Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Metatron" channel.

  1. If we wanted to be very precise he was NOT convinced of having landed in Japan, but on a group of islands east of Japan, because that's what his map said (he was still not at the longitude of Japan, and he knew it). He landed in the American continent in his third voyage, 1498, in the Paria peninsula, Venezuela, and recognised it to be a continent, because the Orinoco river, that he saw, was too big to be sustained by an island. He named it "Paria". Still in the map of Waldseemuller (1507) that's often said is the reason we call the continent "America", in reality "America" is the name given to south America and "Parias" is the name given to central and north America.
    1
  2. Like the trade route with the east was "the silk road" and the one with the south was "the ivory road", the one with the baltic regions was "the amber road".
    1
  3. Already in the Didachè (first half of second century at the latest, but probably late first century) baptism was in name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and John 1 (end of 1st century, early 2nd century at the latest) already clearly states the divinity of Christ. At Nicaea the main theme was if the Son was of the same substance of the Father (vast majority of the bishops), or of similar substance of that of the Father (tiny minority), but divine indeed.
    1
  4.  @tadhgmccain7785  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."John 1:1 "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:14 "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known." John 1:17-18 So a God is a God or not?
    1
  5. It's different. In 1st century Rome, only a professional officer could be a politician. To serve as an officer with distinction was the base of a political career. Moreover, a Roman officer would have had much more theoretical knowledge about tactics, fortifications, camp placement and supply lines, than the average medieval commander.
    1
  6. As for ancient tradition, in Rome the "pater familias" had any right on his family, even to kill his wife and children on the spot. This ancient tradition, however became less and less accepted as time progressed and, in late republican time, even the killing of a slave was no more considered acceptable. This is reflected in the TWO kind of Roman marriages. In the marriage "cum mano" ("with hand"), the most common in ancient time, the father of the bride placed her hand in that of the husband. In that way he transferred to the husband every right he had over her. From this kind of marriage, divorce was impossible. In the marriage "sine mano" (without hand), that became prevalent in 1st century BC, and practically had completely replaced the other by 1st century AD, there wasn't that part, and so the bride remained nominally under the authority of her father. That meant that her husband had no right to abuse of her in any way and for any reason, even infidelity, and she could leave her husband's house AT ANY MOMENT. That also mean that, the moment her father died, a Roman woman was completely free. She could inherit, carry on her businesses, etc. without being under the authority of anyone. Since high class Romans usually married very young women, that meant also that Rome was full of rich and relatively young widows with a lot of economic power. Being cum manu or sine manu, Romans had one wife at a time, even if it was common, for high-class Romans, to have lovers, even official ones. IE Servilia, mother of Brutus (Caesar's assassin), and widow of another Marcus Brutus, was the most known of Caesar's lovers. Gladiators were celebrities. They had a lot of sex.
    1
  7.  @metatronyt  It had been recently said that Kalkriese resemble more the location of the battle of the Pontes Longi that Teutoburg (not that I think Teutoburg never happened).
    1
  8. Uhhh no. Urine was collected to be used as a whitener for fabrics, not as a mouthwash. Romans mentioned the use of urine as mouthwash only to make fun of Celtiberians, that apparently had that habit. However Celtiberians used THEIR OWN urine as a mouthwash. How much urine you think you need for that?
    1
  9. The liner was also a question of heat removal. Several helmets (Adrian, German M1917...) had air vents that acted as chimneys. They wouldn't have worked with padding.
    1
  10. ​ @undertakernumberone1  The fact that there's a gorget doesn't mean you want to be hit there anyway. Neck is a weak spot of human body. Full of important things and not very apt to take hits. You claimed fluting was advantageous. Here's a simple point: had fluting been SO advantageous as you CLAIM... it would've replaced flat armor extremely quickly because the knights would've noticed: "hey, since we put that stuff on our armour, far less of us die!". Instead fluted armor had been fashionable for a certain perod in a certain place, and then abandoned, while flat armors went on until napoleonic era (and not for fashion. Napoleonic curiasses could still protect from projectiles). People weren't stupid. Yes, they adopted it because it fit the fashion, but then they noticed it was not worth it. You can weld the fluting to the armor if it's advantageous. Maces and the likes are better faced by a continually curved surface than a fluted one. That's why modern motorcycle helmets are not fluted. Physics doesn't change, The shot trap issue is with shots being "trapped", by the shape of the vehicle, in hitting a certain part of the vehicle 90° instead of glancing off. The fact that there's a gorget doesn't mean you want to be hit there anyway. Neck is a weak spot of human body. Full of important things and not very apt to take hits. So those versions have a shot trap, to have the full force of the hit discharged where the vertical fluting encounters the orizontal one. Better than the hit reaching the throat, but far from ideal anyway. Infact those are NOT shot traps. Projectiles are meant to penetrate that external "armour".
    1
  11. You know that's a tale with no more substance than that of the Easter Bunny, don't you?
    1
  12.  @lordvonmanor6915  The number of the wisemen and their name is contained only in the Armenian gospel of the infancy, a document written not before the 4th century. The shrine in Colony contains, at best, the remains that Helena, mother of Constantine I, brought back from Palestine, as long as many other "relics", equally suspect, so contrasting even with the Gospels, that state the wisemen returned in their countries. That's the beauty of biblical nuts. They don't even know their sources.
    1
  13.  @lordvonmanor6915  Yeah, and the books of Sherlock Holmes had been written by Dr. Watson. Please... There's not a book with such a title in biblical tradition, nor canonic nor apocriph, BTW. "Adoration of the Magi" is an artistic subject.
    1
  14.  @lordvonmanor6915  A book written when? I too can write a book and say it had been written by Samson. There's not a book with such a title in biblical tradition, nor canonic nor apocriph. Maybe it's in the "fairy tales" section of libraries.
    1
  15.  @lordvonmanor6915  Are you 2000 years old? You are just talking about a book only you know, that you read once and barely remember.
    1
  16.  @lordvonmanor6915  It's incredible someone being able to believe this bullshit.
    1
  17.  @lordvonmanor6915  The bullshit is the fantasies you believe. See, colonists didn't came for a pleasure trip, but they made a choice anyway. It's different from being captured and chained in a hold.
    1
  18.  @lordvonmanor6915  You still want to believe bullshit I see.
    1
  19.  @lordvonmanor6915  No, I'm a little sad in seeing someone finding his history so insuffereble to prefer believing in fairy tales. But it's also quite funny.
    1
  20.  @lordvonmanor6915  Among the funny thing there's the fact that you believe to be annoying.
    1
  21. Good luck in wearing armours in Africa.
    1
  22. The divinity of Jesus is already clearly stated in John 1 (end of first century, early second at the latest), and already in the didache (same period) the baptism in in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
    1
  23. In the "caliber" world there had always been the uncertainty between using the diameter between the lands or the grooves of the barrel (or, in the case of the .38 Special, the diameter of the case).
    1
  24. No law in Italy prevent to buy and wear a bulletproof vest in any occasion. It's only banned for a civilian to use the models used by the armed forces.
    1
  25. Bethlehem existed since the bronze age. However only the Gospel of Luke states Jesus being born in Bethlehem.
    1
  26.  @romans883  The same proofs that the vast majority of archaeologist, that state bethlem existed since bronze age, have. I don't know how, from "However only the Gospel of Luke states Jesus being born in Bethlehem." you get "gospels are true". Mysteries of fanatics' mind I guess.
    1
  27. No law in Italy prevent to buy and wear a bulletproof vest in any occasion. It's only banned for a civilian to use the specific models issued to the armed forces.
    1
  28. Actually the inspiration of the stanhelm was the German style sallet.
    1
  29. A thing that had not been discussed is "heat". Battles were mostly fought in summer, with good weather. Mail allows air to pass and your body heat to dissipate. Plate instead...
    1
  30. In weightlifting, the discipline that's closer to be of pure physical strenght, there are two categories 55kg and 81kg where the weight limit is the same for men and women, so are directly comparable. The current world record for 55kg category, snatch, clean& jerk and total are: men 135kg, 166kg, 294kg; women 102kg, 129kg, 227kg. The current world record for 81kg category, snatch, clean& jerk and total are: men 175kg, 207kg, 378kg; women 127kg, 158kg, 283kg. So, when technique don't really count, men are around 1/3 stronger for the same body weight.
    1
  31. Same for the overly big helmets of the cavalrymen. They probably hide a skull cap for horse riding.
    1
  32. Actually there are historical accounts of black legionaries.
    1
  33. IE Vita Septimii Severi, in the Historia Augusta, narrates the encounter of Emperor Septimius Severus with a black legionary in Britannia. Romans recruited heavily in N. Africa. Typical North Africans were not black, but, since there were movements of people back then too, a man of subsaharian descent ending in the legion was certainly unusual, but not unheard of.
    1
  34. Historically, there were. BBC's fault is to have depicted a very rare occurrence as typical, but one should not make the opposite mistake.
    1
  35. Have you ever heard of the ivory road? Caravans already crossed the desert for centuries before the Roman Empire existed. Ancient world was much less isolated than modern common people tend to think. That the black legionary was a Mauritanian is nothing more than your guessing. As said, Roman legions recruited heavily in N. Africa. A simply North African legionary would have not even been worth a mention.
    1
  36. It's pretty cleatr that North African were not black subsaharin, genius. Since the Roman legions recruited heavily in N. Africa, North African legionaries were common, and not worth of any note, genius. So, the report of the encounter of Emperor Septimius Severus with a black legionary in Britannia, was not with a North African, genius. Romans generally referred to sub-saharian people as "Aethiopes". Your last sentence does not make any sense, sorry. He could not have been enlisted because "his country" (what country? Lol!) would have been invaded? (by who?). Black people could very well be born into the Empire. A former slave could have not been enlisted, but the son of a former slave could.
    1
  37. Absurd for you maybe. There were tons of ways to obtain citizenship in Ancient Rome, and the country of origin seems to be much more important for you than it was for the Romans.. That's clutching at straws, sorry. Once one was in the legion, he went where the legion was needed.
    1
  38. Dude. There were tons of ways to obtain citizenship in Ancient Rome. IE St. Paul was a Roman Citizen, despite non having any connection with the city by ancestry. Dude, that's an impossibility only for you. YOU give importance to the country of origin. Romans didn't. The ancestors of someone that lived into the empire being from Nubia, China or Mars, was not important for them. In all evidence, it was not the only way. As already said, black people, could very well born into the Empire. Once a black man came, for whatever reason, to live into the Empire (because he did born there, or arrived there), he could become an auxiliar, or manage to acquire citizenship and become a legionary. And your source says: "Provinciales were those people who fell under Roman influence, or control". "People", not "nation". A black man that lived in Tunis or Alexandria was as "provinciales" as a white man living in there.
    1
  39. A Peregrinus was any person who was not a full Roman citizen. A provinciales was a peregrinus too. What you don't understand is that Romans had not the same notion of belonging by meant of blood that you have. A suebian, or an Indian for that matter, living in Gaul would have been a provinciales exactly like a Gaul.
    1
  40. 1) "lose" what if he was not yet a citizen? 2) You are mistaking ancient world for middle age. The mobility of ancient world was unparalleled until modern age. Many people traveled and relocated for the most diverse reasons. As already said, black people, could very well born into the Empire. Once a black man came, for whatever reason, to live into the Empire (because he did born there, or arrived there), he could become an auxiliar, or manage to acquire citizenship and become a legionary.
    1
  41.  @Spr1ggan87  And, when they first encountered a tribe, they most likely encountered people from the warrior elite. Those were better fed since childhood than the average peasant, and so higher on average.
    1
  42. There's a reason traditions begin, but then they keep on only because "it's the tradition". In a culture where warriors were supposed to paint themsenf before going into battle, I can easily see someone not doing that being mocked even by his enemies, for having shown on the battlefield without being properly dressed for it "Go pict yourself! and don't even think to go back here without being blue!"
    1
  43. Actually Columbus never called the Native Americans "Indians". When he reached the Caribbeans, he believed to have reached a group of islands east of Japan (because in his map there was no space for a continent at that latitude), so it would have been silly to call the inhabitants "indians". When, in his third voyage, he reached South America, he immediately recognised it was a continent (because the rivers were too big to came from an island) and a new one, (because at that latitude he couldn't still have reached east Asia), and called it "Paria". The name stood on European maps for decades, before being replaced by "America". Today it only indicates the Gulf of Paria, where he landed. So, had the Native Americans been called after Columbus, they would be called "Parians".
    1
  44. Kurosawa's "Ran" (King Lear in a Japanese setting) is a GREAT movie. Nothing wrong in using the basic story and change the setting, because the story was about humans. Other than complete adaptations, also representations of the original material get a sort of free pass. It's obvious that Shakespeare's Julius Caesar played in a theatre of Kinshasa will likely have a black cast, that the Turandot represented in Europe will probably have an European princess Turandot, or that the Madame Butterfly played in Japan will have a Japanese Captain Pinkerton.
    1
  45. Columbus was not an idiot. He was backed by many scholars. Among them the most renown cartographer of his time, Toscanelli, whose map placed Japan more or less where in reality is west Mexico. That's why Columbus thought to have reached a group of islands east of Japan, because, in his map there was no physycal place for a continent between those islands and Japan. The problem was not that much the circumference of the Earth, but the extension of Asia, that, at that time, everyone thought it was much more extended that it really is and at the same time everyone palced Japan more far from China that it really is (see, for example the orb of Behaim). That's also why, once reached the continent, in his third voyage, he immediately wrote instead it was a new continent (that he called "Paria"). Because, on his map, at that latitude, there should have been no land mass capable to sustain the rivers he saw. It's pretty strange to denounce Columbus' racism when the Norses called the natives Skræling and their first contact consisted in capturing and killing eight of them.
    1
  46. No.
    1
  47.  @bored_and_has_no_clue  No. First of all gladiuses were made of steel too. Then, steel swords doesn't cut easily through iron (infact iron mail armors were more than enough to stop them). Finally "extremely strong swords made of crucible steel" were items reserved to a very small minority. Most Vikings had a spear and an axe.
    1
  48.  @bored_and_has_no_clue  The evidence is that "extremely strong swords made of crucible steel" ARE rare in respect to other kind of blades.
    1
  49. Yes. There is a suspended liner, similar to that of WWII helmets.
    1
  50. Metric landed on the Moon. NASA uses metric. And not only NASA. There's not a single industrial product designed in the US in the last 60 years that had been designed in imperial units. All is designed in metric, and then "translated" for the general public, that doesn't understand metric.
    1