Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Overly Sarcastic Productions"
channel.
-
5700
-
538
-
533
-
@lucaswinsor4469 Actually that's exclusively Ovid's version of the mith. He invented the whole rape and curse thing because he was writing a book called "metamorphosys", that was about shape-shifting miths (so he needed a shape-shifting, and, since the book is about changes, he didn't care about changing the miths themselves) and because he loved to depict autorities in a bad light, so, in his versions of the miths, gods always play with mortals without caring abouth them.
In the original Greek mith, Medusa was simpy born a monster, one of the three gorgons (along with Stheno and Euryale), that were daughters of Echidna and Typhon. Ironically, all three had the same aspect and powers, but Medusa was the only one that was mortal.
443
-
411
-
388
-
That's only Aeschylus' version of the mith. According to Euripides, Orestes and Electra were condemned to death by a court in Mycenae and saved by the intervent of Menelaus, that persuaded (or forced at swordpoint) the Myceneans to give them a year of exile instead.
It was not game over however, since Orestes was still persecuted by the furies and ,in order to escape them, he was ordered by Apollo to go to Tauris, carry off the statue of Artemis which had fallen from heaven, and to bring it to Athens. In Tauris Orestes found his lost sister, Iphigenia, taken away from sacrifice by Artemis and rised as one of his priestess, was saved by her, and returned with her and the statue to Mycenae, so reuniting what was left of the family and finally being freed from the persecution.
There are other versions as well.
Aeschylus' turned it into an advertising for Athen's legal system. Even if the goal was not much to declare the inferiority of the mother over the father (mind that half of the jury did not agree, even with Apollo as the defense attorney), but that, as the Romans would have said "in dubio pro reo", when the votes of the judges are evenly divided, mercy must prevail.
275
-
269
-
257
-
189
-
163
-
151
-
127
-
118
-
93
-
83
-
72
-
69
-
64
-
@jessefanshaw8948
Also the classical Greek Apollo was probably the sincretization of several gods. An Anatolian god of plague, that was also invoked to end them (Aplu. Also Apollos' Mother, Leto has Anatolian origins), a Minoan sea-god of divination (the dolphin is a typical Minoan depiction, and Cretan priests are said to have built the sanctuary of Delphi), a Dorian family/community god (Apellai, Apellaion), and probably several others.
What came out of it anyway is the god of civilization. Of what makes life worth living, beyond pure survival. The arts, medicine, divination (that, by then, was a way to control the arbitrariness of nature). That's why classical Greeks considered him the most "Greek" of all the gods. Because he was not the god of a force of nature, of a state of mind, or of a particular craft, but of civilization itself.
His sister (and it had been a good call to make them siblings) is instead the goddess of anti-civilization. Of hunting, of wild animals, of wild places...
The fight between Hera and Artemis is not that much a "Worf effect". Artemis can't refuse fighting, it's her nature, but Hera's words are true. "Your father made you a lioness among mortals", but Artemis' powers are shallow if used against an immortal, that doesn't fear beasts or illness. While Apollo wisely declined to fight Poseidon, as the god of sea and earthquakes would have mopped the floor with the one of civilization.
63
-
59
-
51
-
43
-
40
-
36
-
22
-
Thus being born as a sincretization of several gods. An Anatolian god of plague, that was also invoked to end them (Aplu. Also Apollos' Mother, Leto has Anatolian origins), a Minoan sea-god of divination (the dolphin is a typical Minoan depiction, and Cretan priests are said to have built the sanctuary of Delphi), a Dorian family/community god (Apellai, Apellaion), and probably several others, Apollo is the god of civilization. Of what makes life worth living, beyond pure survival. The arts, medicine, divination (that, by then, was a way to control the arbitrariness of nature). That's why classical Greeks considered him the most "Greek" of all the gods. Because he was not the god of a force of nature, of a state of mind, or of a particular craft, but of civilization itself.
His sister (and it had been a good call to make them siblings) is instead the goddess of anti-civilization. Of hunting, of wild animals, of wild places... and so of the arbitrariness of Nature itself.
The fight between Hera and Artemis is not that much a "Worf effect". Artemis can't refuse fighting, it's her nature, but Hera's words are true. "Your father made you a lioness among mortals", but Artemis' powers are shallow if used against an immortal, that doesn't fear beasts or illness. While Apollo wisely declined to fight Poseidon, as the god of sea and earthquakes would have mopped the floor with the one of civilization.
22
-
Canto IV
>"il maestro di color che sanno" ("the master of the ones that know") Aristotle, Greek.
>"Omero, poeta sovrano" ("Omer, sovereign of the poets"), Greek.
Dante used the characters of the Omeric poems in the Inferno not because he despised Greeks, but because, other than the contemporary characters, for contrast, he needed characters that were not contemporary but still well known by the people, and that, in Dante's time, meant saints and characters of Greek mitology. But he couldn't put saints in hell, so he had to overuse Greeks.
BTW, the oldest surviving complete translation of both the Iliad and the Odissey in latin is that of the Calabrian scholar Leontius Pilatus, whose works were known both by Petrarch and Boccaccio.Dante missed him by half a century more or less.
22
-
Infact. Thus being born as a sincretization of several gods. An Anatolian god of plague, that was also invoked to end them (Aplu. Also Apollos' Mother, Leto has Anatolian origins), a Minoan sea-god of divination (the dolphin is a typical Minoan depiction, and Cretan priests are said to have built the sanctuary of Delphi), a Dorian family/community god (Apellai, Apellaion), and probably several others, Apollo is the god of civilization. Of what makes life worth living, beyond pure survival. The arts, medicine, divination (that, by then, was a way to control the arbitrariness of nature). That's why classical Greeks considered him the most "Greek" of all the gods. Because he was not the god of a force of nature, of a state of mind, or of a particular craft, but of civilization itself.
His sister (and it had been a good call to make them siblings) is instead the goddess of anti-civilization. Of hunting, of wild animals, of wild places... and so of the arbitrariness of Nature itself.
The fight between Hera and Artemis is not that much a "Worf effect". Artemis can't refuse fighting, it's her nature, but Hera's words are true. "Your father made you a lioness among mortals", but Artemis' powers are shallow if used against an immortal, that doesn't fear beasts or illness. While Apollo wisely declined to fight Poseidon, as the god of sea and earthquakes would have mopped the floor with the one of civilization.
21
-
20
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
@CJCroen1393 Or:
Hades: Yo, Zeus.
Zeus: Yo!
Hades: You know your daughter Persephone?
Zeus: Yeah, what about her?
Hades: Well, I think I might be in love with her.
Zeus: That's great!
It was time for you to find someone, and Persephone is such a pretty girl. Had she not been my daughter... uhhh... well, that's another story.
Hades: But her mother, Demeter, seems to not been OK with that. She doesn't even let her see me.
Zeus: Oh, yeah. She didn't take very well what I did to her... and Poseidon for that matter... I guess she extended her grudge to the third brother as well. People are so resentful sometimes...
Hades: So, what could I do about that?
Zeus: What? Transform yourself into something and bang the girl, for myself!
Hades: ...
Hades: Ok, I'll go somewere else for advices. Thanks bro.
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
That's only Aeschylus' version of the mith. According to Euripides, Orestes and Electra were condemned to death by a court in Mycenae and saved by the intervent of Menelaus, that persuaded (or forced at swordpoint) the Myceneans to give them a year of exile instead.
It was not game over however, since Orestes was still persecuted by the furies and ,in order to escape them, he was ordered by Apollo to go to Tauris, carry off the statue of Artemis which had fallen from heaven, and to bring it to Athens. In Tauris Orestes found his lost sister, Iphigenia, taken away from sacrifice by Artemis and rised as one of his priestess, was saved by her, and returned with her and the statue to Mycenae, so reuniting what was left of the family and finally being freed from the persecution.
There are other versions as well.
Aeschylus' turned it into an advertising for Athen's legal system. Even if the goal was not much to declare the inferiority of the mother over the father (mind that half of the jury did not agree, even with Apollo as the defense attorney), but that, as the Romans would have said "in dubio pro reo", when the votes of the judges are evenly divided, mercy must prevail.
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
That's only Aeschylus' version of the mith. According to Euripides, Orestes and Electra were condemned to death by a court in Mycenae and saved by the intervent of Menelaus, that persuaded (or forced at swordpoint) the Myceneans to give them a year of exile instead.
It was not game over however, since Orestes was still persecuted by the furies and ,in order to escape them, he was ordered by Apollo to go to Tauris, carry off the statue of Artemis which had fallen from heaven, and to bring it to Athens. In Tauris Orestes found his lost sister, Iphigenia, taken away from sacrifice by Artemis and rised as one of his priestess, was saved by her, and returned with her and the statue to Mycenae, so reuniting what was left of the family and finally being freed from the persecution.
There are other versions as well.
Aeschylus' turned it into an advertising for Athen's legal system. Even if the goal was not much to declare the inferiority of the mother over the father (mind that half of the jury did not agree, even with Apollo as the defense attorney), but that, as the Romans would have said "in dubio pro reo", when the votes of the judges are evenly divided, mercy must prevail.
7
-
6
-
6
-
@dreamerthief2216 It's significative that Dante previously put both Averroes and Saladin (a muslim scholar and a muslim general, Dante does nothing by chance, he wanted to depict them there) among the not-baptized virtuous. Averroes with the likes of Socrat and Aristotle, Saladin, the man that took away Gerusalem from the Christianity, with the likes of Caesar. Because for Saladin, to fight Christians was his work, and he did it in an honorable way.
Mohammed instead is among the schismatics for having divided Christianity, and Ali, at that point, for having divided Islam. The point was not Christian or Islamic religion, but to have caused discord.
6
-
5
-
@UCDVcxMDIug9M5_YY98jp3qA Charon is not a man, is the son of Erebus and the Night, while Minos is a demigod, son of Zeus, and both Virgil and Claudian stated that Minos was a judge of the underworld, so he was related to hell already in classical miths.
Dante needed to put in the afterlife both well known contemporary people than well known people of the past. "well known people of the past" in medieval Europe meant Saints and characters of the Greco-Roman mithology, he couldn't put saints in hell, so...
What other references should he have used? Those to modern-day archaeology?
Jason is a man, so no reason to not include him between the men. The Sisters of Fate were cited as poetical symbols (of the given lenght of life), but never put anywere. Adonis' mother, Myrrha is a woman, that tricked her own father into sleeping with her, and got pregnant that way. She is in the tenth bolgia because her most serious sin was not incest, but deceit. Dante used them because their stories were well known, so it was not hard for the people to link the character with his sin. Cerberus is a monster, Pluto a God, so, not being real, they are not damned, but demons.
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
Actually that's exclusively Ovid's version of the mith. He invented the whole rape and curse thing because he was writing a book called "metamorphosys", that was about shape-shifting miths (so he needed a shape-shifting, and, since the book is about changes, he didn't care about changing the miths themselves) and because he loved to depict autorities in a bad light, so, in his versions of the miths, gods always play with mortals without caring abouth them.
In the original Greek mith, Medusa was simpy born a monster, one of the three gorgons (along with Stheno and Euryale), that were daughters of Echidna and Typhon. Ironically, all three had the same aspect and powers, but Medusa was the only one that was mortal.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@androkguz I watched it, but, believe it or not, Red didn't provide the first definition of the Mary Sue trope, and I'm not bound to agree with her. It had been described and defined thousands of times, and the best definition of a Mary Sue is, "a central character that's not challenged by the plot".
Because he's so superior to the story he's in, that the plot can give him only minor nuisances, not real challenges.
That's why Rey is a Mary Sue, and Goku is not.
Resting on Star Wars, Red doesn't know the source material very well also. It has been estabilished IN MOVIE that "wonderboy pilot" Luke had experience in piloting starfighters (T-16) BEFORE joining the rebellion. It's not like he became a pilot out of nothing, like Rey became an engineer, a gunner, a swordfighter and a jedi out of nothing.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
That's only Aeschylus' version of the mith. According to Euripides, Orestes and Electra were condemned to death by a court in Mycenae and saved by the intervent of Menelaus, that persuaded (or forced at swordpoint) the Myceneans to give them a year of exile instead.
It was not game over however, since Orestes was still persecuted by the furies and ,in order to escape them, he was ordered by Apollo to go to Tauris, carry off the statue of Artemis which had fallen from heaven, and to bring it to Athens. In Tauris Orestes found his lost sister, Iphigenia, taken away from sacrifice by Artemis and rised as one of his priestess, was saved by her (not really girl-hating, is it?), and returned with her and the statue to Mycenae, so reuniting what was left of the family and finally being freed from the persecution.
There are other versions as well.
3
-
@tylerellis9097 1) Oh, yeah, it was only a small massacre, How could the Byzantines think that the Venetians could care of it?
2) So Genoese were fair game?
3) Had they massacrated Byzantines? (and, with the benefit of hindsight, why not, if they had been able able to vanquish the Empire in the end?)
4) So, when you are not satisfied of some State's assistance, the normal thing to do is massacrating the citizens you can find?
The massacre of the latins simply demonstrated to the Venetians that the Byzantine Empire was an unstable and unpredictable commercial partner, and that, if they wanted to carry on their business without being at the mercy of some mad emperor, they had to do it through THEIR ports and THEIR fortresses, not asking for permission. In the end, it had been the right move, so yes, the massacre, for the byzantines, backfired a little.
The way Byzantines could die to Turks is by dying to Turks. They already lost Anatolia before (stable? Please...), and there were no more Crusaders Kingdoms to take the brunt of the muslims' expansion efforts.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Italian had been popularized in literature by BOCCACCIO, more than by anyone else (surely much more than by Machiavelli). His Decameron had been a massive success. Written a century before printing, it was copied not only by professionals, but by normal people that wanted to have their own copy, all over Italy (that Italy didn't have a meaningful use for a standard national language until the late 1800s is simply wrong. Anyone who traveled, IE merchants, needed, and used, a standard language. "literary" Italian, the language of Boccaccio, was not something only literates used in their writings).
It's commonly said Dante is the father of Italian language, but in reality is the grandfather. Boccaccio is the real father. Being, among the "tree crowns" (Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio) the one that wrote in prose, it had been Boccaccio that gave to the Italian vocabulary and grammatical rules, and the success of the Decameron cemented it so much that every modern Italian can still read and understand every sentence of it (not so much the Divina Commedia, that requires more than a bit of attention to be understood by a modern Italian).
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That's only Aeschylus' version of the mith.
Aeschylus' goal was not to declare the inferiority of the mother over the father (mind that half of the jury did not agree, even with Apollo as the defense attorney), but to promote Athen's legal sistem where, as the Romans would have said "in dubio pro reo", when the votes of the judges are evenly divided, mercy must prevail. When the votes of the judges are equally divided, Athena ALWAYS votes for the defendant.
BTW According to Euripides' version, Orestes and Electra were condemned to death by a court in Mycenae and saved by the intervent of Menelaus, that persuaded (or forced at swordpoint) the Myceneans to give them a year of exile instead.
It was not game over however, since Orestes was still persecuted by the furies and ,in order to escape them, he was ordered by Apollo to go to Tauris, carry off the statue of Artemis which had fallen from heaven, and to bring it to Athens. In Tauris Orestes found his lost sister, Iphigenia, taken away from sacrifice by Artemis and rised as one of his priestess, was saved by her, and returned with her and the statue to Mycenae, so reuniting what was left of the family and finally being freed from the persecution.
There are other versions as well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
That's only Aeschylus' version of the mith. According to Euripides, Orestes and Electra were condemned to death by a court in Mycenae and saved by the intervent of Menelaus, that persuaded (or forced at swordpoint) the Myceneans to give them a year of exile instead.
It was not game over however, since Orestes was still persecuted by the furies and ,in order to escape them, he was ordered by Apollo to go to Tauris, carry off the statue of Artemis which had fallen from heaven, and to bring it to Athens. In Tauris Orestes found his lost sister, Iphigenia, taken away from sacrifice by Athena and rised as one of his priestess, was saved by her, and returned with her and the statue to Mycenae, so reuniting what was left of the family and finally being freed from the persecution.
There are other versions as well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@deathknight75 Not really.
Dante put Averroes and Saladin among the not-baptised virtuous. Averroes between the philosophers, with the likes of Aristotle and Plato. Saladin with the likes of Caesar. It had not been by chance. Saladin was the man that took Gerusalem away from Christianity, but he did it in an honorable manner, so he was not at fault more than Caear was at fault for being a pagan.
Mohammad was put among the schismatics because Dante believed to the tale, diffused in medieval Europe, that Mohammed was a Christian bishop who created a new religion "mixing that of Moses with that of Christ". He's among the bearers of discord because he brought discord into Christanity. The Muslim's Saladin job happened to be to fight Christians, so he was not at fault in doing that. While Mohammad's job was not to create a new religion "dividing the Christians", so he's among the schismatics.
Mind that Alì is there for the same reason. To have caused a schism, this time among the Muslims. for Dante it didn't count Christians or Muslims. counted if one brought discord or not.
Greek heroes are there only because, to make the comedy interesting, Dante needed popular figures, alternating between the well known contemporaries and the well known historical figures (IE, in Canto XXVI there is Odysseus, in canto XXVII Guido da Montefeltro). But well known historical figures in middle age Europe were saints and characters of greek mithology. He couldn't put saints in hell, so...
2
-
1
-
1
-
@marvelfannumber1 Sorry, but numbers are relevant in history. And the temporal distance between the events is FUNDAMENTAL. It's not like history is independent from the time, and time is counted with numbers.
As already said, I don't need a "counter point". That the Ottoman Empire would not have existed without the fourth crusade is not an "argument", is an unsupported statement, and the "numbers" you dislike so much are there to say that the correlation is not so sure as you like to believe. I have not to prove that you are wrong. You made a statement ("the fourth crusade caused the rise of the Ottoman Empire") your is the burden of the proof.
You said "Venice really shot themselves in the foot with that whole 4th Crusade thing, a pretty shortsighted powergrab which both created and destroyed their naval empire."
Reality is that Venice was still holding part of the gains of the 4Th Crusade when the Republic was ended not by the Ottomans, but by Napoleon. The naval empire too was not destroyed by the Ottomans. Venetian naval strenght continued after the one of the Ottomans reached its peak and declined. Infact, while they needed allies to win at Lepanto, the Venetians single handedly won almost all the naval engagements in the subsequent Cretan War. What ended the Venetian naval empire had not been the confront with the Ottomans, but the shift of the balance of trade towards the Atlantic, and so the marginalization of the eastern mediterranean. Venice didn't got weaker compared to the Ottomans (to whom they could still seize the Peloponnese at the end of 17th century), but compared to the other European powers.
1
-
@marvelfannumber1 Your statement: "Well using data would be relevant if we were either having a math-focused conversation, or if we were having an economic conversation, maybe even a political conversation. But in a historical conversation? Using numbers and dates as your primary argument is just not very valid of a counter point."
Sorry, but numbers are relevant in history. And the temporal distance between the events is FUNDAMENTAL. It's not like history is independent from the time, and time is counted with numbers. What I said to you FURTHER is that the Ottoman Empire would not have existed without the fourth crusade is not an "argument", is an unsupported statement, and the "numbers" you dislike so much are there to say that the correlation is not so sure as you like to believe. I have not to prove that you are wrong. You made a statement ("the fourth crusade caused the rise of the Ottoman Empire") your is the burden of the proof, so YOU can't ignore numbers.
That said, The Byzantine empire lost Anatolia, and big or small parts of it, several times before the 4th crusade. The Ottoman Empire raised because of the 4th Crusade, or because of the Empire being unable to ward it's borders? There wouldn't have been a series of wars with it's neighbours without the Crusade? The Empire would have had 100 Years to "repel the Turks" or to decay? Or to exhaust itself in border wars anyway? You took too many things for granted. You built an ucronia, and now like to believe it would have been real. But it doesn't work like that.
Then, after having talked of straw men, you built one. My statement: "Reality is that Venice was still holding part of the gains of the 4Th Crusade when the Republic was ended not by the Ottomans, but by Napoleon". Are you able to read? "PART". Was Venice still holding part of the gains of the 4th crusade when the Republic was ended by Napoleon? YES.
As said: The Ottomans started to be a issue for Venice 200 years after the sack of Constantinople (and initially they were a minor one, see the Battle of Gallipoli, that the Venetians won easily in 1416). Venice was still holding parts of the gains of the 4th Crusade still 500 years after the sack.
To have eliminated one of the intermediaries (so to have better prices and higher profits), annexed a good part of its wealth, and being still profiting of the operation after HALF A MILLENNIUM seems like AN HELL of a business. What financial plan predicts positive outcomings for five centuries?
That the Ottomans stripped Venice of much of the gains of the 4TH Crusade, STARTING ONLY 200 YEARS AFTER THE SACK and and had not stripped all of them STILL AFTER FURTHER THREE CENTURIES means that the investment had been INCREDIBLY PROFITABLE FOR AN INCREDIBLY LONG TIME. The Ottomans never "dominated" Venice, sorry. They very slowly eroded the gains of the 4th Crusade, but ANY YEAR ANY OF THOSE GAINS LASTED, IS A YEAR OF PROFIT. If the profits are diminishing, that doesn't mean that the ones already gained disappear. It's like saying that the entire Byzantine Empire had been worth nothing, because it ceased to exist.
BTW, from "having an influence" to be "part of the territory" there is a BIG difference.
I'm sorry for the "Ottoman historians". That Venice needed the help of the Holy League to win at Lepanto in 1571, but single handedly won almost all the naval engagement in the Cretan War (1645-1669), being able to several times blockade the Dardanelli for months is a fact. The naval strenght of the Ottomans declined first than the Venetian one. What ended the Venetian naval empire had not been the confront with the Ottomans, but the shift of the balance of trade towards the Atlantic, and so the marginalization of the eastern mediterranean. Venice didn't got weaker compared to the Ottomans (to whom they could still seize the Peloponnese at the end of 17th century), but compared to the other European powers.
Don't worry. your refusal to use "numbers" in your supposed "historical analysis" gave me the impression that your knowledge is at "romance" level.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A Mary Sue is a central character that isn't challenged by the plot. It doesn't count how powerful he is, or if he is the centre of the universe. A charcter can legitimately be the centre of the universe (IE think of Harui Suzumiya) without being a Mary Sue.
That's why Goku (and I'm not really a Dragon Ball fan) isn't a Mary Sue (Dragon Ball's problem is, if anything, repetitiveness). In his case, the plot is specifically made to challenge him. It doesn't count how powerful he is. There are always characters that are as, or more, powerful. It doesn't count if he gets power-ups. Power ups are legit in his universe (that's specifically stated) and many characters get them. It doesnt' count if he generally wins. Not only that's true for many heroes (plot armour doesn't make Mary Sues), but, contrary to many of them, we know that he can loose (it happened several times) or even die (it happened several times).
And that's why Rey IS a Mary Sue. SHE'S NOT CHALLENGED BY THE PLOT. It doesn't count if she's a girl. She gets out of troubles simply by showing to possess abilities that she shouldn't logically have without any explanation (is like Goku suddenly becoming smarter than Bulma in building mechanisms). Or getting gratuitous
power-ups that simply decided to happen at the right time without the need for any training. She doesn't need to train, she doesnt need to do anything. The universe seems to conspire to make her look awesome without any real effort.
First than Rey, the most famous example of sueish canon character was Stat Trek TNG's Wesley Crusher (so much that, for a long time, to indicate a male Mary Sue the expression "the Wesley" had been favoured over "Gary Stu" ), so much for the sexism of the trope.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What you described at first are not gender-related characters, but plot-related characters. More specifically they are characters for action/adventure fiction. More of those parts are traditionally played by males because males were the overwelming majority of the readers/viewers of such fictions and they relate to their gender. Males still are a vast majority of the readers/viewers but, since times changes, those roles are increasingly played by female characters. They are not exception and, apart for bad fiction (that happens whathever gender the characters belong to), they are not "taking a full developed male character and turning him into a girl". You are taking a girl for a given role. Those roles seems simplicistic for a girl? They are simplicistic for male characters too. Action/adventure fiction is not exactly renown for the realism and the complexity of the characters.
Apart for roles that it's difficult to cover with a given gender for biological reason (IE a male as "the mom" or a female as "the big friendly guy", but, obviously, there are exceptions) the only role that writers really avoid to give to female characters is that of the laughing-stock. it's full of male characters that are hapless-clumsy-selfish-cowards, but to give that role to a female seems to be disrespectful.
Rey is an OP Mary Sue because she's not challenged by the plot. Every time the plot slightly bothers her, she escapes thanks to a gratuitous power-up that has no sense in that universe. She does mind-control because she heard stories about the jedi? Really? At only 16 years from the fall of the republic Luke certanly heard much more stories, but it took him, a prodigy, trhee movies to do that. One has to wonder why the jedi in the Republic needed a school and years of training if hearing stories was enough. Wonderboy fighter-pilot Luke, at the end of the first movie, after having been trained by a master, only had a glimpse of vision of the force and, at the end of the second movie, after having been trained by another master, is throughly defeated by the villain. Rey beats the main villain in a lightsaber duel the first time she takes a sword in hand (or, better, that a lightsaber is attracted by her hand). The rage that welcomed Rey's performances is nothing compared to what would have happened had she been a male.
The "ludicrously competent girl training the completely inexperienced schlub" is "the ace". A role that has tons of male examples (is one of those traditionally male roles that had recently seen more females interpreting it). The ace almost always gives room to the schlub at the end, for a reason or another, so that the new hero can save the day and yeah, if you give to the schlub at least a bit of training, it feels natural. None complained that Nikita could kick asses, since she was trained to do that. It has nothing to do with "girls support dudes in our culture". One of the the best recent examples is probably Sinbad in "Magi: The Labyrinth of Magic", and he's not a girl, nor is Dante Vale in Huntik.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Italian had been popularized in literature by BOCCACCIO, more than by anyone else (surely much more than by Machiavelli). His Decameron had been a massive success. Written two centuries before printing, it was copied not only by professionals, but by normal people that wanted to have their own copy, all over Italy (that Italy didn't have a meaningful use for a standard national language until the late 1800s is simply wrong. Anyone who traveled, IE merchants, needed, and used, a standard language. "literary" Italian, the language of Boccaccio, was not something only literates used in their writings).
It's commonly said Dante is the father of Italian language, but in reality is the grandfather. Boccaccio is the real father. Being, among the "tree crowns" (Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio) the one that wrote in prose, it had been Boccaccio that gave to the Italian vocabulary and grammatical rules, and the success of the Decameron cemented it so much that every modern Italian can still read and understand every sentence of it (not so much the Divina Commedia, that requires more than a bit of attention to be understood by a modern Italian).
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lagoons are not stable environments, they tend to became or firmland, or open sea, in few centuries, or even decades.
The first occurrence was happening to the Venetian Lagoon in 15th century, since the Brenta river, that created the lagoon, was filling it with sediments, so the Venetians had to decide if they wanted a city like all the others, surrounded by cultivated fields, or work to mantain their devensive moat. The discussion lasted for 30 years, then it was decided to deviate first the Brenta river and then a branch of the Po river, to mantain the lagoon. As a result of those works, the lagoon was saved, and the delta of the Po begun protunding into the Adriatic sea, like it's still doing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's only Aeschylus' version of the mith.
Aeschylus' goal was not to declare the inferiority of the mother over the father (mind that half of the jury did not agree, even with Apollo as the defense attorney), but to promote Athen's legal sistem where, as the Romans would have said "in dubio pro reo", when the votes of the judges are evenly divided, mercy must prevail. When the votes of the judges are equally divided, Athena ALWAYS votes for the defendant.
BTW According to Euripides' version, Orestes and Electra were condemned to death by a court in Mycenae and saved by the intervent of Menelaus, that persuaded (or forced at swordpoint) the Myceneans to give them a year of exile instead.
It was not game over however, since Orestes was still persecuted by the furies and ,in order to escape them, he was ordered by Apollo to go to Tauris, carry off the statue of Artemis which had fallen from heaven, and to bring it to Athens. In Tauris Orestes found his lost sister, Iphigenia, taken away from sacrifice by Artemis and rised as one of his priestess, was saved by her, and returned with her and the statue to Mycenae, so reuniting what was left of the family and finally being freed from the persecution.
There are other versions as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tylerellis9097 I'm sure that thinking "but we slaughtered just a few Venetians!" had been a great consolation for the citizens of Constantinopole during the sack, but the Venetians felt to be touched enough, and that's all that counts.
Sorry, but law and moral have nothing to do with this matter. There was nothing lawful or moral in the massacre, there was nothing lawful or moral in the various coup d'etat that made the Byzantine policies toward latin merchants wavy and unreliable.The massacre of the latins simply demonstrated to the Venetians that the Byzantine Empire was an unstable and unpredictable commercial partner, and that, if they wanted to carry on their business without being at the mercy of some mad emperor, they had to do it through THEIR ports and THEIR fortresses, not asking for permission. In the end, it had been the right move, so yes, the massacre, for the byzantines, backfired a little.
So ehe Empire of Nicaea, well after the Crusade, was able to defeat some Turks badly, but it's direct descendant was beaten by the Ottomans. That doesn't seem to indicate a responsability of the Crusade in the fall of the Empire. That without the 4th Crusade the Byzantine Empire would have been able to repel the Turks is only an ucronia one can choose to believe, but it's narrative, not reality.There is no proof or hint that, without the Crusade, the Empire would have not decayed, or exhausted itself in border disputes, or internal struggles.
Again, "legal"? In 1204? All the legality that was needed in international affairs, was that the stronger one took what he wanted. The Byzantines had never fought an expansionist war? The Byzantine Empire had been unable to hold its possessions in front of the Crusaders, and so had rightly been divided between them.
1
-
1
-
@tylerellis9097 Sorry , but the statement that, without the 4th crusade, Byzantium would have not been conquered by the Ottomans, a thing happened two and half centuries later is your, not mine, and you have not proved that. Is only a think you like to believe.
Sorry, but that's an idiocy. Have you dreamed about it last night? Who decides what "powers" have the right to put their mouth in the question? You? Who recognised the right of the Byzantines to conquer Gotic kingdom, or the Vandal one? And besides, The "powers" were perfectly fine in dividing among themself the Byzantine Empire, so it was fair game, right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tylerellis9097 Sorry, but appealing to a supposed "common sense" in science is not relevant. As already said, the statement that, without the 4th crusade, Byzantium would have not been conquered by the Ottomans, a thing happened two and half centuries later is your, not mine. Your the statement, your the burden of the proof, and you have not proved that. Is only a think you like to believe. If you think what you said is "proof" then you simply don't know what a "proof" is.
The Byzantine Empire already lost Anatolia, and big and small parts of it, first than the 4th Crusade. There is no proof that the Byzantine trade had been damaged by the Venetians after the 4th Crusade more that it would have been without it. The Venetian fleet had been stronger than the Byzantine one since well before the 4th crusade.
1
-
1
-
Actually that's exclusively Ovid's version of the mith. He invented the whole rape and curse thing because he was writing a book called "metamorphosys", that was about shape-shifting miths (so he needed a shape-shifting, and, since the book was about changes, he didn't care about changing the miths themselves) and because he loved to depict autorities in a bad light, so, in his versions of the miths, gods always play with mortals without caring abouth them.
In the original Greek mith, Medusa was simpy born a monster, one of the three gorgons (along with Stheno and Euryale), that were daughters of Echidna and Typhon. Ironically, all three had the same aspect and powers, but Medusa was the only one that was mortal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's only Aeschylus' version of the mith. According to Euripides, Orestes and Electra were condemned to death by a court in Mycenae and saved by the intervent of Menelaus, that persuaded (or forced at swordpoint) the Myceneans to give them a year of exile instead.
It was not game over however, since Orestes was still persecuted by the furies and ,in order to escape them, he was ordered by Apollo to go to Tauris, carry off the statue of Artemis which had fallen from heaven, and to bring it to Athens. In Tauris Orestes found his lost sister, Iphigenia, taken away from sacrifice by Artemis and rised as one of his priestess, was saved by her, and returned with her and the statue to Mycenae, so reuniting what was left of the family and finally being freed from the persecution.
There are other versions as well.
Aeschylus' turned it into an advertising for Athen's legal system. Even if the goal was not much to declare the inferiority of the mother over the father (mind that half of the jury did not agree, even with Apollo as the defense attorney), but that, as the Romans would have said "in dubio pro reo", when the votes of the judges are evenly divided, mercy must prevail.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually that's exclusively Ovid's version of the mith. He invented the whole rape and curse thing because he was writing a book called "metamorphosys", that was about shape-shifting miths (so he needed a shape-shifting, and, since the book was about changes, he didn't care about changing the miths themselves) and because he loved to depict autorities in a bad light, so, in his versions of the miths, gods always play with mortals without caring abouth them.
In the original Greek mith, Medusa was simpy born a monster, one of the three gorgons (along with Stheno and Euryale), that were daughters of Echidna and Typhon. Ironically, all three had the same aspect and powers, but Medusa was the only one that was mortal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1