhere contiguous with the existing German state would be perfect, for instance. The extermination of 'lesser' races was essential to Nazi ideology, and taking land those races formerly occupied was part and parcel of that, to the extent that it was emphasised that this was the 'natural' thing to do. In order for Germany to expand and become the sole real power in Europe, it would need vast amounts of land, resources, and an even larger population to draw on for labour. The populations already living there were 'destined' to be swept away by the unstoppable might of Germany.

2