Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It would be interesting if that actually was her. But
The wife of a rich silk merchant, Lisa Gheradini, is generally accepted by historians to be the woman with the mysterious smile.
What does "generally accepted" actually mean and how do they figure she is Mona Lisa?
I thought Beijing was awesome! Perhaps the old-fashioned, historical style of this will be a good contrast to the modern-techno stuff of Beijing. Then again, maybe there will be some surprises the British newspapers aren't telling us about.
Now I am curious what is wrong about my statement that Spartans were the best wrestlers with the most victories in games in Olympia??? What Olympic records or list of victors are you referring to that is different from results above. I am very curious.
I was referring to the lists of Hippias, Pindar, and Pausanias
It doesn't matter because the Democrats obstruct everything anyway. A President Ryan would be much more effective.
I would love to see Paul Ryan only because for once we will have a true fiscal conservative in high office. But then again, I'd rather see him as our next president.
What I want to say is..Spartans were master wrestlers with the most victories in Olympic games.
What is your source for this? Because according to ancient Olympic records, this is just not true.
Yes, unfortunately. Since he is basically reinforcing the very old (Victorian age) myth and misconceptions about Spartan society.From the top of my head:Mentor and student relationship being sexual(homosexual) is purely 19th century idea, born with a simple misinterpretation of Greek language. And scholars long abandoned that one, even homosexuality in general let alone INSTITUTIONALIZED pederasty and surogatte fathering ???. Cartledge went on a on, twisting the whole Spartan society to fit this nonsense and of course came to some strikingly odd conclusions. I wander why would such an expert dismiss very clear evidence against homosexuality in Sparta, by Xenophon, Aristotlee etc, not to mention other implications, with famous heterosexual poets, even anecdotes from Herodotus, archaeological evidence of men and women in marriage, and complete lack of any artistic depiction or literary evidence of anything other than heterosexual relationship...politics?Maybe.Cartledge says hoplite may have well be taken the name of the shield - hopla, although for the last decade it is a well known fact term hopla means all equipment for war,including shield which was an aspis. So hoplite is ''man in full equipment for war''Insisting on the lack of Spartan cultural achievement disregarding the fact Spartans had a famous and unique style of pottery painting, bronze work found all the way in France, on of the seven wise men etc etc.Insisting on repression done over the helots when it is now clear LAKONIAN helots were not treated badly nor did they think they were slaves, and even enjoyed more rights and better life than the free men of other poleis. They have even chosen to die alongside Spartans at Thermopyles.Setting the crisis of Sparta at the end of Peloponnesian war rather than before the start of it, consequently moving the peak of their power to post Persian invasion era. Which is a big big miss. Dismissing there the clear evidence of catastrophe of 465 BC. (where it suits him he will accept plainly some nonsense from Pausanias or other, Roman authors, but where it doesn't suit him he will dismiss the clear archaeological evidence of a great catastrophe, backed by contemporary literary evidence.)Reinforcing the never mentioned mustache shaving custom, especially in the time of king Leonidas.It is a well known fact there was no such thing as type of sword called ''Laconian sword'' mentioned by him, let alone Spartans being famous for it.Marriage customs as well...just pure idiocy. Many many reinforced myths and very strange choice of centuries that were covered in this book make it just another Osprey class work.All in all, his work is highly influenced by anecdotal history, mostly by Roman era authors and later, and they have been suspicious for a long period of time now. It is striking how such an expert can fall into such a trap, of tabloid facts. They do seem catchy, for some homework doing pupil in distant land of US, but almost none of them are true.
Did you even read the book? He mentions most of this in it.
George Washington wouldn't be elected today even though most people pay homage to him as a great leader and founding father. He would be labeled isolationist, elitist, and racist. Ironic isn't it?
As would most of the Founding Fathers. They would all be considered divisive. And I disagree about Reagan being a moderate in Europe too. He and Thatcher were quite similar politically and she is definitely not considered a moderate in the UK.
That's basically what I'm saying. So I make a general citation at first (let's just say all 6 conditions are pages 1-20 and the political conditions are on pages 4-7), then if I write about political conditions, I just cite the pages where the author wrote it?Example: Mahan discusses six conditions of sea power (cite pages 1-20). When examining the political conditions...(cite pages 4-7)Is this what you are suggesting? In a way, this kind of seems redundant unless I use direct quotes.
That's kind of what I thought. I assumed I would only only need to make one in-text citation, even if it goes a few pages in my paper.So if I could go something like this:Historian A.T. Mahan mentions six principle conditions affecting sea power of a nation. (cite) Then when I write my own summary of those conditions should I still cite any direct quotes? Or would that already be considered covered in the first citation?
Romney was governor of MA when they passed gay marriage. Even socially, Romney is not unlike Obama.We need a President who is hardline pro-family (regular, normal family) because this is the root of our problems.
