Recent comments in /f/history

HUMINT06 t1_jduec7t wrote

It is not stupid because I do not understand the problem, it is stupid because you think “avoiding cisnormativity” is more important than an accurate translation. When characters address Athena in disguise, they are not addressing Athena, they are addressing the disguised Athena. If she is disguised male, of course they address her as male. However, when Athena is mentioned as Athena, she is female even if she is in a male body because Athena is female regardless of her disguise, just like Zues is male regardless of his disguise. You are projecting your own modern assumptions into a historical text that did not have any such assumptions.

1

beadebaser t1_jdud085 wrote

As a medieval historian described it, depicting William Wallace as wearing a tartan kilt and woad paint on his face in the 13th century is similar to making a film about George Washington where he leads his forces into battle wearing a modern day business suit and a native war bonnet

618

cargo_run_rust OP t1_jdu5kx7 wrote

>Dead cats are taken away to sacred buildings in the town of Bubastis, where they are embalmed and buried; female dogs are buried by the townsfolk in their own towns in sacred coffins; and the like is done with mongooses. Shrewmice and hawks are take

Interesting. Never knew about Bubastis when I visited Egypt. Thought that Serapeum of Saqqara was the largets animal tomb,.
Did Herodotus mention why this was done?

3

Javaddict t1_jdu5cc6 wrote

this is what I thought as well, my rough understanding after reading the article is that this discovery is considered the first "true" tartan as it has multiple colours weaved together vs the one found in Falkirk which is a border tartan and looks more like what we would view as a dark and light check pattern

62

LateInTheAfternoon t1_jdu533t wrote

Many misconceptions here. Plebs =/= Plebeians (in the strict sense for there was of course overlap) and both Augustus (as Octavius, before his adoption by Caesar) and Agrippa were of Plebeian families. Both also belonged to the Roman nobilty, later called Nobiles, which had (starting in the 4th century BC) been opened up for Plebeian families and very soon became flooded with them as the wealth required to move up in society more and more became accessible as the Roman empire^1 expanded. This influx was the more impactful as the number of Patrician families would steadily decline over time. The dichotomy of the early Roman republic of Patricians vs Plebeians was replaced by the dichotomy of Nobiles + Equites vs Plebs; the new order had been firmly solidified by the last quarter of the 4th century BC if not earlier. The Equites and a large part of the Nobiles (within a century the majority) were comprised of wealthy Plebeians. The laws enacted during the course of the 4th century allowed for Plebeians to be eligible for every political office (thus giving them seats in the senate as well, as it was made up of ex-magistrates) and one law even specified that each year at least 1 of the 2 consuls had to be a Plebeian (by the late republic there were streaks of several consecutive years with only Plebeian consuls). To belong to the Nobiles you had to have the wealth required for the top orders of society (as decided by the recurring censuses) and you would have to have distinguished ancestors that had served as magistrates and senators. The only significant distinctions remaining between Patricians and Plebeians were that the former were still ineligible for the office of tribune of the plebs and certain priestly offices were barred for Plebeians.

Note 1: following Finlay I use 'Roman empire' to denote the large territorial extent of the state of Republic Rome and 'Roman Empire' to denote the government which replaced the republic as well as the territorial extent of that government.

2