31–40 of 95 posts
Trick question. They didn't. Britain didn't exist until 1707.
Britain or Britannia has been used as the name of the place since at least the 1st century.
Isn't Britain still part of the European continent?.
Even 10K years ago, Britain was 'connected by land' to the rest of the European continent.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/doggerland
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genuine question: I've heard this criticism for literally every pop-history book I've read (Guns, Germs, and Steel; Sapiens; The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, etc). Are there any history books that are taken seriously in the academic world that are actually fun to read? If so, any recommendations? If not, is the issue basically that if you want some history book to be fun, you've got…
See also Bill Bryson. I think it's a bit unfair to criticise these types of books for not being 100% academically rigorous (having citations etc). They're generally ok as entertaining introductions to new subject matter for the reader. After that the reader can then go looking for more authoritative writings of the topics being explored that tickle their fancy.
I see no reason why someone can't end up in Brittain just by accidentally falling in the north sea and maybe clinging to whatever floats around. You'd have to be lucky, but there is a lot of time to be lucky in (seen from the point of humanity of course, not from the individual dropping in the sea).
For the question: why would they want to do it, that's even more easy. Because they could. That has been plenty of reason for some adventurous people, always.
As far as I understand, Ian Morris's books are not taken very seriously in the academic world. I've read the first part of /Why the West rules/ and must admit that it reads a bit like trying to push a narrative: spinning up facts the right way to make them support his ideas and asserting universal truths without much backing… but I think I'm biased by the reviews I checked before reading the (first part of the) book.
1. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/timi4/the_as...
> whatever their other skills, Roger and his kind could not cross 34 km of open sea.
We see similar arguments with respect to the Bering Sea land bridge, despite the fact that Siberians and Alaska Natives had seaworthy vessels that were crossing the Bering Strait (~80 km) on a regular basis long before European contact, and continue to do so to this day (there are still a few groups constructing traditional vessels for cultural reasons).
While I'm sure some of the indigenous people of the Americas did cross during "land bridge" periods, I'm equally sure that many arrived by boat.
Am I the only one remembering Stewart Lee's sketch about UKIP?
As far as I understand, Ian Morris's books are not taken very seriously in the academic world. I've read the first part of /Why the West rules/ and must admit that it reads a bit like trying to push a narrative: spinning up facts the right way to make them support his ideas and asserting universal truths without much backing… but I think I'm biased by the reviews I checked before reading the (first part of the) book.
Genuine question: I've heard this criticism for literally every pop-history book I've read (Guns, Germs, and Steel; Sapiens; The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, etc). Are there any history books that are taken seriously in the academic world that are actually fun to read? If so, any recommendations? If not, is the issue basically that if you want some history book to be fun, you've got…
Trick question. They didn't. Britain didn't exist until 1707.
Great Britain: the island that contains the countries of England, Scotland, and Wales (throw in Cornwall as a separate country if you're of a mind, I'm fine with that).
Less Britain: an old name for Brittany in what is now France. The native language there is Breton, a Celtic language related to Welsh.
England: One country within Great Britain.
United Kingdom: The countries of Great Britain, plus Northern Ireland, plus some of the surrounding islands -- but not all! Ireland (excluding Northern Ireland) is obviously not part of the United Kingdom, nor are the Channel Islands (in some of which Queen Elizabeth is the Duke of Normandy, rather than the Queen per se), nor numerous others.
The British Isles: Great Britain, Ireland, and all of the surrounding islands. This is a geographic designation, not a political one, as there is no unitary government.
Yes, it's confusing.
On foot. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland
I was going to post exactly the same. More to the point, Britain wasn't an island a mere 10k years ago. Why would we ever assume that Britain was difficult to reach 1M years ago?