Skua

joined 1 year ago
[–] Skua@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Romanov Russia

1682 is the start of Peter the Great's reign, but he didn't proclaim the empire until 1721 and he inherited the tsardom before it from family that had ruled it since 1613. Nothing special happened upon Peter's accession itself. 1916 is one year early for the end of Russia as it collapsed in to civil war during the First World War, but one year isn't much. Russia should be either 303 or 196 years depending on how you count it.

British Empire

Not sure why he picked 1700 as the start date when there's the obvious 1707 as the actual creation of the kingdom of Great Britain. 1950 seems a fair date for the end of Britain as a leading world superpower though

All in all I don't understand how this ever got popular when something as simple as the dates he gives for his foundational examples are so questionable. Never mind that he only uses examples from Europe and western Asia either. China and India, famously places with no large empires ever of course. How about Aksum, undisputed top dog of eastern Africa for 800 years?

[–] Skua@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

To run through the examples given by Glubb one by one:

Neo-Assyrian - 859 - 612, 247 years
Achaemenid Persia - 538 - 330, 208 years
Macedonian - 331 - 100, 231 years
Roman Republic - 260 - 27, 233 years
Roman Empire - 27 BCE - 180 CE, 207 years
Arab Empire - 634 - 880, 246 years
Mamluk Empire - 1250 - 1517, 267 years
Ottoman Empire - 1320 - 1570, 250 years
Spanish Empire - 1500 - 1750, 250 years
Romanov Russia - 1682 - 1916, 234 years
British Empire - 1700 - 1950, 250 years.

Neo-Assyrian Empire

859 BCE marks the start of the reign of Shalmaneser III, by which point Shalmaneser's two predecessors have already made Assyria the dominant power of the region. Perhaps it would be fair to place the date sometime in the previous reign, but I understand this one. 612 BCE is the fall of the capital Nineveh to a combined campaign of Babylonians and Medes. Fair choice.

Achaemenid Persia

550 BCE is Cyrus' victory against the Medes, at which point he assumed control of the Medean empire. 538 BCE might have been chosen instead as the date of Cyrus' defeat of the Babylonians, perhaps marking that as Persia removing its last challenge to hegemony. Not sure about this choice, but if we do take the earlier one it actually moves the empire's span closer to 250 years. 330 BCE is when the Achaemenid capital fell to Alexander the Great.

Macedonian Empire

Now things get weird. 331 BCE is the battle of Gaugamela, which more or less marked Alexander's defeat of Persia. Seems odd to pick a different marker for this and the end of Persia, but it's only one year apart so whatever. The end date is a problem though. Alexander's empire shattered within a few years of his death in 323 BCE. By 100 BCE Macedonia had already been a Roman province for 46 years. I'm honestly not sure of anything that happened in 100 BCE that might mark the death of the Macedonian empire. The Seleucid empire, one of the most powerful successors, had been more or less broken by the Parthians a few decades earlier, and the other big successor in Ptolemaic Egypt still had 70 years to go before Rome annexed it. Either way, Alexander's empire broke in 323, lasting just 8 years, and if you include the Diadochi its either less than 200 or more than 300 depending on which you count.

Roman Republic

The author gives some attempt at justification for splitting the Romans in to two empires like this. I don't think they're very convincing, but let's take him at his word. 260 BCE is the battle of Mylae, the first time Rome defeated Carthage at sea. It seems to me that if you're going to mark Rome's ascendancy to empire status by when it defeated Carthage then you should pick the victory in in the second Punic war. If the first one made Rome hegemon, there wouldn't have been a second in which Hannibal tore up Italy for 15 years. Hannibal's defeat in 202 BCE seems a better marker to me. 27 BCE is the proclamation of the Roman empire under Augustus. With Hannibal's defeat as the starting point, it lasted 175 years.

Roman Empire

180 is the end of the period known as the "five good emperors". The author writes: "It is true that the empire survived nominally for more than a century after this date, but it did so in constant confusion, rebellions, civil wars and barbarian invasions." the western half of the empire would last for almost three hundred more years, and the eastern half for well over a thousand more, including reclaiming most of the western half under Justinian. Roman hegemony in Europe and north Africa would not be challenged for centuries and this date makes no sense at all.

Arab Empire

I think this is mashing up the Rashidun caliphate, Umayyad caliphate, and the Abbasid caliphate prior to the Anarchy at Samarra. This entire listing is ridiculous to call a single empire when he counts Rome as separate for the republic, the empire, the western empire, and the eastern empire.

Mamluk Empire

This one is fine, running from the mamluk overthrow of the Ayyubid sultanate to the Ottoman annexation of the Mamluk sultanate.

Ottoman Empire

Not sure why the author picked 1320 specifically, but the rise of the Ottomans isn't well-recorded and it was around this date so it's fine by me. The end date is utterly baffling though. In 1570, the Ottomans launched a war against basically every naval power in Europe, and they won it. How is that end of their power? They would, of course, survive until their defeat as a major power in the First World War for ~600 years.

Spanish Empire

Not sure why 1500 specifically was picked, but it's roughly when Spain got a foothold in the Americas so okay. Nothing of particular significance happened in 1750 either, though, and it would be another 58 years before the wars of independence from its colonies started (and Spain's defeat by Napoleon soon after). Spain's "lifetime" as an empire should be over 300 years.

[–] Skua@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think the one in Blade Runner 2049 did a lot for the character of Joi in particular. But it's about the only example I can think of just now

[–] Skua@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If it's getting all of the carbon for that methane from atmospheric carbon dioxide then it should at least be neutral. The production should, if that is how it's working, remove as much carbon from the atmosphere as burning the product would release. This would make it a hell of a lot better than fossil extraction since that's taking carbon not currently in the atmosphere and then releasing it in to the atmosphere

[–] Skua@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

I'm afraid I've never made any myself. There's a wide variety of them available pretty cheap in most shops here, and also I am fortunate enough to live somewhere where the tap water is really good

[–] Skua@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

"Squash" is another word for cordial or diluting juice - that is, a concentrated fruit juice that you dilute with water to drink

[–] Skua@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

There's a thin bit of Afghanistan separating Pakistan and Tajikistan, and it reaches all the way to the Chinese border. That tiny bit of border (which is closed on the Chinese side and also a mountain pass thousands of metres high, but it is indeed a border) has a three and a half hour difference

[–] Skua@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago

It looks like that entire area, which is the size of Albania, only has about fifty people living in it. They're so far from everything else and there's few enough of them that they can just agree to do their own thing

[–] Skua@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Funnily enough, Last Samurai belongs in the first category too. There were some real-life white military officers who were employed as advisors and ended up fighting against the Meiji government in the late 18th century. They were French, though, not American.

[–] Skua@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

At least according to an atheist Jewish ex of mine, it's fine to use "Jewish" to refer to the ethnicity too. She would just specifically "ethnically Jewish" or "religiously Jewish" or whatever else if it wasn't clear from context - neither being more or less Jewish than the other.

[–] Skua@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Team Ico's games are without doubt some of the best possible examples of the unique storytelling power that games have. They take full advantage of how different it feels when you're an active participant in something that happens in the story, even if you aren't making a decision about where the story goes

It's Shadow of the Colossus that holds a special place in my heart among the three, but I'd love to go back to all of them for the first time again

[–] Skua@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago

The tumblr special

view more: ‹ prev next ›