There are people living now that if their local area flooded or was hit by a tsunami would think it was worldwide because they never travel far from their birthplace. The only thing that makes a difference now is TV and the internet. And I’m not just saying poor rural people- my in-laws have dozens of family members who have never been outside their hometown.

The places that became romanized were backwards regions; Roman culture was seen as superior by them and they wanted to be Roman. The East however, was more civilized than Rome, and they frowned upon everything Roman. Greek was seen as a superior language and culture to Roman (the very Romans adopted plenty of Greek things and every cultivated Roman had to know Greek to have some credibility).

The Netherlands are 41,543 square km, compared with California’s 423,971 square km. To dam off half of California is 10x more land than to dam off half of the Netherlands.

Google the phrase 'canon of the catholic bible'.

Most if not all of the books of the New Testament were originally written in greek but none of the books were written at the same time. And while called books, we can almost think of them as chapters in the book we now refer to as the bible. Additionally, there were quite a number of these books being passed around the Mediterranean world not all of which made it into the current bible. As the Roman Catholic church became more pronounced they eventually held a council to determine which books would belong in the official church canon. These works became the official Catholic Church canon. Important to note, that not all of the works in the catholic bible were considered the direct word of God...but the church council viewed them as inspirational enough that they did indeed belong. This is why today, a catholic bible contains more new testament books than its protestant counter-part. Very long story short...once the church finalized on its canon of scripture, the church would then release the official catholic church's version of the now Latin bible called the Vulgate. Keeping in mind, the above is approximately 1200 or so years of history compacted into a Reddit post.

Aborigines is just a term meaning the people who were there first. I don’t think it’s any specific tribe or group.

[removed]

[removed]

Unfortunately, islands in the Bay are inherently impermanent. They move, they leave. Barrier islands on the surrounding coast are the same way. Historically this has been the case long before we started doing things that often accelerate the process. Building "permanent" structures on them is really a fool's game, but unfortunately that's something we seem to have forgotten culturally. Some places are suitable for long term occupation, some really just aren't.

/u/toldinstone

What do you think about this discovery?

Various cultures (by no means 'all') having flood myths is hardly evidence of a singular worldwide flood as though. We most certainly don't have scientific evidence for such an event, and plenty to show that it couldn't have happened.

As for the 'evidence' for a more local exceptionally catastrophic flood that ultimately formed the basis for the story in the bible? You're talking about the Black Sea Deluge Hypothesis, which is controversial at best, and there's a number of points of evidence that strongly argue against it.

Ultimately, to explain the various flood myths around the world, there's no real reason to assume an actual great flood of anywhere near the proportions described in such stories. Even regular floods can be relatively destructive, and they happen quite regularly. It really doesn't take much imagination for a culture to come up with a story about a particularly bad one at some undefined point in the past. Any culture that lives near flood-prone areas is almost certainly going to develop such stories over times, and most cultures tend to settle in such areas because of the obvious benefits they bring (floods aside). There is nothing remarkable about this.

Edit: god, basic logic and actual science triggers some people I guess.

Don't know about "anither" language, but another language isn't particularly hard.

>Caesars were emperors, just of a lower, junior grade to Augustuses

Only after the reform of Diocletian, the so-called tetrarchy. Before the tetrarchy Caesar was reserved for the emperor and occasionally for his to be successor (from the time of Hadrian to the reign of Diocletian). Originally Caesar was used for all male members of the imperial family (Augustus to Hadrian). Since the coin is from before Diocletian, Caesar means that it refers to an emperor.

edit: rephrased the last sentence.

Why not include this explanation in the post?

[removed]

Yep, because english is all you need in the west. Learning anither language is extra work.

Because some aspects of Roman culture were influenced by Greek culture. So unlike the Celts, the Romans let the Greeks speak their own language.

The younger dryad impact theory and Atlantas. I want to believe.

How far do you agree that most British people hold a very Anglocentric view of the world wars?

I don't think personal unions count because despite having same head of state the countries remain separate and act each in their own interest so effectively they don't have a single ruling power.

That's why for example The British Commonwealth isn't an empire despite the king of the UK being head of state in all those countries.

I guess it makes sense to say all peoples in an empire should be under the common title though, but I think it can be tricky to define because sometimes you have states that are under a title in name, but practically independent and vice versa.

[removed]

In the roman empire, the west used latin and latin dialects as lingua franca, the eastern half used greek. It was the language of philosophy and the intellectuals, so there was no local lower-prestige language that could be replaced by latin. Latin was adopted in West Rome precisely because local languages were regarded as "lower class" and "lower prestige". So if you wanted to climb that social ladder, you better assimilate. In the East, greek already was the "higher class" language before Rome even set foot in greek city states. And the reverence Rome had to greek culture, history and language ensured that the Eastern empire stayed greek dominated.

>I should also be noted that because of this the emperor of japan would not be an emperor until like the 19th century

Weren't there multiple peoples inhabiting the Japanese islands, under Imperial rule, before the 19th century?

The "Japanese" aren't completely homogeneous to my understanding.

Koine Greek was by definition the language of commoners, i.e. peasants. In that era, Classic Greek still held sway as the language of learning.

The New Testament is not one book, it's a collection of works, by a number of authors. Most of them from the east mediterranean. Much of the population there already spoke koine greek as their native language, and others used it as it was the language of learning. Latin would only have been relevant for those in power.

The entire Mediterranean spoke versions of Greek long before the rise of Rome. Latin wasn't a widespread language among the hoi polloi because Greek was the common mutual language.