Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ancient Romans depicted Huns as barbarians – their bones tell a different story

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 149 posts

Re: Ancient Romans depicted Huns as barbarians – their bones tell a different story

#91

Post by dpark »

Spooky23 wrote: post #28
mjfl wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But their primary defense was offense. The Roman response to true enemy was always "kill them all, man woman and child". That's why they genocided Carthage, the Gauls, destroyed Israel, massacred rebelling slaves in Sicily and lined the roads from Campania to Rome with crucified rebels. To bring in a modern political analogy is stupid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appian_Way#The_crucifixion_of_...

That's the human condition. If you think that we're any better, you're wrong. If any nation today had the ability to slaughter their enemies, they would. When the United States had that ability in the 1940s, we planned on doing so and reengineered the entire military complex to do so. When the Germans had the ability to do so in Angola in the early 1900s, they did.

> If any nation today had the ability to slaughter their enemies, they would.

This is untrue. Most citizens don't have the stomach for total war or civilian massacre. It's not considered acceptable or moral by most people. There was no lack of ability constraining the US from carpet bombing everything habitable in Afghanistan after 9/11, but relatively few people were advocating for that.

Re: Ancient Romans depicted Huns as barbarians – their bones tell a different story

#92

Post by astine »

gmarx wrote: post #79
gnicholasgreen wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this oft repeated over the decades. I wonder if there is a legitimate historical source for it.

Pretty sure this explanation is just really old speculation. Even if the ancient greeks kept records of word origins, those documents would likely be lost by now

Judging by this link: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=barbarian, the reasoning is based on words in other indoeuropean languages having a similar root to 'barbarian' being used to refer to stammering or incoherent speech.

Re: Ancient Romans depicted Huns as barbarians – their bones tell a different story

#93

Post by redsummer »

jacquesm wrote: post #42
tunocina wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having done that does not mean our borders had to open for bitter, fighting age men.

It's a bit of a problem, but 'you break it, you own it' is a good rule. See also: Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt and a very large number of other places where proxy wars between western states and meddling in local affairs in order to gain the upper hand in veiled conflicts over resources have made the world a much worse place for a very large number of people.

The US did the breaking. Sweden had to 'own it'.

Re: Ancient Romans depicted Huns as barbarians – their bones tell a different story

#94

Post by gglitch »

gnicholasgreen wrote: post #46
viggity wrote: post #43

Fun fact, "Barbarian" is a Greek word as a label for non-Greeks. To the Greeks, foreign languages just sounded like they were mumbling "bar-bar-bar", hence Barbarians = Non-Greeks.

I've heard this oft repeated over the decades. I wonder if there is a legitimate historical source for it.

"from Greek barbaros 'foreign, strange, ignorant,' from PIE root *barbar- echoic of unintelligible speech of foreigners (compare Sanskrit barbara- 'stammering,' also 'non-Aryan,' Latin balbus 'stammering,' Czech blblati 'to stammer')." I don't know if the source I'm quoting is reliable, but I find the same reference to Sanskrit in a variety of sources.

Re: Ancient Romans depicted Huns as barbarians – their bones tell a different story

#95

Post by GlennS »

arethuza wrote: post #40
empath75 wrote: post #25

The Fall of Rome podcast had a really interesting episode on The Huns: https://m.soundcloud.com/fallofromepodcast/fall-of-rome-epis... He makes the argument that in the later Roman Empire, the Huns treated the Roman Empire as either a vassal or a buffer state to their own empire. They demanded tribute from them and even forced the romans to chase down and return refugees. It's really interesting to look at the Roman…

Speaking of Scythia - somewhat bizarrely Scottish legends claim that the Scots were originally from there! "They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the…

Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain makes similar claims for Scythian ancestry, and that the Scythians were in turn refugees from Troy.

He also claimed that ancient Britons laid seige to Rome.

Pretty funny how his bullshit survived and was repeated through the centuries.

Re: Ancient Romans depicted Huns as barbarians – their bones tell a different story

#96

Post by jacquesm »

redsummer wrote: post #93
jacquesm wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit of a problem, but 'you break it, you own it' is a good rule. See also: Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt and a very large number of other places where proxy wars between western states and meddling in local affairs in order to gain the upper hand in veiled conflicts over resources have made the world a much worse place for a very large number of people.

The US did the breaking. Sweden had to 'own it'.

The US not being very good at cleaning up the messes they make is fairly well documented, props to the Swedes (and quite a few other countries besides) for doing far more than their fair share (which would have been 'nothing to very little') in this.

Re: Ancient Romans depicted Huns as barbarians – their bones tell a different story

#97

Post by tunocina »

jacquesm wrote: post #72
tunocina wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get to vote but, in democracy, we are a drop in the ocean. In any case what's done is done, and if we've already waged war on them, it makes no sense to open our borders to them because most of them are bitter at us and some of them want to and have succeeded in killing us in our own soil. It's simply a security issue. There are millions of Muslims now scattered everywhere in Europe, and these last attacks are simp…

> I get to vote but, in democracy, we are a drop in the ocean. No, we all together own the result and fractionally each of us. That's the price of living in a democracy, and one I gladly accept. In a dictatorship you could argue like you do (and even there there are options, but with a much higher personal price). > In any case what's done is done, and if we've already waged war on them, it makes no sense to open our…

>No, we all together own the result and fractionally each of us. That's the price of living in a democracy, and one I gladly accept. In a dictatorship you could argue like you do (and even there there are options, but with a much higher personal price).

Well, you said I could change things, I'm telling you I can't, because I don't get to choose. We all do, and the majority, by now, disagrees with me.

>That is a vanishingly small fraction of those entering. In fact, the vast majority would like nothing better than to turn back if not for the fact that their lives are in danger where they lived. Sure, there are people who move with economic motives, but those are even less likely to be a danger.

I am aware of it, but it's not worth the risk to let any of them in.

>Yes, it is a security issue. And you deal with that like you deal with any other security issue: through law enforcement.

That's supposing law enforcement can stop 100% of terror attacks before they have happened. Isn't it better to just remove the root of the issue?

>Do you actually believe that these 'millions of Muslims' are going to pick up arms and attack the citizens of the countries they have shared their lives with and who for the most part employ them and ensure their bread is buttered over the silly statements of some dictator?

No, not millions of them, but just a few ones are enough to wreak havoc.

And yes, they are going to attack us, first because they are bitter we made them lose everything, and second because there's definitely not enough butter for all of them (in my own country, there isn't even enough butter for us natives!).

>No, sorry, he really doesn't. Erdogan, for all his bluster is incapable of ruling Turkey the way he wants to without vast human rights violations, there is little to no chance of him being able to rouse the Turks in Western European societies in the numbers required to cause a real problem.

Nobody talked about Turks. Turkey will covertly support ISIS as long as ISIS keeps killing Kurds, and they will because, let's be honest, all Muslims hate Kurds. And yes, ISIS lone fighters will keep terrorising us. It just happened yesterday.

About the rest, that's wishful thinking. I don't believe for a second two cultures that are fundamentally so different will ever manage to work together for one specific goal, let alone create something viable in the long term.

Re: Ancient Romans depicted Huns as barbarians – their bones tell a different story

#98

Post by arethuza »

GlennS wrote: post #95
arethuza wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking of Scythia - somewhat bizarrely Scottish legends claim that the Scots were originally from there! "They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the…

Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain makes similar claims for Scythian ancestry, and that the Scythians were in turn refugees from Troy. He also claimed that ancient Britons laid seige to Rome. Pretty funny how his bullshit survived and was repeated through the centuries.

And on the way from Scythia the Scots somehow also apparently also picked up the stone that Jacob rested his head on at Bethel which became, via a detour to Dunadd and Scone, the Stone of Destiny!

[Spoilsport geologists dispute this story with their pesky "facts" ;-)]

Re: Ancient Romans depicted Huns as barbarians – their bones tell a different story

#99

Post by srean »

viggity wrote: post #58
koverstreet wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most terrorist acts in the U.S. are committed by white people, and the people pushing to make their religion the basis of law are also Christians, not Muslims. Your statements have no basis in facts or data, which leads me to suspect plain old racism.

Gee, it is almost like white people make up a huge part of the population. Apply a little Bayes Theorem and visit back when you've run the numbers. Also, fwiw, Islam is not a race, hence you can't be racist for criticizing it. It is an ideological system. In that way it is no different than Democracy, Communism, Buddhism, Capitalism, Mormonism, Anarchism, etc, etc. Race doesn't define any of those ideologies either.…

> Only one of these ideologies has a large constituency who condones the intentional targeting of innocent civilians

You mean collaterals and the US ?

Re: Ancient Romans depicted Huns as barbarians – their bones tell a different story

#100

Post by jacquesm »

tunocina wrote: post #97
jacquesm wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I get to vote but, in democracy, we are a drop in the ocean. No, we all together own the result and fractionally each of us. That's the price of living in a democracy, and one I gladly accept. In a dictatorship you could argue like you do (and even there there are options, but with a much higher personal price). > In any case what's done is done, and if we've already waged war on them, it makes no sense to open our…

>No, we all together own the result and fractionally each of us. That's the price of living in a democracy, and one I gladly accept. In a dictatorship you could argue like you do (and even there there are options, but with a much higher personal price). Well, you said I could change things, I'm telling you I can't, because I don't get to choose. We all do, and the majority, by now, disagrees with me. >That is a vanis…

> I am aware of it, but it's not worth the risk to let any of them in.

You'd rather see 10's or 100's of thousands dead than risk a few incidents?

> That's supposing law enforcement can stop 100% of terror attacks before they have happened.

There are so few of them that even with broken LE the dangers from terrorism are smaller than from smoking.

> Isn't it better to just remove the root of the issue?

Yes, but it is too late for that as you already wrote.

> No, not millions of them, but just a few ones are enough to wreak havoc.

Nah, only when viewed through the magnifying lens of the media. Traffic and obesity kill vastly more people than terrorists ever can.

> And yes, they are going to attack us, first because they are bitter we made them lose everything, and second because there's definitely not enough butter for all of them (in my own country, there isn't even enough butter for us natives!).

Where do you live then?

> Turkey will covertly support ISIS as long as ISIS keeps killing Kurds, and they will because, let's be honest, all Muslims hate Kurds.

Do you realize the majority of Kurds are Muslims? Are you suggesting they hate themselves?

> And yes, ISIS lone fighters will keep terrorising us. It just happened yesterday.

You let it happen to you, yesterday. Statistically speaking I feel no less safe than I did on Thursday last week, and if I see something that hints at an attack in progress I'll act. Until then life goes on.

> I don't believe for a second two cultures that are fundamentally so different will ever manage to work together for one specific goal, let alone create something viable in the long term.

It's already working. What do you suggest?

Isolationism? Close all borders to refugees? Barbed wire borders and soldiers with orders to shoot if the refugees should approach the border?

Are you willing to go and stand there to pull the trigger?

Post reply on HN