On August 06 2015 22:31 Acrofales wrote: Eurozone = lots of heads of state, 1 common currency Commonwealth = 1 common head of state, lots of different currencies
Nah, no Head of State in France: We behead our leaders (which sometimes shows, when they need to use their brain or their mouth for example), so the heads should be in a basket somewhere ...
The "Head of State" title was last held by the last king (1840-1848).
He doesn't mean the title "Head of State," he means the role of "Head of State." The French President is the Head of State for France, which means he is its symbolic leader. He is also the Chief of State, which means he runs the place. The US is the same, with the roles combined into one person. In the UK, by contrast, the Head of State is the Queen, whereas the Chief of State is the Prime Minister. Germany has a President who is HoS, and a Chancellor who is CoS. Israel has a President HoS, Prime Minister CoS. And so on and so forth.
All that said, the original comment was false. The Commonwealth has lots of Heads of State. The "Commonwealth Realms" share a single HoS, Queen Elizabeth. But the rest of the Commonwealth has its own Heads of State, the majority of which are democratically elected, and the minority of which are monarchs in their own right.
To make things more complicated, Commonwealth Realm countries will often have a "Viceroy/Governor General" type role where they are kind of a secondary HoS as a representative of the Queen.
Edit: also, fun fact, the French Head of State is always one of two Heads of State of Andorra, along with a bishop.
On August 06 2015 22:31 Acrofales wrote: Eurozone = lots of heads of state, 1 common currency Commonwealth = 1 common head of state, lots of different currencies
Nah, no Head of State in France: We behead our leaders (which sometimes shows, when they need to use their brain or their mouth for example), so the heads should be in a basket somewhere ...
The "Head of State" title was last held by the last king (1840-1848).
He doesn't mean the title "Head of State," he means the role of "Head of State." The French President is the Head of State for France, which means he is its symbolic leader. He is also the Chief of State, which means he runs the place. The US is the same, with the roles combined into one person. In the UK, by contrast, the Head of State is the Queen, whereas the Chief of State is the Prime Minister. Germany has a President who is HoS, and a Chancellor who is CoS. Israel has a President HoS, Prime Minister CoS. And so on and so forth.
All that said, the original comment was false. The Commonwealth has lots of Heads of State. The "Commonwealth Realms" share a single HoS, Queen Elizabeth. But the rest of the Commonwealth has its own Heads of State, the majority of which are democratically elected, and the minority of which are monarchs in their own right.
To make things more complicated, Commonwealth Realm countries will often have a "Viceroy/Governor General" type role where they are kind of a secondary HoS as a representative of the Queen.
Edit: also, fun fact, the French Head of State is always one of two Heads of State of Andorra, along with a bishop.
I meant the title "Head of State". The president of France is its head of state. The king of The Netherlands is its head of state. The prime minister of Australia is not its head of state. That title goes to Queen Elizabeth.
But yeah, it was just a silly joke to go in this lighthearted discussion.
On August 06 2015 22:31 Acrofales wrote: Eurozone = lots of heads of state, 1 common currency Commonwealth = 1 common head of state, lots of different currencies
Nah, no Head of State in France: We behead our leaders (which sometimes shows, when they need to use their brain or their mouth for example), so the heads should be in a basket somewhere ...
The "Head of State" title was last held by the last king (1840-1848).
He doesn't mean the title "Head of State," he means the role of "Head of State." The French President is the Head of State for France, which means he is its symbolic leader. He is also the Chief of State, which means he runs the place. The US is the same, with the roles combined into one person. In the UK, by contrast, the Head of State is the Queen, whereas the Chief of State is the Prime Minister. Germany has a President who is HoS, and a Chancellor who is CoS. Israel has a President HoS, Prime Minister CoS. And so on and so forth.
All that said, the original comment was false. The Commonwealth has lots of Heads of State. The "Commonwealth Realms" share a single HoS, Queen Elizabeth. But the rest of the Commonwealth has its own Heads of State, the majority of which are democratically elected, and the minority of which are monarchs in their own right.
To make things more complicated, Commonwealth Realm countries will often have a "Viceroy/Governor General" type role where they are kind of a secondary HoS as a representative of the Queen.
Edit: also, fun fact, the French Head of State is always one of two Heads of State of Andorra, along with a bishop.
I meant the title "Head of State". The president of France is its head of state. The king of The Netherlands is its head of state. The prime minister of Australia is not its head of state. That title goes to Queen Elizabeth.
But yeah, it was just a silly joke to go in this lighthearted discussion.
The title "Head of State" did exist in France and it was linked to the King during restauration. After the 1848 revolution, the title was removed and replaced by the "President" title.
The president of France is its head of state, but is not a "Head of State", else he would become headless. Queen Elizabeth is the "Head of State" of Australia, but she is not its head of state and keeps her head on her shoulders.
On August 06 2015 07:24 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: how does copyright apply to stuff like paintings and books from like the 1800s and earlier. is it all technically in the public domain?
cgp grey made a really good video explaining copyright, it might answer your question
On August 06 2015 11:11 Fecalfeast wrote: So I didn't start drinking coffee until I turned 20, 5 years ago, and since then the habit has gotten progressively worse. What constitutes serious dependency? On a normal day where I'm not actively trying to stay up late by chugging coffee I probably have about 10 cups a day if I were to pour all the drive-thru coffees and americanos into one container with my morning cups
Damn Bill Murray, you a real caffeine junkie. Espresso, in your Americanos out does your normal cuppa by a fair bit in terms of caffeine though.
This is completely misleading. No shit for the same amount of volume, pure espresso has massively more caffeine than coffee. Nobody goes and fucking chugs 26 ounces of espresso. A shot of espresso is one ounce, one.
For Starbucks for example:
A 16 ounce drip coffee has 330mg of caffeine. A 16 ounce latte has 150mg A 16 ounce Americano has 225mg.
I chugged six ounces of pure espresso to get superpowers once. I don't drink coffee. It was a good time.
If the Sack of Constantinople never happened, how likely would the Roman Empire have been to survive to today?
Also, how come when there's different spellings/sayings of the same places in French and German, it's generally the French one that takes precedence? Like I guess Alsace and Lorraine make sense over Elsass and Lothringen because they're in France now, but why is it Cologne and not Koln in English?
Probably has to due with the popularity of French as a posh, or fashionable language with the upper classes for a couple hundred years trickling down to common use
On August 06 2015 22:31 Acrofales wrote: Eurozone = lots of heads of state, 1 common currency Commonwealth = 1 common head of state, lots of different currencies
Nah, no Head of State in France: We behead our leaders (which sometimes shows, when they need to use their brain or their mouth for example), so the heads should be in a basket somewhere ...
The "Head of State" title was last held by the last king (1840-1848).
On August 07 2015 00:46 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Also, how come when there's different spellings/sayings of the same places in French and German, it's generally the French one that takes precedence? Like I guess Alsace and Lorraine make sense over Elsass and Lothringen because they're in France now, but why is it Cologne and not Koln in English?
Because, historically, the UK (and, honestly, most of the world) dealt more with France than Germany, owing to the centralized state and all. French became the language of diplomacy, and German became English's angry little brother.
On August 06 2015 11:11 Fecalfeast wrote: So I didn't start drinking coffee until I turned 20, 5 years ago, and since then the habit has gotten progressively worse. What constitutes serious dependency? On a normal day where I'm not actively trying to stay up late by chugging coffee I probably have about 10 cups a day if I were to pour all the drive-thru coffees and americanos into one container with my morning cups
Damn Bill Murray, you a real caffeine junkie. Espresso, in your Americanos out does your normal cuppa by a fair bit in terms of caffeine though.
This is completely misleading. No shit for the same amount of volume, pure espresso has massively more caffeine than coffee. Nobody goes and fucking chugs 26 ounces of espresso. A shot of espresso is one ounce, one.
For Starbucks for example:
A 16 ounce drip coffee has 330mg of caffeine. A 16 ounce latte has 150mg A 16 ounce Americano has 225mg.
I chugged six ounces of pure espresso to get superpowers once. I don't drink coffee. It was a good time.
If the Sack of Constantinople never happened, how likely would the Roman Empire have been to survive to today?
Probably 0%, as the other guy said. Note that you are talking about the Eastern Roman Empire, which ceased to exist in 1453 - the Western one (which is closer to what people today imagine when saying 'Roman Empire') fell in 476. They would have probably collapsed in the following years under the Ottomans. But you can 'hope' for a new Sacred Roman Empire guided by Merkel
On August 06 2015 11:11 Fecalfeast wrote: So I didn't start drinking coffee until I turned 20, 5 years ago, and since then the habit has gotten progressively worse. What constitutes serious dependency? On a normal day where I'm not actively trying to stay up late by chugging coffee I probably have about 10 cups a day if I were to pour all the drive-thru coffees and americanos into one container with my morning cups
Damn Bill Murray, you a real caffeine junkie. Espresso, in your Americanos out does your normal cuppa by a fair bit in terms of caffeine though.
This is completely misleading. No shit for the same amount of volume, pure espresso has massively more caffeine than coffee. Nobody goes and fucking chugs 26 ounces of espresso. A shot of espresso is one ounce, one.
For Starbucks for example:
A 16 ounce drip coffee has 330mg of caffeine. A 16 ounce latte has 150mg A 16 ounce Americano has 225mg.
I chugged six ounces of pure espresso to get superpowers once. I don't drink coffee. It was a good time.
If the Sack of Constantinople never happened, how likely would the Roman Empire have been to survive to today?
Probably 0%, as the other guy said. Note that you are talking about the Eastern Roman Empire, which ceased to exist in 1453 - the Western one (which is closer to what people today imagine when saying 'Roman Empire') fell in 476. They would have probably collapsed in the following years under the Ottomans. But you can 'hope' for a new Sacred Roman Empire guided by Merkel
Byzantium is Rome, screw Gibbon.
I could see a fourth Reich forming in some combination of the first two, it's not that far of a stretch. But it's not Roman. The Ottomans are more Roman than any of the Reichs were.
On August 06 2015 11:11 Fecalfeast wrote: So I didn't start drinking coffee until I turned 20, 5 years ago, and since then the habit has gotten progressively worse. What constitutes serious dependency? On a normal day where I'm not actively trying to stay up late by chugging coffee I probably have about 10 cups a day if I were to pour all the drive-thru coffees and americanos into one container with my morning cups
Damn Bill Murray, you a real caffeine junkie. Espresso, in your Americanos out does your normal cuppa by a fair bit in terms of caffeine though.
This is completely misleading. No shit for the same amount of volume, pure espresso has massively more caffeine than coffee. Nobody goes and fucking chugs 26 ounces of espresso. A shot of espresso is one ounce, one.
For Starbucks for example:
A 16 ounce drip coffee has 330mg of caffeine. A 16 ounce latte has 150mg A 16 ounce Americano has 225mg.
I chugged six ounces of pure espresso to get superpowers once. I don't drink coffee. It was a good time.
If the Sack of Constantinople never happened, how likely would the Roman Empire have been to survive to today?
Probably 0%, as the other guy said. Note that you are talking about the Eastern Roman Empire, which ceased to exist in 1453 - the Western one (which is closer to what people today imagine when saying 'Roman Empire') fell in 476. They would have probably collapsed in the following years under the Ottomans. But you can 'hope' for a new Sacred Roman Empire guided by Merkel
Byzantium is Rome, screw Gibbon.
I could see a fourth Reich forming in some combination of the first two, it's not that far of a stretch. But it's not Roman. The Ottomans are more Roman than any of the Reichs were.
Yeah. Like everybody in the Latin Chrisitian world I always kinda thought the RE died with the sack of Rome. Then I learned there was this thing called the Roman Empire that actually just kept going afterwards, as a continuous political entity to ancient Rome, and which was only destroyed in 1453. Same name, same laws, same leadership structure, same court intrigue, and the whole lot. The whole "Byzantine" term as a way of distancing it from what it was (like calling American soldiers "Union" in the case of the Civil War). There's a reason the Muslims always called the Greeks "Rum" and the Latin Christians "Franks." One was the heirs of the Roman Empire, one was a bunch of barbarians who had destroyed the Empire before converting to its religion.
On August 06 2015 11:11 Fecalfeast wrote: So I didn't start drinking coffee until I turned 20, 5 years ago, and since then the habit has gotten progressively worse. What constitutes serious dependency? On a normal day where I'm not actively trying to stay up late by chugging coffee I probably have about 10 cups a day if I were to pour all the drive-thru coffees and americanos into one container with my morning cups
Damn Bill Murray, you a real caffeine junkie. Espresso, in your Americanos out does your normal cuppa by a fair bit in terms of caffeine though.
This is completely misleading. No shit for the same amount of volume, pure espresso has massively more caffeine than coffee. Nobody goes and fucking chugs 26 ounces of espresso. A shot of espresso is one ounce, one.
For Starbucks for example:
A 16 ounce drip coffee has 330mg of caffeine. A 16 ounce latte has 150mg A 16 ounce Americano has 225mg.
I chugged six ounces of pure espresso to get superpowers once. I don't drink coffee. It was a good time.
If the Sack of Constantinople never happened, how likely would the Roman Empire have been to survive to today?
Probably 0%, as the other guy said. Note that you are talking about the Eastern Roman Empire, which ceased to exist in 1453 - the Western one (which is closer to what people today imagine when saying 'Roman Empire') fell in 476. They would have probably collapsed in the following years under the Ottomans. But you can 'hope' for a new Sacred Roman Empire guided by Merkel
Byzantium is Rome, screw Gibbon.
I could see a fourth Reich forming in some combination of the first two, it's not that far of a stretch. But it's not Roman. The Ottomans are more Roman than any of the Reichs were.
Yeah. Like everybody in the Latin Chrisitian world I always kinda thought the RE died with the sack of Rome. Then I learned there was this thing called the Roman Empire that actually just kept going afterwards, as a continuous political entity to ancient Rome, and which was only destroyed in 1453. Same name, same laws, same leadership structure, same court intrigue, and the whole lot. The whole "Byzantine" term as a way of distancing it from what it was (like calling American soldiers "Union" in the case of the Civil War). There's a reason the Muslims always called the Greeks "Rum" and the Latin Christians "Franks." One was the heirs of the Roman Empire, one was a bunch of barbarians who had destroyed the Empire before converting to its religion.
Agreed. Like I remember the way we learned it in school is you've got the Roman Empire, it splits, west falls, east does its thing for a thousand years before it falls, but we don't cover the thousand years after Justinian or even mention their existence. I think we went from there straight to the rise of Islam but they never really explained where all the reconquered territories went when they started talking about the caliphate. Talked about the Holy Roman Empire a lot, but that's about it. And then in AP European history we start going in-depth after it's already done falling and the Ottomans move in.
The 12 Byzantine Rulers podcast by Lars Brownworth is amazing though. It's a great overview of the highs and lows of Byzantine history, and really gets into the empire, what changed from classical Rome, its interactions with the other European and Asian states around it, etc.
Also, didn't the Muslims, specifically the Turks, start calling themselves "Rum" in the end too? There was the Sultanate of Rum, and then Mehmet II crowning himself caesar once he took Constantinople.
On August 07 2015 06:30 Acrofales wrote: To confuse things more, you get the Holy Roman Empire, which had absolutely nothing to do with Rome from start to finish.
Well originally Rome was in the Holy Roman Empire, so it made a little more sense. More than the actual Roman (Byzantine) empire not having it after the 700s or so.
On August 07 2015 06:30 Acrofales wrote: To confuse things more, you get the Holy Roman Empire, which had absolutely nothing to do with Rome from start to finish.
Well originally Rome was in the Holy Roman Empire, so it made a little more sense. More than the actual Roman (Byzantine) empire not having it after the 700s or so.
Err, it was a German king who rode down into Italy to marry some Italian nobility, conquered most of Italy on his way, and kinda forced the pope to crown him emperor. He then deposed the pope (how awesome is that) and installed his buddy in that spot, rode back up to Germany and then the Holy Roman Empire forgot about Rome for the rest of its 700 year (or so) existence.
On August 07 2015 06:30 Acrofales wrote: To confuse things more, you get the Holy Roman Empire, which had absolutely nothing to do with Rome from start to finish.
Well originally Rome was in the Holy Roman Empire, so it made a little more sense. More than the actual Roman (Byzantine) empire not having it after the 700s or so.
Err, it was a German king who rode down into Italy to marry some Italian nobility, conquered most of Italy on his way, and kinda forced the pope to crown him emperor. He then deposed the pope (how awesome is that) and installed his buddy in that spot, rode back up to Germany and then the Holy Roman Empire forgot about Rome for the rest of its 700 year (or so) existence.
Oh. Always thought it was the Italians who left the Germans, never thought it was the other way
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RpWXVQl.png)
