Hello Free Fedi Book Club.
Today Monday the 10th of October marks our first ever discussion thread regarding books 1 and 2 of "Thucydides - The War of the Peloponnesians and the Athenians".
First of all, thanks to everyone for putting in the effort to read the book in preparation for this discussion thread.
Below you will find some questions that serve as a general guidance. Members are encouraged to answer any/all of them as they see fit.
1. In the book, there's a passage mentioning both powers fighting against the Persians at first only to devolve into fighting amongst themselves as time went on. We can see this in our era too after WW2. What made them split off in the first place? Is this just a step in a complex process of empire building?
2. Do you agree with the idea of military alliances staying after the subsequent enemy has been warded off? State your reasoning.
3. Do you think there are any differences between NATO and the Delian League?
4. Both nations had different values, Athens was progressive while Sparta was traditionalist, and different military strengths, naval power vs land power - same as in our world - can these be attributed into proto ideological similar to the ones we have nowadays or to some other cause?
5. Are there any causes to the war that you think are similar to the ones in the modern conflict?
6. The conflict of Peloponnesian War affected not only Spartans and Athenians, but also other Greeks, including those who wanted to remain neutral. Same as the current one which affect not only the US and Russia, but also the entire world. How can people deal with this on an individual level? Is there a way to limit its influence?
Having every member participate in this thread, to the extent everyone feels comfortable to, is very important since it would not only make for a great first group read but it would also elevate the Club to something more than simple parallel reading, it'd transform it into a community.
Let us have a productive and enjoyable discussion thread worthy of the unique intellectual qualities of Free Fedi Book Club members.
@Leyonhjelm @Arkana @7 @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @laurel @hrast @Intramuros_ @skells @tarperfume @kakkerel @sim
Today Monday the 10th of October marks our first ever discussion thread regarding books 1 and 2 of "Thucydides - The War of the Peloponnesians and the Athenians".
First of all, thanks to everyone for putting in the effort to read the book in preparation for this discussion thread.
Below you will find some questions that serve as a general guidance. Members are encouraged to answer any/all of them as they see fit.
1. In the book, there's a passage mentioning both powers fighting against the Persians at first only to devolve into fighting amongst themselves as time went on. We can see this in our era too after WW2. What made them split off in the first place? Is this just a step in a complex process of empire building?
2. Do you agree with the idea of military alliances staying after the subsequent enemy has been warded off? State your reasoning.
3. Do you think there are any differences between NATO and the Delian League?
4. Both nations had different values, Athens was progressive while Sparta was traditionalist, and different military strengths, naval power vs land power - same as in our world - can these be attributed into proto ideological similar to the ones we have nowadays or to some other cause?
5. Are there any causes to the war that you think are similar to the ones in the modern conflict?
6. The conflict of Peloponnesian War affected not only Spartans and Athenians, but also other Greeks, including those who wanted to remain neutral. Same as the current one which affect not only the US and Russia, but also the entire world. How can people deal with this on an individual level? Is there a way to limit its influence?
Having every member participate in this thread, to the extent everyone feels comfortable to, is very important since it would not only make for a great first group read but it would also elevate the Club to something more than simple parallel reading, it'd transform it into a community.
Let us have a productive and enjoyable discussion thread worthy of the unique intellectual qualities of Free Fedi Book Club members.
@Leyonhjelm @Arkana @7 @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @laurel @hrast @Intramuros_ @skells @tarperfume @kakkerel @sim
@laurel @7 @Arkana @Intramuros_ @Leyonhjelm @clayvaulin @hrast @kakkerel @sim @skells @tarperfume sorry for the late reply.
>1. In the book, there's a passage mentioning both powers fighting against the Persians at first only to devolve into fighting amongst themselves as time went on. We can see this in our era too after WW2. What made them split off in the first place? Is this just a step in a complex process of empire building?
There's a philosophical answer to this. They are a very different people with many difference. They were also focusing on different stuff, Athens was focusing on empire building and expanding her power through sea. Sparta on the other hand focused on maintaining balance of power and maintaining power through ancient way, that is land army. Both were not wrong in this case, but to give you my clear view, it was the battle of existence between 2 civilization with different ideas and philosophy.
>2. Do you agree with the idea of military alliances staying after the subsequent enemy has been warded off? State your reasoning.
No and yes. This is very complicated thing in my mind, military alliance was made for the sole purpose of fighting something be it another nation, certain ideas or some people. Hence if the reason behind the existence of such alliances were destroyed or gone, for example the Persian empire, the alliance will explode in very short time. We see this happened after WW2. The other thing that will happen if the alliances were to stay intact is that it will be used by the nation with higher military prowess, economic power and soft power to rule and expand her empire upon the other nation on the grand alliances.
My case is to establish a sort of economic pact like a dentente where nations aren't allied to each other but still not far away enough to see the other nation as a threat.
>3. Do you think there are any differences between NATO and the Delian League?
There's some that I know of, the primary factor is that Sparta was part of the Delian league, unlike it's contemporary counterparts, Russia. There's also the matter who supplying who. In Thucydides, we see that the way Athens ruled over the small city states is by taking the rights to their navy and get some part of their taxes. NATO on the other hand, rely mainly on the strength of the US.
>4. Both nations had different values, Athens was progressive while Sparta was traditionalist, and different military strengths, naval power vs land power - same as in our world - can these be attributed into proto ideological similar to the ones we have nowadays or to some other cause?
As I said in my answer to the first question, yes. There's certainly a proto-ideological factor at play here. A land and naval power, early in the book Thucydides said that the way the ancient Greeks live, is by living as herders and establishing their city more inland. They also weren't relying on imported goods like Athens did (Black Sea grain). The progressive and traditionalist part here might lie in the question of the land and sea power. As we see from our contemporary world, the sea power will always be progressive and a land power will always be a traditionalist. The US are certainly a naval power and they're very progressive, Russia on the other hand are a land power and they're super traditionalist.
>5. Are there any causes to the war that you think are similar to the ones in the modern conflict?
Aside from the ideological ones? Yes. Mainly from the way the US are trying to keep expanding their Unipolar empire, just like Athens and on the other side there's Russia/Sparta trying to keep the US/Athens domination away.
>6. The conflict of Peloponnesian War affected not only Spartans and Athenians, but also other Greeks, including those who wanted to remain neutral. Same as the current one which affect not only the US and Russia, but also the entire world. How can people deal with this on an individual level? Is there a way to limit its influence?
Me ne frego, is a line said by many Fascist during their heyday, the translation is "I don't care" not caring about such things might help. But that doesn't mean to be ignorant, what I'm saying here is to keep your heads away from the conflict but keep your ear sharp. Stuff like gas prices and goods might be affected by their conflict, but for most of us it really doesn't matter unless your country actively participate in their war.
Anyway I like the book, unlike what some people said I find it easy to read and discern. I will read this book until the end lol.
>1. In the book, there's a passage mentioning both powers fighting against the Persians at first only to devolve into fighting amongst themselves as time went on. We can see this in our era too after WW2. What made them split off in the first place? Is this just a step in a complex process of empire building?
There's a philosophical answer to this. They are a very different people with many difference. They were also focusing on different stuff, Athens was focusing on empire building and expanding her power through sea. Sparta on the other hand focused on maintaining balance of power and maintaining power through ancient way, that is land army. Both were not wrong in this case, but to give you my clear view, it was the battle of existence between 2 civilization with different ideas and philosophy.
>2. Do you agree with the idea of military alliances staying after the subsequent enemy has been warded off? State your reasoning.
No and yes. This is very complicated thing in my mind, military alliance was made for the sole purpose of fighting something be it another nation, certain ideas or some people. Hence if the reason behind the existence of such alliances were destroyed or gone, for example the Persian empire, the alliance will explode in very short time. We see this happened after WW2. The other thing that will happen if the alliances were to stay intact is that it will be used by the nation with higher military prowess, economic power and soft power to rule and expand her empire upon the other nation on the grand alliances.
My case is to establish a sort of economic pact like a dentente where nations aren't allied to each other but still not far away enough to see the other nation as a threat.
>3. Do you think there are any differences between NATO and the Delian League?
There's some that I know of, the primary factor is that Sparta was part of the Delian league, unlike it's contemporary counterparts, Russia. There's also the matter who supplying who. In Thucydides, we see that the way Athens ruled over the small city states is by taking the rights to their navy and get some part of their taxes. NATO on the other hand, rely mainly on the strength of the US.
>4. Both nations had different values, Athens was progressive while Sparta was traditionalist, and different military strengths, naval power vs land power - same as in our world - can these be attributed into proto ideological similar to the ones we have nowadays or to some other cause?
As I said in my answer to the first question, yes. There's certainly a proto-ideological factor at play here. A land and naval power, early in the book Thucydides said that the way the ancient Greeks live, is by living as herders and establishing their city more inland. They also weren't relying on imported goods like Athens did (Black Sea grain). The progressive and traditionalist part here might lie in the question of the land and sea power. As we see from our contemporary world, the sea power will always be progressive and a land power will always be a traditionalist. The US are certainly a naval power and they're very progressive, Russia on the other hand are a land power and they're super traditionalist.
>5. Are there any causes to the war that you think are similar to the ones in the modern conflict?
Aside from the ideological ones? Yes. Mainly from the way the US are trying to keep expanding their Unipolar empire, just like Athens and on the other side there's Russia/Sparta trying to keep the US/Athens domination away.
>6. The conflict of Peloponnesian War affected not only Spartans and Athenians, but also other Greeks, including those who wanted to remain neutral. Same as the current one which affect not only the US and Russia, but also the entire world. How can people deal with this on an individual level? Is there a way to limit its influence?
Me ne frego, is a line said by many Fascist during their heyday, the translation is "I don't care" not caring about such things might help. But that doesn't mean to be ignorant, what I'm saying here is to keep your heads away from the conflict but keep your ear sharp. Stuff like gas prices and goods might be affected by their conflict, but for most of us it really doesn't matter unless your country actively participate in their war.
Anyway I like the book, unlike what some people said I find it easy to read and discern. I will read this book until the end lol.
@MK2boogaloo @Arkana @7 @clayvaulin @kakkerel @laurel @Intramuros_ @skells @tarperfume @sim @Leyonhjelm
Both Athens and Spartans developed their power the way that was traditional to them. They were completely different tribes and societies that just shared a somewhat common distant ancestry and external foes, some of which were of their own making as ancient Greeks were notoriously xenophobic to people that weren't of their own states, let alone foreigners.
Their definition of a man, that is a person is someone who is not a woman, is a member of a same state, and is not a slave, they were worse than nips. Exceptions do apply, like Peloponnese women didn't need a man to represent them for every single bureaucratic thing outside of their own home.
>if the reason behind the existence of such alliances were destroyed or gone
The thing is, military alliances provide benefits long after the reasons for their founding is gone, for prevention (hurr durr, you attack me we're gonna swarm you like ants) as well as cultural, scientific and economic reasons. Back in the day it was the military that demanded for the ships and docks the most, kept them safe, trained people for self-defense and conquest, extra revenue!
>Both nations had different values, Athens was progressive while Sparta was traditionalist
I agree with the first part of the sentence, however applying 20th century logic will just lead to weirdness, there is a reason why when you ctrl+f "conservative", "libertarian", "liberal", "progressive" you won't see anything that connects the ancient Greeks to these modern concepts (in the introduction, annotations, etc, this was a deliberate omission), that's because they have literally nothing to do with them.
Athens had literally nothing to do with progressivism in the modern sense and both societies were deeply traditional. If we're talking about progress in the context of liberty in that time Sparta was described as literally the freest space to be if you were a free man. Ancients had a completely different concept of freedom. To be free in an ancient sense was to participate in the life of the state on equal terms with others, and have a say in public debates on domestic and foreign affairs, the results of which would bind everyone, not "freedom of expression" and whatnot. It's to be free from foreign influence and affairs, and to find yourself as one of decision-makers.
If it's progress in the context of open mindedness, they both applied it in different manner.
Athens had a growth (CEO)mindset due to a wide possible points of interactions with outsiders which forced them into growth as they were a major maritime power so they consistently faced pillaging, naval conquests and drive-by slaughters which made their focus project outwards. Peloponnese people had a complacent mindset thanks to having very few natural enemies, so their focus was primarily focused inwards. Something to be kept in mind is that both of these great powers had notoriously bad soil quality, which didn't make them a nice for conquest (save for mercantile, culling and extinction events) and it forced people to specialize in other things which forced them into developing their society away from agriculture.
Both Athens and Spartans developed their power the way that was traditional to them. They were completely different tribes and societies that just shared a somewhat common distant ancestry and external foes, some of which were of their own making as ancient Greeks were notoriously xenophobic to people that weren't of their own states, let alone foreigners.
Their definition of a man, that is a person is someone who is not a woman, is a member of a same state, and is not a slave, they were worse than nips. Exceptions do apply, like Peloponnese women didn't need a man to represent them for every single bureaucratic thing outside of their own home.
>if the reason behind the existence of such alliances were destroyed or gone
The thing is, military alliances provide benefits long after the reasons for their founding is gone, for prevention (hurr durr, you attack me we're gonna swarm you like ants) as well as cultural, scientific and economic reasons. Back in the day it was the military that demanded for the ships and docks the most, kept them safe, trained people for self-defense and conquest, extra revenue!
>Both nations had different values, Athens was progressive while Sparta was traditionalist
I agree with the first part of the sentence, however applying 20th century logic will just lead to weirdness, there is a reason why when you ctrl+f "conservative", "libertarian", "liberal", "progressive" you won't see anything that connects the ancient Greeks to these modern concepts (in the introduction, annotations, etc, this was a deliberate omission), that's because they have literally nothing to do with them.
Athens had literally nothing to do with progressivism in the modern sense and both societies were deeply traditional. If we're talking about progress in the context of liberty in that time Sparta was described as literally the freest space to be if you were a free man. Ancients had a completely different concept of freedom. To be free in an ancient sense was to participate in the life of the state on equal terms with others, and have a say in public debates on domestic and foreign affairs, the results of which would bind everyone, not "freedom of expression" and whatnot. It's to be free from foreign influence and affairs, and to find yourself as one of decision-makers.
If it's progress in the context of open mindedness, they both applied it in different manner.
Athens had a growth (CEO)mindset due to a wide possible points of interactions with outsiders which forced them into growth as they were a major maritime power so they consistently faced pillaging, naval conquests and drive-by slaughters which made their focus project outwards. Peloponnese people had a complacent mindset thanks to having very few natural enemies, so their focus was primarily focused inwards. Something to be kept in mind is that both of these great powers had notoriously bad soil quality, which didn't make them a nice for conquest (save for mercantile, culling and extinction events) and it forced people to specialize in other things which forced them into developing their society away from agriculture.
@hrast @7 @Arkana @Intramuros_ @Leyonhjelm @clayvaulin @kakkerel @laurel @sim @skells @tarperfume
>Both Athens and Spartans developed their power the way that was traditional to them. They were completely different tribes and societies that just shared a somewhat common distant ancestry and external foes, some of which were of their own making as ancient Greeks were notoriously xenophobic to people that weren't of their own states, let alone foreigners.
Their definition of a man, that is a person is someone who is not a woman, is a member of a same state, and is not a slave, they were worse than nips. Exceptions do apply, like Peloponnese women didn't need a man to represent them for every single bureaucratic thing outside of their own home.
Yes I do agree with this notion. They're still part of the Hellenistic civilization, even though they've been fighting a lot.
>The thing is, military alliances provide benefits long after the reasons for their founding is gone, for prevention (hurr durr, you attack me we're gonna swarm you like ants) as well as cultural, scientific and economic reasons. Back in the day it was the military that demanded for the ships and docks the most, kept them safe, trained people for self-defense and conquest, extra revenue!
They do, but more often than not this alliance will be destroyed if their enemy is gone. I've yet to see one alliances between great powers lasting after their supposed enemy was destroyed.
>I agree with the first part of the sentence, however applying 20th century logic will just lead to weirdness, there is a reason why when you ctrl+f "conservative", "libertarian", "liberal", "progressive" you won't see anything that connects the ancient Greeks to these modern concepts (in the introduction, annotations, etc, this was a deliberate omission), that's because they have literally nothing to do with them.
Athens had literally nothing to do with progressivism in the modern sense and both societies were deeply traditional. If we're talking about progress in the context of liberty in that time Sparta was described as literally the freest space to be if you were a free man. Ancients had a completely different concept of freedom. To be free in an ancient sense was to participate in the life of the state on equal terms with others, and have a say in public debates on domestic and foreign affairs, the results of which would bind everyone, not "freedom of expression" and whatnot. It's to be free from foreign influence and affairs, and to find yourself as one of decision-makers. If it's progress in the context of open mindedness, they both applied it in different manner.
Hmh you're right, it is foolish to say that Athens was Progressive and Sparta was not. Let's rephrase it, Athens had different value than Sparta. Athens were more willing to advance and adapt to certain conditions and Sparta were not, they prefer their own way instead of doing what other nations wanted.
>Athens had a growth (CEO)mindset due to a wide possible points of interactions with outsiders which forced them into growth as they were a major maritime power so they consistently faced pillaging, naval conquests and drive-by slaughters which made their focus project outwards. Peloponnese people had a complacent mindset thanks to having very few natural enemies, so their focus was primarily focused inwards. Something to be kept in mind is that both of these great powers had notoriously bad soil quality, which didn't make them a nice for conquest (save for mercantile, culling and extinction events) and it forced people to specialize in other things which forced them into developing their society away from agriculture.
Yes, as Thucydides stated that their soil was poor and can't be used for agriculture. Both nations therefore relied on something else like farming, pillaging, trade, and other stuff. Though I'm not certain whether their culture shaped their ambitions and strategy or the inverse.
>Both Athens and Spartans developed their power the way that was traditional to them. They were completely different tribes and societies that just shared a somewhat common distant ancestry and external foes, some of which were of their own making as ancient Greeks were notoriously xenophobic to people that weren't of their own states, let alone foreigners.
Their definition of a man, that is a person is someone who is not a woman, is a member of a same state, and is not a slave, they were worse than nips. Exceptions do apply, like Peloponnese women didn't need a man to represent them for every single bureaucratic thing outside of their own home.
Yes I do agree with this notion. They're still part of the Hellenistic civilization, even though they've been fighting a lot.
>The thing is, military alliances provide benefits long after the reasons for their founding is gone, for prevention (hurr durr, you attack me we're gonna swarm you like ants) as well as cultural, scientific and economic reasons. Back in the day it was the military that demanded for the ships and docks the most, kept them safe, trained people for self-defense and conquest, extra revenue!
They do, but more often than not this alliance will be destroyed if their enemy is gone. I've yet to see one alliances between great powers lasting after their supposed enemy was destroyed.
>I agree with the first part of the sentence, however applying 20th century logic will just lead to weirdness, there is a reason why when you ctrl+f "conservative", "libertarian", "liberal", "progressive" you won't see anything that connects the ancient Greeks to these modern concepts (in the introduction, annotations, etc, this was a deliberate omission), that's because they have literally nothing to do with them.
Athens had literally nothing to do with progressivism in the modern sense and both societies were deeply traditional. If we're talking about progress in the context of liberty in that time Sparta was described as literally the freest space to be if you were a free man. Ancients had a completely different concept of freedom. To be free in an ancient sense was to participate in the life of the state on equal terms with others, and have a say in public debates on domestic and foreign affairs, the results of which would bind everyone, not "freedom of expression" and whatnot. It's to be free from foreign influence and affairs, and to find yourself as one of decision-makers. If it's progress in the context of open mindedness, they both applied it in different manner.
Hmh you're right, it is foolish to say that Athens was Progressive and Sparta was not. Let's rephrase it, Athens had different value than Sparta. Athens were more willing to advance and adapt to certain conditions and Sparta were not, they prefer their own way instead of doing what other nations wanted.
>Athens had a growth (CEO)mindset due to a wide possible points of interactions with outsiders which forced them into growth as they were a major maritime power so they consistently faced pillaging, naval conquests and drive-by slaughters which made their focus project outwards. Peloponnese people had a complacent mindset thanks to having very few natural enemies, so their focus was primarily focused inwards. Something to be kept in mind is that both of these great powers had notoriously bad soil quality, which didn't make them a nice for conquest (save for mercantile, culling and extinction events) and it forced people to specialize in other things which forced them into developing their society away from agriculture.
Yes, as Thucydides stated that their soil was poor and can't be used for agriculture. Both nations therefore relied on something else like farming, pillaging, trade, and other stuff. Though I'm not certain whether their culture shaped their ambitions and strategy or the inverse.
@MK2boogaloo @Arkana @7 @clayvaulin @kakkerel @laurel @Intramuros_ @skells @tarperfume @sim @Leyonhjelm >They're still part of the Hellenistic civilization, even though they've been fighting a lot
There's something which is taken as granted, most often because it's not scrutinized, but common civilization, culture and lineage isn't enough to make a single united nation out of different tribes, but they will share a lot of common cultural touchstones. As an example please notice the Koreans, Southern Slavs, Germans 2 centuries ago, China and Taiwan, etc. Be it out of fundamental differences in lineage, tribes, cultures, faith, behaviors, ties, etc.
Each of the listed "pairs" have (or had) fundamental differences which make them utterly incompatible with each other.
>I've yet to see one alliances between great powers lasting after their supposed enemy was destroyed.
I would like to see some examples of this so I can form my opinion around this, since I believe that military alliances have a persistent staying power if they find themselves as victors.
>Athens were more willing to advance and adapt to certain conditions and Sparta were not
Of course. They lived in different circumstances and as such their focus was shifted accordingly, Athenians were focused outwards due to plenty "outward" natural enemies, Peloponnese inwards for the same reason. In the context of Thucydides "fear as motivator" theory, Athenians were afraid of being taken over and/or ruined so they forced their identity to spread outwards, Spartans were afraid of degradation and as such clung to their glory days by enforcing their identity within their borders.
>they prefer their own way instead of doing what other nations wanted.
Both were guilty of this, and that is entirely natural. Athens were "submit to us or get fucked", Peloponnese was "our way or highway" and "rando get fucked".
>soil was poor
>relied on something else like farming
...
Jesting, the latter parts of that sentence are exactly what I mean.
>Though I'm not certain whether their culture shaped their ambitions and strategy or the inverse
I believe people are not born ambitious, they're made. Culture is there to steer a person's ambitions in a way that's beneficial to its continuity, and as long as person lives they shape their culture. Since people are overwhelmingly imprinted to their culture, it has a very strong staying power through extreme redundancy. Similar thing is with strategy, since strategy is shaped through a person's experience, and common experience leads to common strategies. Since Athens and Peloponnese regions faced different challenges in life, they diverge.
You can consider my silence as consent on the rest of your points, I just didn't discuss them since I don't believe that we can learn much through being like "oh dude totally"
I'll type about how poor soil shapes people later.
There's something which is taken as granted, most often because it's not scrutinized, but common civilization, culture and lineage isn't enough to make a single united nation out of different tribes, but they will share a lot of common cultural touchstones. As an example please notice the Koreans, Southern Slavs, Germans 2 centuries ago, China and Taiwan, etc. Be it out of fundamental differences in lineage, tribes, cultures, faith, behaviors, ties, etc.
Each of the listed "pairs" have (or had) fundamental differences which make them utterly incompatible with each other.
>I've yet to see one alliances between great powers lasting after their supposed enemy was destroyed.
I would like to see some examples of this so I can form my opinion around this, since I believe that military alliances have a persistent staying power if they find themselves as victors.
>Athens were more willing to advance and adapt to certain conditions and Sparta were not
Of course. They lived in different circumstances and as such their focus was shifted accordingly, Athenians were focused outwards due to plenty "outward" natural enemies, Peloponnese inwards for the same reason. In the context of Thucydides "fear as motivator" theory, Athenians were afraid of being taken over and/or ruined so they forced their identity to spread outwards, Spartans were afraid of degradation and as such clung to their glory days by enforcing their identity within their borders.
>they prefer their own way instead of doing what other nations wanted.
Both were guilty of this, and that is entirely natural. Athens were "submit to us or get fucked", Peloponnese was "our way or highway" and "rando get fucked".
>soil was poor
>relied on something else like farming
...
Jesting, the latter parts of that sentence are exactly what I mean.
>Though I'm not certain whether their culture shaped their ambitions and strategy or the inverse
I believe people are not born ambitious, they're made. Culture is there to steer a person's ambitions in a way that's beneficial to its continuity, and as long as person lives they shape their culture. Since people are overwhelmingly imprinted to their culture, it has a very strong staying power through extreme redundancy. Similar thing is with strategy, since strategy is shaped through a person's experience, and common experience leads to common strategies. Since Athens and Peloponnese regions faced different challenges in life, they diverge.
You can consider my silence as consent on the rest of your points, I just didn't discuss them since I don't believe that we can learn much through being like "oh dude totally"
I'll type about how poor soil shapes people later.
The Bible says Spartans are children of Abraham. That’s why they’re so based.
@GoodPerson
By that standard, the Happy Merchant is also based.
@Arkana @7 @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @kakkerel @laurel @hrast @Intramuros_ @skells @tarperfume @sim
By that standard, the Happy Merchant is also based.
@Arkana @7 @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @kakkerel @laurel @hrast @Intramuros_ @skells @tarperfume @sim
@GoodPerson @Arkana @7 @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @kakkerel @laurel @Intramuros_ @skells @tarperfume @sim @Leyonhjelm In antiquity, it was widely believed that the Doric people (including the Spartans and their kings) were actual descendants of Heracles. The Hebrew word for “merchants”—one of the tribe of Dan’s noted professions—is Haroclem, similar to the Greek name of Hercules, Heracles. Coincidence? Heracles = Samson confirmed???
Idk but it is the Spartans who said they were relatives, not the Jews.
@GoodPerson @hrast @Arkana @7 @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @laurel @Intramuros_ @skells @tarperfume @sim @Leyonhjelm
There are multiple Greek legendary figures of Phoenician stock, if I recall correctly. People like Cadmus, Europa, Sarpedon. If I'm not mistaken, it's said that Minos was himself the progeny of Europa who was herself the progeny of Agenor the king of Tyre.
There are multiple Greek legendary figures of Phoenician stock, if I recall correctly. People like Cadmus, Europa, Sarpedon. If I'm not mistaken, it's said that Minos was himself the progeny of Europa who was herself the progeny of Agenor the king of Tyre.
@GoodPerson @7 @Arkana @Intramuros_ @Leyonhjelm @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @hrast @laurel @sim @skells @tarperfume
Is there another reading assignment?
738486382233657344.jpg
Is there another reading assignment?
738486382233657344.jpg
@kakkerel @7 @Arkana @GoodPerson @Intramuros_ @Leyonhjelm @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @hrast @sim @skells @tarperfume
I'd be up for it. Do you have any book recommendations?
I'd be up for it. Do you have any book recommendations?
@laurel @7 @Arkana @GoodPerson @Intramuros_ @Leyonhjelm @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @hrast @sim @skells @tarperfume
Are you guys finishing Thucydides? If so, what's the timetable for the other readings?
Are you guys finishing Thucydides? If so, what's the timetable for the other readings?
@kakkerel @7 @Arkana @GoodPerson @Intramuros_ @Leyonhjelm @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @hrast @sim @skells @tarperfume
I've done the first two books. I think I'm gonna let it sit for a bit and continue reading it later.
I've done the first two books. I think I'm gonna let it sit for a bit and continue reading it later.
@laurel @7 @Arkana @GoodPerson @Intramuros_ @Leyonhjelm @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @hrast @sim @skells @tarperfume
Are you guys interested in more military/political history or a change in genre?
Are you guys interested in more military/political history or a change in genre?
@kakkerel @Arkana @7 @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @laurel @hrast @Intramuros_ @skells @tarperfume @GoodPerson @Leyonhjelm I think a change in genre might help so it isn't too heavy in military/political history. Those take a lot more concentration, especially older texts. So something more recent might help. On saying that, it might be interesting to read the Iliad after a lighter read. I've been meaning to get around to that one.
@sim @7 @Arkana @GoodPerson @Intramuros_ @Leyonhjelm @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @hrast @laurel @skells @tarperfume
So I just grabbed some books off my shelf. Tell me if any of these catch your fancy.
Attacks by Erwin Rommel
Account written by Erwin Rommel of some of the campaigns he participated in, from the perspective of an officer, in WW1.
Egil's Saga
Icelandic Saga depicting the goings on of what are a family of debatably werewolves who would go on to settle Iceland.
The Master and Margarita by Bulgakov
The Devil does Soviet Moscow.
Starship Troopers by Heinlein
Self-explanatory.
Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
Would have to do selections. These are sort of baudy medieval poems originally composed in middle English, and they're kind of racy.
Aside from the Canterbury Tales, these are all fairly easy reads.
So I just grabbed some books off my shelf. Tell me if any of these catch your fancy.
Attacks by Erwin Rommel
Account written by Erwin Rommel of some of the campaigns he participated in, from the perspective of an officer, in WW1.
Egil's Saga
Icelandic Saga depicting the goings on of what are a family of debatably werewolves who would go on to settle Iceland.
The Master and Margarita by Bulgakov
The Devil does Soviet Moscow.
Starship Troopers by Heinlein
Self-explanatory.
Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
Would have to do selections. These are sort of baudy medieval poems originally composed in middle English, and they're kind of racy.
Aside from the Canterbury Tales, these are all fairly easy reads.
@kakkerel @sim @7 @Arkana @GoodPerson @Intramuros_ @Leyonhjelm @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @hrast @skells @tarperfume
I especially like "Egil's Saga" and "The Master and Margarita" both seem to have an enjoyable gothic theme.
I especially like "Egil's Saga" and "The Master and Margarita" both seem to have an enjoyable gothic theme.
@laurel @7 @Arkana @GoodPerson @Intramuros_ @Leyonhjelm @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @hrast @sim @skells @tarperfume
Egil's Saga is probably a good introduction for people interested in reading more Icelandic Sagas. It's complete and a more straightforward read than many of the other extant texts. Fair amount of violence, some witchcraft, and intergenerational strife.
Master and Margarita is a social satire, sort of in the style of Gogol and Dostoevsky but it has a lot of fantastical elements as well. It manages to pair the redemption of Pontius Pilate with a talking cat hanging from a chandelier sporting a Browning Automatic Rifle.
Egil's Saga is probably a good introduction for people interested in reading more Icelandic Sagas. It's complete and a more straightforward read than many of the other extant texts. Fair amount of violence, some witchcraft, and intergenerational strife.
Master and Margarita is a social satire, sort of in the style of Gogol and Dostoevsky but it has a lot of fantastical elements as well. It manages to pair the redemption of Pontius Pilate with a talking cat hanging from a chandelier sporting a Browning Automatic Rifle.
@kakkerel @laurel @7 @Arkana @GoodPerson @Intramuros_ @Leyonhjelm @clayvaulin @hrast @sim @skells @tarperfume Master and Margaritha sounds cool, if we're not reading essays I'm casting my vote for it.
@MK2boogaloo @7 @Arkana @GoodPerson @Intramuros_ @Leyonhjelm @clayvaulin @hrast @laurel @sim @skells @tarperfume
In consideration of essays, have you guys ever read any Michel de Montaigne?
In consideration of essays, have you guys ever read any Michel de Montaigne?
@kakkerel @Arkana @7 @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @laurel @hrast @Intramuros_ @skells @tarperfume @GoodPerson @Leyonhjelm No. What did he write about?
@sim @7 @Arkana @GoodPerson @Intramuros_ @Leyonhjelm @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @hrast @laurel @skells @tarperfume
Montaigne is considered by some as the first essayist. In fact, he called his anecdotal writings about himself, interested subjects, and life in general, "Essais," or "Attempts." They're not really essays in the way that we understand them. There's usually some kind of implicit argument built into them, but seeing as they're constructed from reflections about personal experiences, they're more subtle and arguably more persuasive.
Montaigne is considered by some as the first essayist. In fact, he called his anecdotal writings about himself, interested subjects, and life in general, "Essais," or "Attempts." They're not really essays in the way that we understand them. There's usually some kind of implicit argument built into them, but seeing as they're constructed from reflections about personal experiences, they're more subtle and arguably more persuasive.
@kakkerel @Arkana @7 @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @laurel @hrast @Intramuros_ @skells @tarperfume @GoodPerson @Leyonhjelm That does sound interesting, I have to admit. Would be interesting to see what an early essay looked like.
@sim @Arkana @7 @clayvaulin @kakkerel @laurel @MK2boogaloo @hrast @Intramuros_ @tarperfume @GoodPerson @Leyonhjelm yeah Montaigne is cool, not read much of him but what i have was good
inspired Shakespeare so our man has form
@skells @Arkana @7 @clayvaulin @kakkerel @laurel @MK2boogaloo @hrast @Intramuros_ @tarperfume @GoodPerson @Leyonhjelm Starting to sound better than I first thought. We have some interesting figures to read into this year.
@sim @skells @7 @Arkana @GoodPerson @Intramuros_ @Leyonhjelm @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @hrast @kakkerel @tarperfume
Friends, I've gathered these proposals that have had some traction:
1. Attacks by Erwin Rommel
2. Egil's Saga
3. The Master and Margarita by Bulgakov
4. Essay by Nietzsche, "Use and Abuse of History"
5. Essay by St. Augustine
6. Essay of Michel de Montaigne
7. Essay by Cicero
Are there any more suggestions? Would anyone like to add/remove anything from the list?
Also, any member can use #bookclub hashtag on any post (reply or OP) to have it retweeted by our group account.
Friends, I've gathered these proposals that have had some traction:
1. Attacks by Erwin Rommel
2. Egil's Saga
3. The Master and Margarita by Bulgakov
4. Essay by Nietzsche, "Use and Abuse of History"
5. Essay by St. Augustine
6. Essay of Michel de Montaigne
7. Essay by Cicero
Are there any more suggestions? Would anyone like to add/remove anything from the list?
Also, any member can use #bookclub hashtag on any post (reply or OP) to have it retweeted by our group account.
@laurel @sim @7 @Arkana @GoodPerson @Intramuros_ @Leyonhjelm @clayvaulin @hrast @kakkerel @skells @tarperfume I'm voting for St. Augustine.
@MK2boogaloo @Arkana @7 @clayvaulin @kakkerel @laurel @hrast @skells @tarperfume @GoodPerson @sim@shitposter.club @Leyonhjelm
Confessions is a good one. And anything by Chesterfield.
@cully45 @MK2boogaloo @Arkana @7 @clayvaulin @kakkerel @hrast @skells @tarperfume @GoodPerson @Leyonhjelm
I too would like to read Augustine but I think it's a bit heavy for this particular group read. Chesterfield is a very good suggestion.
I too would like to read Augustine but I think it's a bit heavy for this particular group read. Chesterfield is a very good suggestion.
@cully45 @7 @Arkana @GoodPerson @Leyonhjelm @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @hrast @kakkerel @skells
@tarperfume
>Chesterfield
Oops, I meant Chesterton, I don't know who Chesterfield is.
@tarperfume
>Chesterfield
Oops, I meant Chesterton, I don't know who Chesterfield is.
What from Chesterton? He has fiction, biography, and apologetic.
@GoodPerson @laurel @Arkana @7 @cully45 @clayvaulin @kakkerel @hrast @skells @tarperfume @Leyonhjelm philosophy, the Everlasting Man is very much recommended.
I’m interested in his biography of Thomas Aquinas, but I’d be fine with revisiting Everlasting Man too.
Follow
@GoodPerson @hrast @Arkana @cully45 @clayvaulin @tarperfume @kakkerel @laurel @MK2boogaloo @Leyonhjelm @7 biography of Aquinas by Chesterton sounds very good
