Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "TED-Ed" channel.

  1. The reference to Arthur in the Gododdin is probably a later addition (the oldest copy we have is of the 13th century), of the same time of the Historia Brittonum (not to be mistaken with the later Historia Regum Britanniae), where there is the first datable reference (around 828 AD) of Arthur as a warlord that lived in 6th century and won many battles against the Saxons. Other Welsh fairy tales had been embellished the same way, with the main characer being said to be related to Arthur in some way.
    27
  2. Georgia Rose Isabella Ford-Keen They lived in the same city, and Vestals could do pretty much what they wanted out of the workhours. They were not secluded, and seeing one walking through the city was normal.
    25
  3. One of the ten recorded in 1000 years of existence of the order? The one that was caught having two lovers maybe?
    14
  4. More really badly narrated. While the Order of the Vestals was in existence for over one thousand years there had been only ten recorded convictions for unchastity. It was an extremely rare, and traumatic for the entire city, occurrence. They had been so much rare that we can say that it was even normal for a Vestal to have a love affair, since it was so difficult to get caught.
    11
  5. The myth started before the end of the war. When Confederates where seeking for support in Europe. Slavery was absolutely unpopular there, so they came up with a series of alternative reasons that made them look like a rural utopia threatened by the expansionism of the greedy US.
    8
  6.  @chocho8036  The first reference to the sword in the stone is in Robert de Boron's "Merlin", written around 1200 AD. 30 years later, in the Post-Vulgate Cycle, Arthur breaks the Sword from the Stone while in combat against King Pellinore and was given Excalibur by the lady of the lake. Previously, in Historia Regum Britanniae, Excalibur had been forged in Avalon and not planted in stone, or lobbed by watery tarts. There are previous references to Caledfwlch-Excalibur as the sword or Arthur, but without mentioning it's origin.
    7
  7. So why the Confederate Constitution made slavery MANDATORY for every present and future Confederate state? No states rights there. MANDATORY SLAVERY.
    6
  8. +lohphat People called "Romanes" they go the house?
    4
  9. A pint is 473ml, so a little less than 1/2l. So, if you order half a litre of beer, you got more than a pint. ;)
    4
  10. Yeah. Economic situation of owning vs. not owning slaves.
    4
  11. There are many fascinating figures. Giovanni dalle Bande Nere, Bartolomeo d'Alviano, Guido da Montefeltro (great-great-great grandfather of Federico)...
    4
  12. ***** Yeah, but in Australia. In Bavaria, "a beer" is 1l mug (Maß).
    3
  13. Uh... no. Industrial complex wasn't against plantations at all. The south was deeply integrated into industrial economy. Not only US industrial economy. It exported cotton in all the world, and cotton fabric was one of the industrial product par excellence. BUT, other than in the south, the more time passed, the less people thought slavery was a viable social system. That had been many clashes on that. The majority in the parliament was clearly switching in favor of abolitionists. Lincoln had been elected on a platform that included the prohibition of slavery in all the new states and territories. What the future confederates knew was that slavery was at its end, and they wanted to prevent that.
    3
  14. So why the Confederate Constitution made slavery MANDATORY for every present and future Confederate state? No states rights there. MANDATORY SLAVERY.
    3
  15. +Ciiitron Slavery in Roman cities and houses (obviously in the farms things were different, cause controls were non-existant, and occasions to earn money were much scarcer for the slaves) was pretty different from slavery in 19th century US. In Rome slaves had rights of property, could conduct their own business, and even earn enough to buy their freedom. Their masters could punish them, but there were punishments for those that killed a slave. Many "liberti" (ex-slaves) became extremely rich, often doing business with their ex-masters, or made careers as public administrators. Other than the slave buying his own freedom, often masters freed slaves as a gift. For example a diyng man freeing the slaves that assisted him in the last years.  It must be kept in mind that even a Roman Citizen could become a slave (IE for debts) and Romans didn't like to see their ex-fellow citizens excessively humiliated. Labour in the mines was often a punishment for slaves that committed some wrongdoing. As for the society. Slavery never ceased in Rome. With the advent of feudalism, it was simply extended to almost the entire population. Infact medieval times serfdom was no other than a form of slavery (however the classic form countinued to be practiced in Europe until modern era. It was only the enslavement of christians that was repeatedly forbidden starting from XI siecle).
    2
  16. Not king, but military leader.
    2
  17. Actually executions of Vestals had been extremely rare (only ten recorded in about 1000 years of existence of the order, so rare infact that we can say it was normal for Vestals to have lovers too, they only had to be discreet). Romans were not that Idiots to condemn a Vestal without any evidence.
    2
  18. +David Brandon It has not in the entire world. Even counting only the western world, it's generally lower.
    1
  19. +David Brandon It's a rather recent evolution. In the first half of 19th century 10 years were considered acceptable nearly everywere in western societies, and pre-pubescent girls were available in every brothel. In the UK the legal age was raised to 13 years only in 1875, and to 16 in 1885, in the US it was at 10-12 (7 in Delaware) still at the end of the 19th century, and was raised in the early 20th. In most of the continental Europe the age was raised in the same years. Really, it was the same modern concept of "childhood" that was absent then. If a a child could work in the mines, then he could work in the sex industry too. The situation changed when the concept of "right to childhood" appeared. However, I have to say it's rather funny to see so much scandalized comments here, raised especially by US citizens, about the situation of women and slaves in ancient Rome (where the law required the sposes to be able to generate to be legally married, and the slaves have right of life and personal property), when the situation in the US was far worse for both until few generations ago.
    1
  20. If there is a cervellotic and scarcely intuitive unit of measure is Fahrenheit. In Celsius scale, 0c is at the freezing point of pure water, 100c its boiling point at sea level. In Fahrenheit all the measures seems to be casually placed.
    1
  21. +George Hastings « iustum se inter eos qui nuptia contrahunt conubium sit, et tam masculus pubes quam femina potens sit, et utrique consentiant, si sui iuris sunt, aut etiam parentes eorum, si in potestate sunt » In Rome both the man and the woman had to be capable to generate to be legally married. For the girl the minimum age was legally posed at 12 years old.
    1
  22. And actually the punishment for having left the sacred flame go extinct was not death, but a beating not done in public (to not diminish the dignity of the priestess). Only if the State was in a very dire situation (IE during the Second Punic War) the punishment was death (in that case it was like having abandoned the assigned place in front of the enemy).
    1
  23.  @boardtodeath46  Who fought the civil rights battle?
    1
  24. The north industrialist complex wasn't against the southern plantation industry in the slightest. They complemented each-other. Industries transformed what plantations produced. Confederates made the cause of the secession EXTREMELY clear. The Confederate Constitution made slavery MANDATORY for every present and future Confederate state. No states rights there. MANDATORY SLAVERY. That's what they cared about. "there were other forces at work" There are ALWAYS forces at work. It had not been over those forces that the Confederates seceded. it had been over SLAVERY. That's it.
    1
  25. Cause it's so full of mistakes that it will be destroyed by history buffs.
    1
  26. There are always economic forces at work, but those didn't trigger nor the secession nor the war. The northern industrialist complex wasn't against the southern plantation industry in the slightest. They complemented each-other. Industries transformed what plantations produced. The switch from an agricultural society to an industrial one happened everywhere, and nothing could have stopped it. Certainly not the secession, that could only damage the southern economy, by making selling their products in the north more difficult. What secessionist cared about was owning slaves. They made that EXTREMELY clear. The Confederate Constitution made slavery MANDATORY for every present and future Confederate state. No states rights there. MANDATORY SLAVERY. That's what they cared about.
    1
  27. 4:50 Caesar didn't laid siege to Alexandria, he WAS SIEGED in Alexandria.
    1
  28. Actually executions of Vestals had been extremely rare (only ten recorded in about 1000 years of existence of the order), and were recorded as absolutely traumatic acts.
    1
  29. Have you built an Empire? No? So don't teach the Romans how to do it.
    1
  30. The reference of Arthur in the Gododdin is probably a later addition, of the same time of the Historia Brittonum (not to be mistaken with the later Historia Regum Britanniae), where there is the first datable reference (around 828 AD) of Arthur as a warlord that lived in 6th century and won many battles against the Saxons. Other Welsh fairy tales had been embellished the same way, with the main characer being said to be related to Arthur in some way.
    1
  31.  @patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558  Yeah. the "vicious intermeddling of too many of the citizens of the Northern States with the constitutional rights of the Southern States" to enslave people. That's why the Confederate Constitution made mandatory for every Confederate state, present and future to allow slavery. That was the only constitutional right the Confederates cared about. So much to turn it into a constitutional duty.
    1
  32.  @patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558  Yeah. the "vicious intermeddling of too many of the citizens of the Northern States with the constitutional rights of the Southern States" to enslave people. That's why the Confederate Constitution made mandatory for every Confederate state, present and future to allow slavery. That was the only constitutional right the Confederates cared about. So much to turn it into a constitutional duty.
    1
  33. Actually, when Troy had been redscovered, a lot of scholars were searching for it, and there was a general consensus about it's existence, since it was mentioned as an existing city in classical sources. There was surely an Hellenistic and a Roman Troy. What's in doubt is if the city under the Hisarlik hill is the city of the poem. In classical antiquity it was considered like that, but fact is that, for that reason, Hisarlik was a tourist attraction by then. It's very possible that, after the "dark ages" that followed the bronze age collapse, when the name of the city had been made famous by the poem, people started searching for it, and the inhabitants of Hisarlik, living in a place with an orograpy very similar to the one described in the poem, decided to seize the opportunity and make their city became the Troy of the mith.
    1
  34. They were not that idiots. Simply to lost virginity, or to let the fire extinguish were the two faults for which a Vestal could be executed.
    1
  35. Probably it had been done multiple times, however the clip is full of inaccuracies. the punishment for having left the sacred fire to die out was not death, but a simple beating, unless the State was in a really dire situation (in that case, to not have attended the fire was like for a soldier to have fled from his position in front of the enemy).
    1
  36. Keeping the slavery was the true goal of the Confederates. Ending it was not the true goal of the unionist. Keeping the Union was their goal. Had not them seceded, Slavery in southern states would have continued for decades.
    1