| ▲ | csomar 3 days ago |
| Cities had guards. There was no border pre-1900 because there was no tech to enforce it. If you moved from one place to another, you were mostly at the whims of thieves and pirates. |
|
| ▲ | Alupis 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Pre-1900? Are you aware of how many wars were fought around the world just in the 1800's regarding border and territory disputes? |
|
| ▲ | ahmeneeroe-v2 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Insanely misinformed. What kind of tech do you imagine is needed? Have you heard of Hadrian's Wall? The Great Wall of China? Or more generally: forts, outposts, coastal batteries, scouts, patrols? |
| |
| ▲ | 9rx 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > What kind of tech do you imagine is needed? Agriculture, at very least. Before we created that tech you'd be way too busy trying to find something to eat to have time to stand around defending artificial borders. 1900 BCE mightn't be perfectly accurate, but close enough for a stupid comment on the internet. | | |
| ▲ | codetrotter 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > 1900 BCE Nothing in the comment that we are talking about indicates that "pre-1900" is referring to 1900 BCE. It sounds squarely like it's referring to 1900 AD to me. Which is why people are saying it's ridiculous. | | |
| ▲ | 9rx 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > It sounds squarely like it's referring to 1900 AD to me. What part of "If you moved from one place to another, you were mostly at the whims of thieves and pirates." suggests 1900 CE to you? Have you never looked at a history book? | | |
| ▲ | codetrotter 3 days ago | parent [-] | | There was plenty of pirates around still in the 1800s AD. Aka "pre-1900" AD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy | | |
| ▲ | 9rx 3 days ago | parent [-] | | There are still plenty of pirates around to this very day; a "significant issue" according to your own link. Despite that, the aforementioned statement doesn't make me think it has anything to do with today. What, specifically, makes you think it has something to do with the time leading up to 1900 CE rather than 1900 BCE? | | |
| ▲ | codetrotter 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > What, specifically, makes you think it has something to do with the time leading up to 1900 CE rather than 1900 BCE Normally when someone says "1900" they are referring to 1900 AD. Unless BCE had already been mentioned, which here it had not. And if they were referring to 1900 BCE they normally would specifically say 1900 BCE. That's why. And furthermore, the parent comment above the one talking about "pre-1900" was talking about modern passports. Why would anyone immediately jump from modern passports to 1900 BCE? That don't make no sense at all. Jumping to 1900 AD however, that does make sense. You see? | | |
| ▲ | 9rx 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Absent of any other context one might reasonably assume "1990" Refers to 1900 CE. But we have additional context, such as: "Cities had guards.", "you were mostly at the whims of thieves and pirates." What in that speaks to 1900 CE over 1900 BCE? There is evidence of pirates in both time periods, so that feature alone isn't telling. But the context doesn't end with that feature in a vacuum, does it? |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | joecool1029 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do you think they will be shocked to find out color wasn't invented in the 1900's? | | |
|
