History questions not worth their own thread III

[General Pilates]

Everything I've ever seen about the early Spartan state has indicated that it had either a very small (in terms of value, at least) treasury or a nonexistent one, and did not seriously employ monetary levies. The buildings required to store a treasury of any appreciable monetary value when employing iron coinage would be...uh...prohibitive, to say the least. They didn't maintain a facility at Delphoi like most of the other poleis of import, either.

Sparta itself never maintained or supported a "sizable navy" in a meaningful sense, even during the hegemony, as already noted, but if the Spartans did have to disburse funds for the use of "allied" ships, I would imagine that they would not use their own currency, because nobody else wanted anything to do with it. Sparta acquired a fair amount of legit cash in the form of Attic talents and other hard currency from the campaigns in Aegean after 413 (admittedly, this comes secondhand from Grote because I have no alternative at the moment and suck at classics ) and they may have used this money, but that still gives us a chicken-and-egg problem and I don't know if anybody's resolved it yet.

Hope that helps; it probably doesn't.

Sparta's own navy was complete non-existent. Nearly all of the navy of the Peloponnesians was the contributions of such states as Corinth.The Spartan treasury itself didn't exist until after the Pelopennesian war. Even then it was just used to build temples and the like.

Now, as a person studying Persia quite fervently, I'll take any questions from people about it. Any era is fine.

 

[Masada]

Sparta's own navy was complete non-existent. Nearly all of the navy of the Peloponnesians was the contributions of such states as Corinth.The Spartan treasury itself didn't exist until after the Pelopennesian war. Even then it was just used to build temples and the like.

I'm pretty sure you just parroted back what Dachs said?

 

[General Pilates]

I'm pretty sure you just parroted back what Dachs said?

I corrected an inaccuracy since according to such ancient authorities as Thucydides the Spartan treasury appeared after 404 BC rather than after 413. Spartans didn't use gold coins; instead they used iron spits as currency.

 

[civ_king]

I corrected an inaccuracy since according to such ancient authorities as Thucydides the Spartan treasury appeared after 404 BC rather than after 413. Spartans didn't use gold coins; instead they used iron spits as currency.

internally of course they iron coins, but when they had to pay others they used acquired cash because no one wanted frickin' iron coins

 

[General Pilates]

internally of course they iron coins, but when they had to pay others they used acquired cash because no one wanted frickin' iron coins

Well of course but those coins were used by the Periokoi. Since pretty much the entire Spartan economy was dependent on the Laconians and Helots. Contrary to popular belief Lacedaemon was one of the richest states of Greece.

 

[spryllino]

I corrected an inaccuracy since according to such ancient authorities as Thucydides the Spartan treasury appeared after 404 BC rather than after 413. Spartans didn't use gold coins; instead they used iron spits as currency.

Thucydides stops in 411, and Xenophon says nothing about the Spartan treasury. The phrase "after 413" includes the years after 404.

Well of course but those coins were used by the Periokoi. Since pretty much the entire Spartan economy was dependent on the Laconians and Helots. Contrary to popular belief Lacedaemon was one of the richest states of Greece.

Hardly one of the richest states of Greece, at least not per capita or anything. Obviously the homoioi were rich in that they didn't have to work because they had a load of helots making their food for them, but I see no reason to believe they had a large surplus of anything. They sacrificed their wealth, in so far as they had it, on military efficiency, because the homoioi (who were a numerous if very outnumbered minority in Lacedaemon) spent their lives in martial training rather than tilling the fields, and they therefore had relatively little to trade with anyone. If they were rich, they would have been able to pay for their own fleet instead of getting Tissaphernes to do it, for one thing, whereas Thucydides makes it clear that the Peloponesians were not in fact capable of maintaining the fleet: when Tissaphernes's subsidies were not available, the sailors were not paid.

 

[W|M]

Why was Justinian's Empire lost so quickly?

 

[Ajidica]

Why was Justinian's Empire lost so quickly?

It wasn't lost that quickly. With the exception of Spain, the conquests of Justinian lasted for at least one hundred years, with some parts of Italy lasting five hundred years.
The bits in Spain were lost because it was a last-ditch effort on the part of Justinian and had no real chance of being held. North Africa was lost because of the Arab conquests which also conquered large swathes of Anatolia. Byzantine influence in Italy remained fairly strong, especialy in the south, but their territory was steadily lost due to other more pressing issues. Byzantine territory in the south of Italy was not viewed as essential to the security of the Empire as Anatolia.

In short, it only seems like Justinian's conquests were lost so quickly because textbooks tend to jump over the early middle ages when Byzantium had those conquests. (Think about it, more time elapsed between Justinians conquest of North Africa and its eventual loss then between us and the Boxer Rebellion. I would hardly call that 'quick'.)

 

[Traitorfish]

Did medieval Europeans make a habit of digging up corpses for posthumous trials, or was the "Cadaver Synod", which I have just found out about, as freakishly unique as I am hoping that it is?

 

[Ajidica]

Well, there was a line of about three popes who put there predecessors on trial after digging up the corpses, and it apparently happened during the Inquisition a couple times. (It might also have happened to Arius, or it was just his books they put on trial.)
It was very strange and uncommon, but not unheard of. Much like people giving all their wealth to their pet in a will. Strange and uncommmon, but not unheard of.

 

[Masada]

I corrected an inaccuracy since according to such ancient authorities as Thucydides the Spartan treasury appeared after 404 BC rather than after 413. Spartans didn't use gold coins; instead they used iron spits as currency.

You did nothing of the sort.

Thucydides stops in 411, and Xenophon says nothing about the Spartan treasury. The phrase "after 413" includes the years after 404.

 

[Terrance888]

To what extent is the Balkans seperated by Ethnicity ('race', ie semidistnct 'bloodlines') or just by culture? From what I know there are some religious/culture differences, but they are almost of the same 'stock'. (Ugh, hate using these racist stereotypes, just want to understand this Balkanization)

 

[Tee Kay]

Genetically they're all pretty similar.

 

[Terrance888]

So I take it that it is mostly cultural.

So... is it still possible to have 'Ethnic Cleansing' when you are ethnically the same, only different cultures?

 

[Tee Kay]

Some people would argue that ethnicity, race and geneticity aren't the same thing.

 

[Traitorfish]

Genetically they're all pretty similar.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that until very recently, the human race was more or less "settled" in genetic terms, and ethnic and cultural identities just shifted around over the top. Even relatively substantial population migrations, such as the Germanic migrations to England, still constitute a minority of contemporary ancestry. The only places that it departs from the rule are those which had quite low population densities, particularly if they had nomadic populations, Southern Africa during the Bantu expansions.

You'll got some greater degree of shared genetic lineage within each ethnic group, obviously, but it would likely be a current no more than a thousand or so years old as a distinct current- the Serbs and Croats, for example, were originally just too Slavonic tribal confederations that became the local centres of the Orthodox/Catholic split- and certainly not old enough or constantly enough maintained to represent any genetic chasms of significance.

So I take it that it is mostly cultural.

So... is it still possible to have 'Ethnic Cleansing' when you are ethnically the same, only different cultures?

"Ethnicity" is generally percieved to be a primarily linguistic and cultural identifier; ancestral monoliths are generally percieved, rather than factual.

 

[Atticus]

Did medieval Europeans make a habit of digging up corpses for posthumous trials, or was the "Cadaver Synod", which I have just found out about, as freakishly unique as I am hoping that it is?

I think John Wycliffe's body was exhumed to be burnt.

 

[civ_king]

Did medieval Europeans make a habit of digging up corpses for posthumous trials, or was the "Cadaver Synod", which I have just found out about, as freakishly unique as I am hoping that it is?

Let me get this straight, you are asking if medieval Europeans had a bit of doing something similar to an event which is remember for being freakishly bizarre. Is this correct?

 

[Plotinus]

Well, there was a line of about three popes who put there predecessors on trial after digging up the corpses, and it apparently happened during the Inquisition a couple times. (It might also have happened to Arius, or it was just his books they put on trial.)
It was very strange and uncommon, but not unheard of. Much like people giving all their wealth to their pet in a will. Strange and uncommmon, but not unheard of.

It certainly didn't happen to Arius, not that he was medieval anyway, of course.

 

[ParkCungHee]

It's a little late, but there's also Cromwell.