You probably did it wrong anyway; toilet is pronounced "turlet" in Real America.
History questions not worth their own thread V
- Thread starter Plotinus
- Start date
- Status
How could a man who has wasted as much of his life on The Simpsons as I possibly pronounce it any other way?
sophie
Break My Heart
Agreeing with you 100%.
sophie
Break My Heart
I was really hoping that book was going to attempt to make heads or tails of that miserable excuse for a language they call cajun.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
I didn't realize the South had Bostonians too.
Edit: Apparently the autocensor didn't like my original phrasing.
There's New Orleans, and there's the rest of Louisiana. Sometimes, if they're being charitable (lol), they'll include Metairie and maybe the North Shore in "NOLA", but that's it.
MilesGregarius
Half-baked Renegade
Just like the 'e' in Jay-zus.
He must have had a weird regional accent then, because "geyser" is usually pronounced "gee-zer" if you're British.
Also, a "geezer" isn't necessarily old, but he might be a little bit waay.
sophie
Break My Heart
ReindeerThistle
Zimmerwald Left
Most of these questions are worth their own thread.
I would like to ask Plotinus or any other WH expert which book or books would you say are the most accurate about Carthage/ Hamilcar/ Hannibal.
I would like to ask Plotinus or any other WH expert which book or books would you say are the most accurate about Carthage/ Hamilcar/ Hannibal.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
What distinguishes the rank of "king", exactly? Most European noble ranks seem to be used in a fairly consistent manner across the Early Medieval, Medieval and Early Modern periods, so that between between, e.g. 1000 and 1800, "Duke" tends to indicate somebody of relatively similar status within their respective societies. But "king" seems to vacillate pretty hysterically, so that in 800 a "kingdom" can be granted so lightly that Britain alone has a dozen kings generally recognised as such, and dozens more petty rulers claiming the title, but by the Late Middle Ages it seems to be a relatively rarefied title, with most monarchs settling for "Duke", "Grand Duke" and "Prince". But, by the early 19th century, it seems to have ended up somewhere in between, so that relative tiddlers like Greece, Sardinia or Hanover get to be sovereign "kingdoms", which a couple of centuries earlier they would have appeared quite unsuited for.
So what gives? Am I misreading the evidence? Has "king" always been applied this inconsistently, and other titles not applied as consistently as I suggest? Or are people just nuts?
So what gives? Am I misreading the evidence? Has "king" always been applied this inconsistently, and other titles not applied as consistently as I suggest? Or are people just nuts?
I think the title of king really amounted to the ability to get other people to call you king, and no one powerful enough to say 'you ain't no king'. So in that sense, it would apply to anyone who grabbed the title, made others accept it, and was not in any means subservient to any greater power. Unless someone who called himself emperor allowed a subordinate to call himself a king. So a politically fractured region could have many kings, where a unified region would only have one.
That point applies to any title, though. My guess is that 'king' is really a Northern European word, with 'prince', descended from princeps, or 'duke', descended from dux, usually preferred in Italy. Imperial titles usually implied a strongly provincialised multinational country, such as Austria-Hungary or one of the Roman successor states - one which could be clearly identified as a collection of defined provinces. Obviously, one could not be a king and subject to an emperor (as distinct from a client-king), which explains why the realms of Germany were never kingdoms while the authority of the HRE was strong. The other anomaly is Russia, where 'Grand Duke' survived: as far as I know, the original Grand Dukes were the rulers of cities, which may have been nominally subject to a great power. Kings in general existed in Britain, Scandinavia, France and Iberia, all of which can be explained by the principles above.
Yes, as was Prussia. Suppose I must add the caveat that my generalisations are just that.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
Prussia wasn't an Imperial Kingdom; it's rulers were princes as Electors of Brandenburg.
That changed in the eighteenth century. In 1701 the Hohenzollerns were permitted to use the title "King in Prussia"; in 1772 this was modified to "King of Prussia", unequivocally making Prussia the second kingdom of the Empire. Yet Friedrich II and his two successors continued to employ the title of elector until the Empire's disestablishment.
- Status
