History questions not worth their own thread IV

[kiwitt]

Thanks Lord Baal ... I'll bookmark this post and return to it for further reference as my game develops.

 

[r16]

Although there is an interesting example of retconning an essentially bigoted story and turning it into something good. This is a bit out of left field, so bear with me.

The story of the founding of Carthage is that they made an agreement with the locals to buy as much land as would fit under the hide of an ox. Then they cut the hide into very thin strips to form an outline of a much larger land area. This story was originally designed to exemplify "Fides Punica" that all Carthaginians were deceptive and treacherous and would stab you in the back when you weren't looking. However, in the Aeneid, Virgil actually turned this on its head by portraying Dido extremely sympathetically. For him, it was a story of Carthaginian ingenuity and cleverness. Rather than treachery, it put them in the same category as Odysseus and his Trojan Horse.

ı was intending to mention this but never came to my mind at the times online . The anniversary of the conquest of Istanbul though fixed it .

the same story , twisted to fit locality , was a staple in the curricula of the 1980s . Where Mehmed II wanted to block the Straits to prevent reinforcements to the city , as such a fortress was built on the narrowest place . But it was in Byzantian territory and the guise adapted was a hunting hut would be built . A small thing -at most a single room where one or two people could hide from the rain- as you can't do anything else on the area of an oxen skin . Voila , the strips and the fortress and the now frightened Byzantians rushing to Edirne to stop it . The celebrated retort followed : "Where my power reaches , you can't even in your dreams . " Can't tell whether this brilliance was in the text-books but am certain the teachers delivered it in the lessons . Let me tell you , it hurts me to think ı was not that dumb as a kid , for ı could never understand how the Ottomans could lay siege to Konstantinopolis if the Byzantians could come out and stop construction of a fortress .

 

[Domen]

.. he was asking if the pretense was maintained and it was.

During the Dominate it wasn't. As well as later in the Eastern Roman Empire.

The Senate continued to exist but it doesn't mean that the pretense of the republic was maintained.

 

[Masada]

During the Dominate it wasn't. As well as later in the Eastern Roman Empire.

So the pretense was maintained for two and a half centuries after the end of the Republic then.

 

[Domen]

Why people so often call "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" Poland and "Soviet Union" Russia ???

 

[Masada]

Convenient short-hand?

 

[Tee Kay]

The same reason people call "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" England.

 

[Domen]

But they do realise that all these names are incorrect?

 

[Tee Kay]

Technically. But they do capture a certain truth though, don't they.

FYI I do try to avoid them.

 

[madviking]

But they do realise that all these names are incorrect?

God forbid people misspeaking.

 

[Ajidica]

Convenient shorthand and because they were the dominant entity in the group. the USSR was dominated by the RSFSR, and so on.

 

[GamezRule]

The Soviet Union was essentially Russia, most of the people were Russian and it was the successor state of the Russian Empire in all practicality. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was so long ago that nobody cares.

However, when people refer to the United Kingdom as England it annoys me.

 

[Quackers]

The United Kingdom is essentially English, most of the people are English and it was the successor state of the Kingdom of Great Britain in all practicality.

 

[Traitorfish]

The United Kingdom is essentially English[...]

Now, see, that's the problem: what is it to be "essentially" English? Having a certain majority does not dictate the essence of a thing, or we'd look at a vodka and coke and say "drink as many as you want, it's essentially coke!". Now, if it means that the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish are all in fact English as well, then being "English" doesn't appear to have anything to do with the actual nation of England, and that seems improbable, to put it mildly. However, if it means that Britain is something distinct from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, that it is in fact an English state which holds political hegemony over these local colonies, then the British project becomes cast in rather more starkly imperialist term than its proponents are generally willing to admit. Britain becomes something rather barbarous, a belligerent which the Celtic peoples are not merely justified but compelled to resist, and Unionism becomes a poorly-disguised apology for Anglo-Saxon imperialism.

Now, I'm totally fine with that sort of conclusion, because it gives me the luxury of playing the poor, wounded subaltern, and everyone loves the underdog. But are you?

[/off topic]

 

[Quackers]

Well I was actually parodying Musiclord's post which is something I disagree with in it's method and conclusion, sorry .

 

[GamezRule]

I said essentially Russia, not Russian. Not like I was being serious though.

 

[Tee Kay]

 

[Traitorfish]

Well I was actually parodying Musiclord's post which is something I disagree with in it's method and conclusion, sorry .

My bad. But I was just being a needlessly snarky bastard, so no harm done.

It's worth making a distinction between "England" and "English". There's about forty-five million English people in the UK, which is only about three quarters of the total population. There's some like another million Irish, million Scots and half a million Welsh in England, compared to only around half a million spread the other way, as well as another four million or so from outside of the British Isles.

 

[Domen]

The Soviet Union was essentially Russia, most of the people were Russian and it was the successor state of the Russian Empire in all practicality.

In 1989 Russians were 51.4% of population of the Soviet Union. So 48.6% were not Russians.

There's about forty-five million English people in the UK, which is only about three quarters of the total population.

Three quarters is still a lot compared to only 51.4% Russians in the Soviet Union in 1989.

 

[GamezRule]

Even if the Russians didn't constitute an absolute majority of the USSR's population, they would still be the largest ethnic group. The other 48.6% wasn't ethnically homogeneous.