Climate Shift Causing the Bronze Age Collapse and Early Medieval Dark ages.

Xenjael · 2時間前

The context of this discussion is from 1200 B.C. to 600 a.d. to what could happen in 2400 a.d. lol.

I don't recall bringing up anything before the 8th century CE.

This entire conversation is by no means to be constrained by 9th century context.

When I defined Viking as a verb it was because until the 19th century that is how it was mostly used. Wagner again.

At no point ever was wikipedia accepted by any of the universities I attended.

Accepted for what? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia nothing more. any high level academic paper wound NEVER use an encyclopedia except if it was used only to define a term. Wikipedia is the start of research, not the end (something I pointed out explicitly).

And neither are wikipedia articles considered adademic sources by this subreddit. So why would I accept them?

Definition of a term.

Xenjael · 2時間前

Because your first source from merriam was only about it being a noun. How else would I construe that?

As a start, not an end.

Additionally, as a verb, it is not in common usage.

Since the context of discussion was 9th century, common usage needs to be in 9th century context.

Save wikipedia, and as much as I love the site for many reasons, that wouldn't hold academically.

Then you don't understand why wikipedia exists.

Xenjael · 2時間前

Literally all of those sources I looked at, and none focus on you referring to Viking as a verb.

From the dictionary: "one of the pirate Norsemen plundering the coasts of Europe in the 8th to 10th centuries" This is very much a noun.

Then : "Origin of VIKING Old Norse vīkingr"

Ok, so use your google fu here and you will find this

"A loan from Old Norse víkingr. Already in Old English as wīcing and Old Frisian witsing, wising, but extinct in Middle English and loaned anew in the 19th century.

Old Norse víking ‎(“marauding”, “piracy”) itself is from Old Norse vík ‎(“inlet”, “cove”, “fjord”) + -ing ‎(“one belonging to”, “one who frequents”) (the -r is the nominative desinence). Thus, “one from or who frequents the sea’s inlets”,

The Old English or Anglo-Frisian form, existing therein since at least the eighth century), could also have been derived from or influenced by Old English wīc ‎(“camp”), on account of the temporary encampments which were often a prominent feature of the Vikings’ raids"

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Viking

I noticed you omitted the definitions from cites that you disagreed with such as from Oxford dictionary which included the definition I ascribe to.

It's not that they disagree with me, You asked about it being used as a verb. Why would I present where it is used as a noun since it does not pertain to your question?

Xenjael · 3時間前

Lol, that was kind of my point. If the only place I can find at all detailing anything about the word as a verb is that site, I wouldn't take much stock in it.

Improve your google-fu skills.

Basic internet dictionary page: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/viking

A blog referencing primary sources: http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/text/word_viking.htm

A forum post with grammar nazis: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7916479

Wikipedia (always a good starting point, but don't stop here): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings

A page put up by a viking enthusiast: http://www.vikingrune.com/2009/02/top-ten-myths-about-vikings/

a page with a discussion on what viking was (who vikings were): http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-infinitive-form-of-the-verb-viking

These are the first page of results from a basic google search.

Xenjael · 3時間前

And no, Viking is a noun, referring to any groups of German-Nordic descent that raided and later settled portions of Europe.

Seeing as how the point was that the raids had stopped and the fact that it became a noun in the 19th century (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=viking) we really cannot use the Norse people as a threat to Europe after the 11th century which is one of the reasons why things settled down.

But it is usually used in its noun form, and sometimes as an adjective.

An adjective? I have only heard it potentially as an adjective for Viking Metal a subgenre of rock and roll and this is really a noun. I can envision some people using it as an adjective but that would be in a Wagnerian sense and not a historically contextual one.

Outside of urban dictionary I've never seen the term Viking used as an active verb.

Urban dictionary isn't a great source for 9th century European history. Save it for 21st century American history.

GenocideSolution · 3時間前

It would have to not only copy itself, but alter itself to run on other hardware configurations.

Also, locking it up before it can copy itself destroys the process.

Also, if it has to distribute it's program across multiple platforms, it becomes a virus and it will be nixed by anti virus programs meaning it will have a running battle with a billion computer users while losing parts of it's core program.

There are many issues it would have to face trying to fight humanity using humanity's own equipment.

Xenjael · 4時間前

Not necessarily. What constituted a 'viking' has many definitions and places of origins

Viking is a verb. It means to go take stuff.

Many subscribed to the nordic theology, but quite a few were Christian as early as 710, way prior to their raids.

Norse and Viking are not synonyms. Most Norse people did not go viking. Vikings existed because they were pushed out of the power structure or were unable to get land. a Nordic population boom and consolidation of monarch powers caused many Nordic peoples to seek their fortune elsewhere.

It does, but it also talks about expansion of Scandinavians into Russia, which is what I was submitting it in response to.

They did that in the 8th, 9th, and 10th centuries, and while there were Norse who went Viking down the Don and Volga rivers and some who got all the way to Constantinople (Became the Varangian Guard) the Norse who settled in what is now Russia settled, they became farmers and merchants, no longer going Viking.

I do not classify vikings as just pirates, though.

It is the literal meaning of the word.

GenocideSolution · 4時間前

You can, but that cripples it. an AI needs robots or network connections to do anything. Locking it up under ground prevents that.

Xenjael · 4時間前

Keep in mind that vikings are pirates. When they settle down, like they did in the 10th century Normandy, they stopped being vikings.

This source discusses the descendants of vikings, including Henry I of England.

Xenjael · 4時間前

Concerning Normandy, I was speaking about Viking activity and expansion, which would certainly concern Normandy in the late 12th century.

What expansion? William the Bastard conquered England in the 11th century but he wasn't a viking, he was pretty French at the time. the Normans also conquered southern Italy around that time and it was one of the drivers of the First Crusade (to get the Normans away from the Pope).

kosterhaus · 11時間前

Also do you even know what a primary source is?

an object or record or the like created at the time of the event describing the event.

Saying "this happened" is not a primary source.

Saying "this happened at that time" is actually a reference to a primary source such as a parade, or a vote for war, or a protest.

With the amount you keep getting wrong about basic dates I won't take your memory seriously.

Since I have pointed out how we are in basic agreement about the dates, this comment seems to have been made in frustration.

You have some serious disdain for books and historians.

Just historians who ignore evidence that don't fit their arguments.

Sorry facts have a reality bias that won't let you pretend.

This has been my entire argument to you.

kosterhaus · 11時間前

Academia is historical evidence you tosser.

Academia can be historical evidence if you are doing a paper on academic history.

I was providing examples of primary sources, like the pro war parades that I believe you denied existed because a book told you so.

Academia is not academia if it isn't backed by evidence.

In a perfect world.

Xenjael · 11時間前

Apology on the Viking, meant to type 12th century, but even that's a stretch. Normandy in France are a good example.

Normandy was invaded by vikings in the 12th century? The Normans (vikings given land and title) moved in in the 9th century.

The easiest example of lost technology that comes to mind is the lost wax method.

This isn't really a technology but a method. Metal casting changed focus with the reduced demand for statues and increased demand for other things. But I understand what you mean. Old methods go out of fashion as culture changes. Many technologies of the 19th century are basically "lost" because no one uses them any more.

And a PS, your responses need to be in reference to things. I can't follow what you are responding to, can you put snipits of what you are responding to so that I can follow along?

kosterhaus · 11時間前

The lack of movement until late 1917

kosterhaus · 11時間前

Probably shouldn't assume I said things I didn't then.

kosterhaus · 11時間前

You are putting "academia" above historical evidence.

kosterhaus · 11時間前

trenches have lasted until 2015 actually

Shhhhh, they will yell at you for not conforming.

GenocideSolution · 11時間前

Such as people who are ok with abortion to save the life of the mother, but not ok for use as birth control (this is my camp).

There are people who are ok with abortion on demand at any time in the pregnancy upto and including moments before giving birth.

There are people who are ok with abortion only in the 1st trimester for what ever reason.

there are people who are ok with abortion in the 1st or 2nd trimester for what ever reason.

There are people who are ok with abortion until the baby shows signs of some threshold of humanity.

There are people who are NEVER ok with abortion but ok with contraception as it precludes the need for abortion

There are people who are NEVER ok with abortion NOR contraception, the "every sperm is sacred" group.

There are also nuanced cliques in each of these groups. What counts as contraception? What counts as "mother's life depends upon this"?

There are questions about when a baby becomes a "person" and should not be aborted on demand.

nuances upon nuances.

kosterhaus · 11時間前

"Look at me I don't have to cite academics or show I have any experience academically with this subject at all!"

Presenting arguments and evidence is how you argue history. You don't do appeals to authority.

You're delusional. You actually have convinced yourself you don't need actual sources and academic experience but can pull this from your ass.

I have cited evidence that you claimed did not exist.

Everything you've said is wrong. All of it. I've put it as simply as I can and given the academia on it.

You are reacting dogmatically, not academically. You have fully ignored many examples I have cited.

GenocideSolution · 11時間前

I am a US citizen and I follow these political things pretty closely sometimes. Your statement of this all or nothing shows that you aren't paying close attention. If it was all or nothing there would only be two camps and there are more than two camps.

kosterhaus · 11時間前

I'm actually getting furious at how fucking dense you are. You're literally just plugging your ears dude.

So you are shouting at me that they spent 4 years, (1914, 1915, 1916, and 1917) with trench warfare (those outdated tactics you denied they used)?

kosterhaus · 11時間前

It was NOT a historical event; it was a myth created by politicians and pacifists at the time and afterwards to explain why they failed to prevent (or in the case of Austria and Germany, aided and abetted) the outbreak of the war.

It actually existed.

Besides WWI of course

World War 1 was not massively popular. It was heavily protested. Half the war supporters in the US wanted to side with Germany.

Explain why WWII lasted 6 Years

It took time to arm the soviets and for them to rebuild their army after Stalin killed anyone who could think.

It took time to build up a large enough force in the UK to invade. The UK was caught flat footed and the US was trying our damnedest to stay out.

Pot calling the kettle black, pal. It's clear you're in an echo chamber and don't care to listen to arguments that disprove your own lack of understanding.

your arguments do not disprove my evidence. I point to things that exist and your argument is "They don't exist"

You claim that this was because of generals spamming men into machine guns and barbed wire. You have clearly read NOTHING, repeat, NOTHING on the military history of the war that has been published since at least THE 1980s

Watching movies and reading primary sources about generals spamming soldiers into the enemy cannot be undone by people writing how it didn't happen.

kosterhaus · 11時間前

Simple answer: 1860s styled warfare was never used. Something reminiscent of it was used strictly in 1914 and early 1915 but that's it.

Trenches lasted until 1918.

For someone whining about historical consensus and such you seem to be lacking a basic grasp on such

I never brought up historical consensus.

GenocideSolution · 11時間前

By supporting one issue you implicitly give support to all the issues on the platform of the party that supports that issue.

Really? So everyone who is pro abortion is genocidal?

Supporting pro-life is federal support for the Republican Party. Supporting the Republican party is also supporting abstinence only education, limiting access to contraceptives, and removing welfare for supporting a child after it is born.

This is so far from the truth that it is disgusting.

If it was not, the majority's representatives would have a different platform to garner votes from the electorate.

They actually do. The abortion debate is far more nuanced than "yes" or "no".

kosterhaus · 11時間前

Your argument that "old tactics were used" is the war lasted for 4 years.. ? You realize WW2 lasted 6 right? That's a horrific argument.

No. My argument is Old Tactics were used and that is why the trenches did not move much in four years.

Or are you going to purport tactics stayed static for 4 years? That's even more proposterous.

I am arguing that old tactics were used, not the same tactics. You can call it preposterous if you want but then you need to explain why the war was rather static on the western front.

Why don't you name some historians? I've cited the front runner experts on this matter below, dozens. Where is this consensus you speak of because it's not there in any of those works.

Look, This isn't the kind of debate where you gather a bunch of people who agree with you and I gather my side and we vote. I have presented an argument for you to evaluate. You can't seem to think for your self. You need to find others to tell you what is.

Historyguy81

トロフィーケース

本日のreddit gold目標額達成率