I meant common titles used to describe China, Japan, and Korea during the same periods.
Pretty sure this is a no-go. Probably a good thing too, I can't think of any East Asia encompassing moniker that would actually be useful

I meant common titles used to describe China, Japan, and Korea during the same periods.
Yes, but mostly by European and Euro-centric historians, and the terms are rapidly falling out of favour. You'd be very hard-pressed to find an Asia-centric historian with the same sort of mind-set that came up with the concept of "ages" in European historiography (specifically, Whiggish mindsets).The same could be said for much of the west, but it's still done.
Who said it was confined just to jokes?Being a sailor in the 19th century is probably the worst occupation ever. You get bragging rights, but aside from that, you're trapped in a tiny, freezing area with nothing to eat but beans, unspiced fish and liquor, and with nothing to do but make homoerotic jokes with your other crewmen, and intentionally screw off to get lashed.
Best idea ever, lets cram a bunch of men in a confined space for a long time with little to do and give them booze.There's also rum. That's got to be a bit of a boredom-killer.
There's also rum. That's got to be a bit of a boredom-killer.
Wouldn't it be safer to assume that we just know what those naval types are like?I'm guessing everybody here has already heard the apocryphal Churchill quote, then:
"Don't talk to me about naval tradition. It's nothing but rum, sodomy, and the lash."