I will produce the king list below.
Please state at what year the king list can be considered contemporary.
"These kings are considered to be legendary.".
That one? .
Or, this one?.
"Many of these kings are considered to be legendary. Dynastic affiliations are based on the genealogies of historical dynasties who claimed them as an ancestor.".
"Semi historical kings of Ireland".
"Historical High Kings of Ireland".
And how much did what was written above the lists, influence your decision?History50 mins ago
Is it racism or white supremacism to insist that a multi-linguist making an effort to speak the lingua-franca, do so in perfect English?
Let's be honest now, the typical Brit or US citizen is amongst the most illiterate in the world with a barely vocational education in linguistics when it comes to communicating.
However i notice that it is mostly the people from non-English speaking countries that make the effort to communicate with English speaking people, whilst those from English speaking countries, generally make no effort whatsoever to communicate with those not from an English speaking country, but yet, they take a superior stance and insist that "multi-linguists" that usually have a grasp on English, and Arabic, aswell as a 100% grasp on their own language, learn to use English properly.
Is it racism? white supremacy? or just snobbery? or, even ignorance?1 AnswerPhilosophy3 hours ago
Were the Amorites originally Semitic speakers? Or was the Akkadian lingua franca made up of Sumerian and Amoritic components?
Ok, so it appears that the best guess for who conquered the Sumerians, were the Amorites.
However, i have heard it said, that it was the "Semitic speaking Amorites".
However, the Akkadian empire is founded in around 2300 BC.
The earliest attestation to the Amorites being Semitic speakers, is around 500 years "after" this. 1800 BC.
"Known Amorites wrote in a dialect of Akkadian found on tablets at Mari dating from 1800–1750 BC. Since the language shows northwest Semitic forms, words and constructions, the Amorite language is a Northwest Semitic language, and possibly one of the Canaanite languages.".
Therefore, there is no proof they spoke the lingua franca prior to the emergence of Akkadian language?
Was the lingua franca made up of Sumerian and Amorite components?2 AnswersLanguages17 hours ago
The Sumerians were conquered, but not even by the Akkadians.
There was no such thing as Akkadian before the conquest of Akkad.
Akkad was non Semitic.
", variously transcribed into English as Akkad, Akkade or Agade. .The etymology of the name is unclear, but it is not of Akkadian (Semitic) origin. Various suggestions have proposed Sumerian, Hurrian or Lullubian etymologies.".
Now i will write a list below of possibilities.
It can be no other, as those are all the groups around prior to the conquest.
Feel free to let me know if i missed any out.
Which one invaded Sumeria?3 AnswersHistory18 hours ago
What made Tacitus and Josephus conclude that the Jewish Messianic prophecy must have been fulfilled by Vespasian?
As we read below, both Josephus and Tacitus (perhaps sarcastically) wrote that they presume the Jewish prophecy of a man from Judahs own nation, named Viz, would become Messiah, must have been denoting Vespasian.
"Josephus (as well as Tacitus), reporting on the conclusion of the Jewish war, reported a prophecy that around the time when Jerusalem and the Second Temple would be taken, a man from their own nation, viz. the Messiah, would become governor "of the habitable earth". Josephus interpreted the prophecy to denote Vespasian and his appointment as emperor in Judea.".
However, appart from the name similarity, what made them (joke or otherwise) state that this prophecy must have been fulfilled by Roman emperor Vespasian? .
I fail to see any relevance.
All i can think of is:
(a) they are trying to suggest that Jews are Messenian Greeks, and Vespasian was Greco-Roman?.
(b) they are trying to suggest Vespasian was a Jew?.
How exactly do they conclude that the prophecy could have been fulfilled by Vespasian?.
And don't you think he looks like Lex Luthar?.4 AnswersHistory19 hours ago
Are the Greek legends of Archelaus 100% accurate regards the time and political environment of the time?
"Archelaus (Greek: Ἀρχέλαος, Ἀrkhélaos; reigned from c. 790 to c. 760 BC) was the 7th Agiad dynasty king of Sparta. He was a son of Agesilaus I. Together with Charilaus, he conquered Elis. During his reign he also conquered the city of Aegys and sold the inhabitants into slavery. He was succeeded by king Teleclus.".
According to the above, Archelaus of Sparta conquered the city of Aegys and sold the inhabitants in to slavery.
And according to the below, the first Messenian war was a war close to the period above, fought between Greek Messenians and Dorian Spartans, resulting in Messianians being kicked out, and those that remained being reduced to helots and serfs.
"The First Messenian War was a war between Messenia and Sparta. It began in 743 BC and ended in 724 BC, according to the dates given by Pausanias.
"The war continued the rivalry between the Achaeans and the Dorians that had been initiated by the purported Return of the Heracleidae. Both sides utilized an explosive incident to settle the rivalry by full-scale war. The war was prolonged into 20 years. The result was a Spartan victory. Messenia was depopulated by emigration of the Achaeans to other states. Those who did not emigrate were reduced socially to helots, or serfs. Their descendants were held in hereditary subjection for centuries until the Spartan state finally needed them for defense.".3 AnswersHistory20 hours ago
Just wanting to make sure, that whilst reading about Greek mythology, when Greek mythology refers to the Dorian invaders appointing a Dorian to act as a Dorian Spartan co-regent alongside a Greek Spartan co-regent, the Dorian invasion is in fact considered factual?.
"The story of the double kingship of Sparta begins with the invasion of the Peloponnesus by the Dorians, and the Aetolian allies, under three Heraclid commanders, Temenus, Cresphontes and Aristodemus, the three sons of Aristomachus. Karl Otfried Müller collected and evaluated the various fragments of the story from classical authors.".
It appears scholars and historians generally believe the invasion to be factual?.
"Greek legend asserts that the Dorians took possession of the Peloponnesus in an event called the Return of the Heracleidae (Ancient Greek: Ἐπιστροφὴ τῶν Ἡρακλειδῶν). Nineteenth-century Classical scholars saw in the legend a possibly real event they termed the Dorian invasion. The meaning of the concept has changed several times, as historians, philologists and archaeologists used it in attempts to explain the cultural discontinuities expressed in the data of their fields. The pattern of arrival of Dorian culture on certain islands in the Mediterranean, such as Crete, is also not well understood. The Dorians colonised a number of sites on Crete such as Lato.".1 AnswerHistory21 hours ago
For what purpose did biblical scholars write all the lies in the bible, and everyone bear false witness?
A lot of people appear to think that Ptolemy and 72 scribes are lying.
"King Ptolemy once gathered 72 Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one's room and said: "Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher". God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did.".
Aswell as 513 false witnesses lying about seeing Jesus 3 days after crucifixion.
500 + 12 Apostles + Mary.
". Paul does not mention any appearances to women, apart from "sisters" included in the 500; other New Testament sources do not mention any appearance to a crowd of 500.".
Then there is all the other people need to be in on the lie.
Those that wrote all about Gods covenant with Israelites, et cetera.
Too many to mention.
For what purpose?9 AnswersReligion & Spirituality21 hours ago
"The Kaska, probably originating from the eastern shore of the Propontis,".
I read above that they were from East Propontis, but Propontis was the sea of Marmara, with Greece in the West and Anatolia in the East?.
"The Sea of Marmara (/ˈmɑːrmərə/; Turkish: Marmara Denizi; Ancient Greek: Προποντίς, Προποντίδα), also known as the Sea of Marmora or the Marmara Sea, and in the context of classical antiquity as the Propontis, is the inland sea, entirely within the borders of Turkey, that connects the Black Sea to the Aegean Sea, thus separating Turkey's Asian and European lands.".
And if they were already from East Anatolia, how come they invaded East Anatolia?.
"Sometime between the reigns of Arnuwanda and Suppiluliuma I (about 1330 BC), letters found in Maşat Höyük note that locusts ate the Kaskas' grain. The hungry Kaska were able to join with Hayasa-Azzi and Isuwa to the east, as well as other enemies of the Hittites, and burn Hattusa, the Hittite capital, to the ground.".
This suggests the war was all over Anatolia and spreading in to Assyria?.
Photo below of Propontis (Marmara sea).History22 hours ago
Would the period of Helen of Troy and the Trojan wars be consistant with the Kaskian war, and burning of Hattusa?
c. Tyndareos (First reign); son of Oibalos and father of Helen .
c. 1250 BC Menelaus.
In Greek legends, if Menelaus reigned from 1250BC, then would the reign of Tyndareos not place him precisely in an era consistant with the war betweent the Hittites and the Kaska's, in Greece and Anatolia?.
"Sometime between the reigns of Arnuwanda and Suppiluliuma I (about 1330 BC), letters found in Maşat Höyük note that locusts ate the Kaskas' grain. The hungry Kaska were able to join with Hayasa-Azzi and Isuwa to the east, as well as other enemies of the Hittites, and burn Hattusa, the Hittite capital, to the ground. They probably also burned the Hittites' secondary capital Sapinuwa. Suppiluliuma's grandson Hattusili III in the mid-13th century BC wrote of the time before Tudhaliya. He said that in those days the Kaska had "made Nenassa their frontier" and that their allies in Azzi-Hayasa had done the same to Samuha.
In the Amarna letters, Amenhotep III wrote to the Arzawan king Tarhunta-Radu that the "country Hattusa" was obliterated, and further asked for Arzawa to send him some of these Kaska people of whom he had heard. The Hittites also enlisted subject Kaska for their armies. When the Kaska were not raiding or serving as mercenaries, they raised pigs and wove linen, leaving scarcely any imprint on the permanent landscape.".1 AnswerHistory23 hours ago
Even if the Irish legends are not true, is the story of the Fir-Bolg proof that the Druids knew real world history?
According to Irish legends, the Fir-bolg were taken and held captive in Greece.
"Recent evidence, found by the University of Athens, discovered remains of adult individuals which appeared to confirm that Ceadas was mainly a place of punishment for criminals, traitors and captives.".
And according to the University of Athens, the Mountain of Taygetus in Greece, was used for the purposes of punishing criminals, traitors and captives.
". Recent evidence, found by the University of Athens, discovered remains of adult individuals which appeared to confirm that Ceadas was mainly a place of punishment for criminals, traitors and captives.".
Whilst this does not prove that the Fir-bolg stayed here, it is yet more proof that the Druids knew real happenings in the world?2 AnswersHistory23 hours ago
Where is the historic proof outside of the bible for Gods covenant with the Israelites, and where is the evidence of Davids king list?
It is ok to mock Irish legends as mythological.
Therefore it would be hypocritical for it not to be ok to ask for evidence regards to biblical legends.
"Biblical covenants include those with Abraham, the whole Israelite people, the Israelite priesthood, and the Davidic lineage of kings. In form and terminology, these covenants echo the kinds of treaty agreements in the surrounding ancient world.".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_(biblical) .
Provide proof please?
Please avoid answering the question to provide anything else other than proof and evidence.7 AnswersHistory24 hours ago
"Akkadian, an ancient Semitic language from Mesopotamia written in the cuneiform script, wasemployed as a diplomatic lingua franca between the major powers of the Late Bronze Age.Akkadian from Egypt defines the language of the Akkadian texts that originated in Egypt.".
According to linguistic scholars, the Akkadian language appears to have been Egyptian.
This would actually be more consistant with the fact that dating back to Pharoah Narmer (3150 BC), and earlier, Egypt had a huge presence in Canaan.
However Hebrew is from Proto-Sinaitic, and from reconstructed Egyptian hieroglyphs and the earliest attestation of this script is 2100 BC.
"Proto-Sinaitic (also referred to as Sinaitic, Proto-Canaanite when found in Canaan, or Early Alphabetic) is considered the earliest trace of alphabetic writing and the common ancestor of both the Ancient South Arabian script and the Phoenician alphabet, which led to many modern alphabets including the Greek alphabet. According to common theory, Canaanites who spoke a Semitic language (hypothetically reconstructed as Proto-Semitic) repurposed Egyptian hieroglyphs to construct a different script. The script is attested in a small corpus of inscriptions found at Serabit el-Khadim in the Sinai Peninsula, Egypt dating to the Middle Bronze Age (2100–1500 BCE). ".2 AnswersLanguages1 day ago
As we can see in the link below, Lugal-zage-si of Sumeria, pre-dated Sargon of Akkad, and are from two seperate kingdoms until Sargon conquered the Sumerian city states.2 AnswersHistory2 days ago
According to Russian history, Rurik is the first king of Russia.
"Rurik I Рюрик 830 – 879 862 879 Founder of Rurik Dynasty Rurikids".
He was said to be a Varangian.
"Rurik (also Riurik; Old Church Slavonic: Рюрикъ Rjurikŭ; Russian, Ukrainian: Рюрик; c. 830 – 879), according to the 12th-century Primary Chronicle, was a Varangian chieftain of the Rus' who in the year 862 gained control of Ladoga, and built Novgorod in the same year. This legendary figure was considered by later rulers to be the founder of the Rurik dynasty, which ruled the Kievan Rus' and its successor states, including the Kingdom of Ruthenia, the Principality of Tver, Grand Duchy of Vladimir, the Grand Duchy of Moscow, the Novgorod Republic and the Tsardom of Russia, until the 17th century.".
Apparently Varangian refers to Vikings.
"The Varangians (/vəˈrændʒiənz/; Old Norse: Væringjar; Greek: Βάραγγοι, Várangoi, Βαριάγοι, Variágoi) was the name given by Greeks, Rus' people, and others to Vikings,[".2 AnswersHistory2 days ago
"A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization. Shills can carry out their operations in the areas of media, journalism, marketing, politics, sports, confidence games, or other business areas. A shill may also act to discredit opponents or critics of the person or organization in which they have a vested interest through character assassination or other means.".
Typically, shills using straw men and will appear to always be using tactics, as opposed to citations and sources.
Such as: Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Exaggerating (sometimes grossly exaggerating) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version.
"A straw man (sometimes written as strawman, also sometimes straw dog) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".".5 AnswersOther - Arts & Humanities2 days ago
Why would anyone wish to censor a picture of the Polish coat of arms, or remove a question regarding Polish persecutions?.
"The Polish operation of the NKVD was the largest of this kind. The Polish operation claimed the largest number of the NKVD victims: 143,810 arrests and 111,091 executions according to records. Snyder estimates that at least eighty-five thousand of them were ethnic Poles.".
Polish coat of Arms (relevant to a question about Poles).1 AnswerHistory2 days ago
Is it anti-Semitic to question whether Stalin was Anti-Separatist or Anti-Semitic? And was he anti-polish?
According to what is written below, Stalin had an anti-Polish agenda to keep Poles out of power in their own country and gave most of the positions of authority to Communist Jews.
"During Stalinism, the preferred Soviet policy was to keep sensitive posts in the hands of non-Poles. As a result, "all or nearly all of the directors (of the widely despised Ministry of Public Security of Poland) were Jewish" as claimed by Polish journalist Teresa Torańska among others. A recent study by the Polish Institute of National Remembrance showed that out of 450 people in director positions in the Ministry between 1944 and 1954, 167 (37.1%) were of Jewish ethnicity, while Jews made up only 1% of the post-war Polish population.".
However what is written below may suggest he was in fact not against peoples ethnicities, or cultures, but the rise of separatism.
"The revival of Jewish identity after the war, stimulated by the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, was cautiously welcomed by Stalin as a means to put pressure on Western imperialism in the Middle East, but when it became evident that many Soviet Jews expected the revival of Zionism to enhance their own aspirations for separate cultural and religious development in the Soviet Union, a wave of repression was unleashed.".3 AnswersHistory2 days ago
Your Ireland? "Aye, my Ireland".
A lot of historians and scholars whilst picking holes in Braveheart point to the fact there is no evidence that any mad Irishman served as William Wallaces right hand man, and also no evidence that the Irish fought alongside the Scots.
However, there were originally five Bruce brothers, and they all fought togethor, and Edward and Robert are indeed thought to have helped each other.
"Edward Bruce, Earl of Carrick (Norman French: Edward de Brus; Middle Irish: Edubard a Briuis; Modern Scottish Gaelic: Scottish Gaelic: Eideard or Iomhair Bruis; c. 1280 – 14 October 1318), was a younger brother of Robert the Bruce, King of Scots. He supported his brother in the 1306-1314 struggle for the Scottish crown, then pursued his own claims in Ireland. Proclaimed High King of Ireland in 1315 and crowned in 1316, he was eventually defeated and killed by Anglo-Irish forces of the Lordship of Ireland at the Battle of Faughart in County Louth.".
Therefore, was Mel Gibson actually suggesting that the mad Irish man was sent by Robert Bruce to watch Willliams back in his own absence? (even unbeknown to William Wallace)?.3 AnswersHistory2 days ago