New Fall Of Civilisations is out. This civilisation is completely unknown to me so I'm saving this episode for the weekend so I can really enjoy it. Anyway:
I just realized there's only 7 years between King Edward III getting straight goosed at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 and the official end of the Middle Ages and ole Chris Columbus sailing to the Americas.
That seems like two totally different time periods but it's not! CC probably picked up the Ye Olde Funday Times and was like, "oh damn they stabbed Eddy in the face like 6 times lol"
(Graham Hancock is a racist mess and a fraud, but this is very interesting)
Graham Hancock can jump directly into the nearest star and has nothing of value to offer to anything ever, unless perhaps he is eaten by bees.
That being said, the paper Bacon ended up putting together is (1) neat and (2) actually publicly accessible! It's an interesting read, and clearly at least partially targeted at non-specialist readers despite being up to snuff enough to get published in an archaeological journal. It hedges its claims and language a lot more than a lot of the "this dude has Solved It" articles would suggest, but also feels really compelling, at least to my own eyes. Like I'm walking away from that thinking less "this is an interesting theory" and more "huh, I think I'm convinced."
Also I absolutely adore that when Bacon took his idea to some experts for a sanity check, they listened, helped him run with the study, guided him through getting the paper put together, and made sure he and his friends got the primary author credit for what's honestly something of a research coup. He chose some good people to work with there, especially given how cutthroat academic publishing can be.
I just realized there's only 7 years between King Edward III getting straight goosed at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 and the official end of the Middle Ages and ole Chris Columbus sailing to the Americas.
That seems like two totally different time periods but it's not! CC probably picked up the Ye Olde Funday Times and was like, "oh damn they stabbed Eddy in the face like 6 times lol"
Richard, not Edward
We should really have a name for the transitional period between the fall of the Byzantines and the discovery of the Americas, since the Ottoman ban on trade with the west really sent the discovery drive into high gear.
0
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
I just realized there's only 7 years between King Edward III getting straight goosed at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 and the official end of the Middle Ages and ole Chris Columbus sailing to the Americas.
That seems like two totally different time periods but it's not! CC probably picked up the Ye Olde Funday Times and was like, "oh damn they stabbed Eddy in the face like 6 times lol"
Richard, not Edward
We should really have a name for the transitional period between the fall of the Byzantines and the discovery of the Americas, since the Ottoman ban on trade with the west really sent the discovery drive into high gear.
Mehmed Deez Nutz?
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
I just realized there's only 7 years between King Edward III getting straight goosed at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 and the official end of the Middle Ages and ole Chris Columbus sailing to the Americas.
That seems like two totally different time periods but it's not! CC probably picked up the Ye Olde Funday Times and was like, "oh damn they stabbed Eddy in the face like 6 times lol"
Richard, not Edward
We should really have a name for the transitional period between the fall of the Byzantines and the discovery of the Americas, since the Ottoman ban on trade with the west really sent the discovery drive into high gear.
To be honest they all kinda blend together.
Richard, Edward, Edward, George, Richard. All kinda fucked up little Farquad lookin dudes.
I forget and I'm too lazy to look it up, was R III the last of the Plantagenet line?
Something I was thinking the other day was good weird it is that history labels the "founding" of England as when the Norman kings took over. When the only reason William came was because he claimed he was heir to the Saxon throne. So like how is that the marker of "England" while the Tudor dynasty is not? Why not say England started when the Saxons arrived and took over?
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
I forget and I'm too lazy to look it up, was R III the last of the Plantagenet line?
Something I was thinking the other day was good weird it is that history labels the "founding" of England as when the Norman kings took over. When the only reason William came was because he claimed he was heir to the Saxon throne. So like how is that the marker of "England" while the Tudor dynasty is not? Why not say England started when the Saxons arrived and took over?
I feel like the opening scene of Henry V meta-splains it pretty well. The actual pool of contenders is not that huge, and mostly they're descended from a few post-Roman great families and Charlemagne and so on and they have cross-married a whole bunch because marriage is the favoured way of locking in a treaty of alliance. So they're all at least distantly related, and they all keep family trees going a long way back.
Ideally you want a clear and at least grudgingly popular succession. Have at least one son, two or three is better! If there's no clear and popular succession, or even if there is but fuck you: I really want your throne, the process is basically: get some learned monks to prove that you have a valid claim by descent and/or marriage, then get a bunch of nobility and knights to each round up a bunch of armed men and bring them to your army, then go kick the shit out of the other contenders (or at least successfully defend your major cities until their armies all die of dysentery or get fucked off about not being paid).
In victory, you were ipso facto favoured by God, therefore you have the Divine Right of rule (for as long as you can keep it).
I forget and I'm too lazy to look it up, was R III the last of the Plantagenet line?
Something I was thinking the other day was good weird it is that history labels the "founding" of England as when the Norman kings took over. When the only reason William came was because he claimed he was heir to the Saxon throne. So like how is that the marker of "England" while the Tudor dynasty is not? Why not say England started when the Saxons arrived and took over?
what?
alfred the great is generally considered the first king of england (even though he never officially held that title)
aethelstan is the first recognized 'king of the english' and that was like 150 years before william
Although I would say there is some truth that a bunch of cultural and legal traditions that often historically got labeled anglo-saxon (by, usually very racist, psuedo historian philosophers with an aim of claiming a nebulous "anglo-saxon" culture as inherently superior and righteous to other cultures) actually did in fact have their origins in the Norman conquest.
It was legitimately a big deal that massively shifted English culture. (and linguistics.) As for ideas of nationhood... there was some what you might call... proto-national sentiments all over the world (particularly in large long-lasting states) but any kind of application of modern, or even early-modern understandings of nationality to any feudal society is pretty... silly. And more to the point claims of such are almost always post hoc attempts by much later nationalist movements to justify their existence by arguing said movements and national ideas had an unbroken thread into the mists of the past.
Asking a mercian peasant: "Do you consider yourself English?"
Peasant: "Ne þes sy Aepaþric."
I forget and I'm too lazy to look it up, was R III the last of the Plantagenet line?
Something I was thinking the other day was good weird it is that history labels the "founding" of England as when the Norman kings took over. When the only reason William came was because he claimed he was heir to the Saxon throne. So like how is that the marker of "England" while the Tudor dynasty is not? Why not say England started when the Saxons arrived and took over?
what?
alfred the great is generally considered the first king of england (even though he never officially held that title)
aethelstan is the first recognized 'king of the english' and that was like 150 years before william
Admittedly I'm basing it on a chart in a 40 year old history book I had to read in school years ago.
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
Richard II is historically considered the last Plantagenet King. His usurper Henry IV (and the next two Henrys) are considered to be the House of Lancaster, while the War of the Roses was them against the House of York (Edward IV, Edward V, Richard III). Henry Tudor (later VII) was loosely connected to Lancaster and married a York which united the claims but ultimately everyone who sat the throne in the 15th Century was still a descendant of Edward III (R2's grandfather) in one form or another and could probably have claimed the Plantagenet name if they wanted.
racist psuedo-historian english wasps are hilarious too, cause like, anglo-saxons came from germany
they invaded england and started killing the latinized christian bretons!
you're miscegenated you fucking rubes
and yeah, don't get started with how much france influenced their culture
Even Churchill called us "A mongrel race". It wasn't controversial amongst actual early 20thC turboracists!
+2
DepressperadoI just wanted to see you laughingin the pizza rainRegistered Userregular
okay, medieval art looks like that on purpose, I can accept that.
but why?
it's like going to art college, studying for years, learning all these techniques, and then you get out and you draw Newgrounds stick-figure fighting animations exclusively.
okay, medieval art looks like that on purpose, I can accept that.
but why?
it's like going to art college, studying for years, learning all these techniques, and then you get out and you draw Newgrounds stick-figure fighting animations exclusively.
admittedly, that'd be a pretty dope decision.
First off, why not? Is that really so different from comic book artists or animators or anyone else who uses a style not heavily indebted to realism?
I'd also say that it kind of depends on what you want to convey with your art. If we look at medieval art as being a directly representative art, then yes, it's not great at that. But that doesn't mean that it's bad, it means that the lens we're using to look at it is - what is that sort of art good for? That's the variable you need to try and solve for, finding the place where the art does excel.
Personally I think it does pretty well at telling a story that relies on iconic characters and ideas and doesn't require any words for additional explanation, but I'm admittedly not an art historian.
Also, as an artist it's interesting to look at medieval art, I mean really look at it.
What I can see, assuming that's a legit sketchbook, is that that was a very well trained and practiced artist. The line weights and line flow are excellent, there is a really good understanding of cloth and drapery (which is a shit and a half) and there's absolutely fundamental anatomy work going on.
Everything they're doing is just stylistic and representative of the movements of their time. They'd have no trouble adapting to modern realism. Why, they could even do anime.
I have always been curious about why we don't tend to see (or at least I haven't) more examples of expiramental art from back in the day. Like, I've sat around and tried to doodle in a medieval style, I wonder if some monk was scribbling in the margins of an illuminated manuscript and thought "lol what if I drew like, a purple, anthropomorphic hedgehog with huge muscles and a huge dick and named him Lightening?"
Also, as an artist it's interesting to look at medieval art, I mean really look at it.
What I can see, assuming that's a legit sketchbook, is that that was a very well trained and practiced artist. The line weights and line flow are excellent, there is a really good understanding of cloth and drapery (which is a shit and a half) and there's absolutely fundamental anatomy work going on.
Everything they're doing is just stylistic and representative of the movements of their time. They'd have no trouble adapting to modern realism. Why, they could even do anime.
I have always been curious about why we don't tend to see (or at least I haven't) more examples of expiramental art from back in the day. Like, I've sat around and tried to doodle in a medieval style, I wonder if some monk was scribbling in the margins of an illuminated manuscript and thought "lol what if I drew like, a purple, anthropomorphic hedgehog with huge muscles and a huge dick and named him Lightening?"
Folks back then would have only had locally-available drawings and no photos to reference. All drawing had to be inspired by either the real world things they could see or the fantastical things they heard about from the rare travelers who came thru the mostly-closed-off village they lived in their whole lives.
Which might have been better for imagination, like “paint a new color”
Captain Inertia on
0
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
Folks back then would have only had locally-available drawings and no photos to reference. All drawing had to be inspired by either the real world things they could see or the fantastical things they heard about from the rare travelers who came thru the mostly-closed-off village they lived in their whole lives.
Which might have been better for imagination, like “paint a new color”
I was going to say that with art, there is this underlying current of thought in society that good art recreates the natural world well. Which is to say that more realistic art is better.
But, why must that be the case? Just because medieval art is heavily stylized I don't think its less than realistic art, just like I don't think a phot realistic painting is less than a stylized piece.
+1
DepressperadoI just wanted to see you laughingin the pizza rainRegistered Userregular
edited January 2023
it's not that medieval drawings are bad or lame, per se, just... it seems constricting in a way I don't vibe with. as I imagine one would feel constricted only doing stickman hallway fights, except I think those are dope.
I guess what I'm saying is why didn't some visionary invent anime in 1220 AD?
edit: wait when was that japanese woodcutting of a lady boning an octopus monster made, 'cause that counts.
edit 2: are there any medieval tapestries of like, ladies with rockin' boobies
Depressperado on
0
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
See it seems freeing to me
Fuck a still life, let me draw a little rabbit with a sword
+2
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
it's not that medieval drawings are bad or lame, per se, just... it seems constricting in a way I don't vibe with. as I imagine one would feel constricted only doing stickman hallway fights, except I think those are dope.
I guess what I'm saying is why didn't some visionary invent anime in 1220 AD?
edit: wait when was that japanese woodcutting of a lady boning an octopus monster made, 'cause that counts.
edit 2: are there any medieval tapestries of like, ladies with rockin' boobies
dream of the fishermans wife was done by hokusai, the guy who did the great wave, during the ukiyo-e period
Posts
~ Buckaroo Banzai
The Guardian: Amateur archaeologist uncovers ice age ‘writing’ system.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/jan/05/amateur-archaeologist-uncovers-ice-age-writing-system
(Graham Hancock is a racist mess and a fraud, but this is very interesting)
That seems like two totally different time periods but it's not! CC probably picked up the Ye Olde Funday Times and was like, "oh damn they stabbed Eddy in the face like 6 times lol"
Graham Hancock can jump directly into the nearest star and has nothing of value to offer to anything ever, unless perhaps he is eaten by bees.
That being said, the paper Bacon ended up putting together is (1) neat and (2) actually publicly accessible! It's an interesting read, and clearly at least partially targeted at non-specialist readers despite being up to snuff enough to get published in an archaeological journal. It hedges its claims and language a lot more than a lot of the "this dude has Solved It" articles would suggest, but also feels really compelling, at least to my own eyes. Like I'm walking away from that thinking less "this is an interesting theory" and more "huh, I think I'm convinced."
Also I absolutely adore that when Bacon took his idea to some experts for a sanity check, they listened, helped him run with the study, guided him through getting the paper put together, and made sure he and his friends got the primary author credit for what's honestly something of a research coup. He chose some good people to work with there, especially given how cutthroat academic publishing can be.
Richard, not Edward
We should really have a name for the transitional period between the fall of the Byzantines and the discovery of the Americas, since the Ottoman ban on trade with the west really sent the discovery drive into high gear.
Mehmed Deez Nutz?
~ Buckaroo Banzai
To be honest they all kinda blend together.
Richard, Edward, Edward, George, Richard. All kinda fucked up little Farquad lookin dudes.
Something I was thinking the other day was good weird it is that history labels the "founding" of England as when the Norman kings took over. When the only reason William came was because he claimed he was heir to the Saxon throne. So like how is that the marker of "England" while the Tudor dynasty is not? Why not say England started when the Saxons arrived and took over?
I feel like the opening scene of Henry V meta-splains it pretty well. The actual pool of contenders is not that huge, and mostly they're descended from a few post-Roman great families and Charlemagne and so on and they have cross-married a whole bunch because marriage is the favoured way of locking in a treaty of alliance. So they're all at least distantly related, and they all keep family trees going a long way back.
Ideally you want a clear and at least grudgingly popular succession. Have at least one son, two or three is better! If there's no clear and popular succession, or even if there is but fuck you: I really want your throne, the process is basically: get some learned monks to prove that you have a valid claim by descent and/or marriage, then get a bunch of nobility and knights to each round up a bunch of armed men and bring them to your army, then go kick the shit out of the other contenders (or at least successfully defend your major cities until their armies all die of dysentery or get fucked off about not being paid).
In victory, you were ipso facto favoured by God, therefore you have the Divine Right of rule (for as long as you can keep it).
what?
alfred the great is generally considered the first king of england (even though he never officially held that title)
aethelstan is the first recognized 'king of the english' and that was like 150 years before william
It was legitimately a big deal that massively shifted English culture. (and linguistics.) As for ideas of nationhood... there was some what you might call... proto-national sentiments all over the world (particularly in large long-lasting states) but any kind of application of modern, or even early-modern understandings of nationality to any feudal society is pretty... silly. And more to the point claims of such are almost always post hoc attempts by much later nationalist movements to justify their existence by arguing said movements and national ideas had an unbroken thread into the mists of the past.
Asking a mercian peasant: "Do you consider yourself English?"
Peasant: "Ne þes sy Aepaþric."
they invaded england and started killing the latinized christian bretons!
you're miscegenated you fucking rubes
and yeah, don't get started with how much france influenced their culture
Admittedly I'm basing it on a chart in a 40 year old history book I had to read in school years ago.
Even Churchill called us "A mongrel race". It wasn't controversial amongst actual early 20thC turboracists!
but why?
it's like going to art college, studying for years, learning all these techniques, and then you get out and you draw Newgrounds stick-figure fighting animations exclusively.
admittedly, that'd be a pretty dope decision.
It's something like this that makes me realize that as a species, we haven't changed much
WoW
Dear Satan.....
First off, why not? Is that really so different from comic book artists or animators or anyone else who uses a style not heavily indebted to realism?
I'd also say that it kind of depends on what you want to convey with your art. If we look at medieval art as being a directly representative art, then yes, it's not great at that. But that doesn't mean that it's bad, it means that the lens we're using to look at it is - what is that sort of art good for? That's the variable you need to try and solve for, finding the place where the art does excel.
Personally I think it does pretty well at telling a story that relies on iconic characters and ideas and doesn't require any words for additional explanation, but I'm admittedly not an art historian.
What I can see, assuming that's a legit sketchbook, is that that was a very well trained and practiced artist. The line weights and line flow are excellent, there is a really good understanding of cloth and drapery (which is a shit and a half) and there's absolutely fundamental anatomy work going on.
Everything they're doing is just stylistic and representative of the movements of their time. They'd have no trouble adapting to modern realism. Why, they could even do anime.
I have always been curious about why we don't tend to see (or at least I haven't) more examples of expiramental art from back in the day. Like, I've sat around and tried to doodle in a medieval style, I wonder if some monk was scribbling in the margins of an illuminated manuscript and thought "lol what if I drew like, a purple, anthropomorphic hedgehog with huge muscles and a huge dick and named him Lightening?"
https://twitter.com/WeirdMedieval
Which might have been better for imagination, like “paint a new color”
brother patricius, you know what a dog looks like right?
yeah, no problem
But, why must that be the case? Just because medieval art is heavily stylized I don't think its less than realistic art, just like I don't think a phot realistic painting is less than a stylized piece.
I guess what I'm saying is why didn't some visionary invent anime in 1220 AD?
edit: wait when was that japanese woodcutting of a lady boning an octopus monster made, 'cause that counts.
edit 2: are there any medieval tapestries of like, ladies with rockin' boobies
Fuck a still life, let me draw a little rabbit with a sword
dream of the fishermans wife was done by hokusai, the guy who did the great wave, during the ukiyo-e period
so 1800s I think
No it was rad drawings