Org Mobile Site
So, his son and daughter married each other then? 
...
Maion
Maion
What is the point of your post? It certainly isn't (and wasn't) the norm, but it isn't paradoxical enough to warrant "".
And please, for sanity's sake, use appropriate titles when starting a thread.
Foot
".And please, for sanity's sake, use appropriate titles when starting a thread.
Foot
well he had more than 1 wife, so probably they were only half-brother and half-sister *LooooL*
well look at the ptolomies, imo they ar MUCH worse!
Political marriage or actual Genetic sexual attraction...dangs
In all fairness, it's not fair to judge ANY culture by the norms of one. Just as we may find some cultures past and present barbaric and uncivilised, they may think the same as us.
The things that seperate different cultures are their values and morals more than anything else. Just because Incest is consider heinous now doesn't make it so then. If it wasn't for the bible, we might still be doing it (except in Norfolk where they are still doing it
)! You may marry someone for their attractiveness and think nothing of the shame it could bring your family by marrying beneath yourself. Pyrrhos may find that appalling, but now it would be romantic and a good thing. Let them marry whoever they want!
The things that seperate different cultures are their values and morals more than anything else. Just because Incest is consider heinous now doesn't make it so then. If it wasn't for the bible, we might still be doing it (except in Norfolk where they are still doing it
)! You may marry someone for their attractiveness and think nothing of the shame it could bring your family by marrying beneath yourself. Pyrrhos may find that appalling, but now it would be romantic and a good thing. Let them marry whoever they want!Originally Posted by We shall fwee...Wodewick:
In all fairness, it's not fair to judge ANY culture by the norms of one. Just as we may find some cultures past and present barbaric and uncivilised, they may think the same as us.
The things that seperate different cultures are their values and morals more than anything else. Just because Incest is consider heinous now doesn't make it so then. If it wasn't for the bible, we might still be doing it (except in Norfolk where they are still doing it )! You may marry someone for their attractiveness and think nothing of the shame it could bring your family by marrying beneath yourself. Pyrrhos may find that appalling, but now it would be romantic and a good thing. Let them marry whoever they want!
Errm, they were doing it in Bible, in case you didn't know. The gizzer named Noah got screwed by all his three daughters as long as I member.In all fairness, it's not fair to judge ANY culture by the norms of one. Just as we may find some cultures past and present barbaric and uncivilised, they may think the same as us.
The things that seperate different cultures are their values and morals more than anything else. Just because Incest is consider heinous now doesn't make it so then. If it wasn't for the bible, we might still be doing it (except in Norfolk where they are still doing it
)! You may marry someone for their attractiveness and think nothing of the shame it could bring your family by marrying beneath yourself. Pyrrhos may find that appalling, but now it would be romantic and a good thing. Let them marry whoever they want!I think we are not doing it because we can distinguish between normal and [messed] up.
and because it leads to retards if done too often -> habsburg
but youre right, it is not to us to judje if people who lived 2000 years before us were good or bad. they would probably find A LOT of stuff to detest in our society.
but youre right, it is not to us to judje if people who lived 2000 years before us were good or bad. they would probably find A LOT of stuff to detest in our society.
Originally Posted by :
and because it leads to retards if done too often
No, it doesn't.and because it leads to retards if done too often
Pyrrhos' daughter was married to the tyrant of Syracuse. I'm not quite sure on his sons though.
scuse hax, but doesnt inbreeding eventually produce children who are retarded (physically or mentally) after long enough? im not quite sure about the specifics, but i swear he had a point saying that
I seem to remember something about hemophilia, but I'm not really sure if that really has to do with inbreeding
No, it doesn’t produce retarded offspring, but it does increase the likelihood of them receiving genetic illnesses caused by recessive traits. Most genetic illnesses are caused by a mutation at a specific allele. For example, if a random mutation occurs at a specific allele in a royal bloodline, it isn’t really an issue as long as each individual has at least one good copy of the gene, but inbreeding increases the likelihood of having two copies of the bad gene and thusly the disease.
Originally Posted by Tretii:
Errm, they were doing it in Bible, in case you didn't know. The gizzer named Noah got screwed by all his three daughters as long as I member.
I think we are not doing it because we can distinguish between normal and [messed] up.
I think it was actually his sons...which is a bit more disturbing.Errm, they were doing it in Bible, in case you didn't know. The gizzer named Noah got screwed by all his three daughters as long as I member.
I think we are not doing it because we can distinguish between normal and [messed] up.
But parent-child incest is WAYYYYY worse than brother sister incest.
Why do we really care who they married? They married and had some fun. That's history. RTW engine doesn't represent it because it's usually considered unacceptable in modern society.
The RTW engine is quite ridiculous in that regard. Women giving birth from 12 till 50... No divorces and no re-marrying after death of one. I think that part of RTW was programmed by some ultra-conservative christian from the "real America"...
In MTW you could marry your princesses to your sons. I once tried it out of spontanious boredom and it worked. The heir would get a living-secretly-in-incest-trait or something like that which had bad consequences if it got public.
In antiquity marriage wasn't about sexual attraction or love. It was about business and politics.
In antiquity marriage wasn't about sexual attraction or love. It was about business and politics.
I'm pretty sure incest wasn't acceptable back then either. At least, Oedipus didn't seem to think so.
He called his kids abominations which no man would want to look upon
.
He called his kids abominations which no man would want to look upon
.Originally Posted by Sumskilz:
No, it doesn’t produce retarded offspring, but it does increase the likelihood of them receiving genetic illnesses caused by recessive traits. Most genetic illnesses are caused by a mutation at a specific allele. For example, if a random mutation occurs at a specific allele in a royal bloodline, it isn’t really an issue as long as each individual has at least one good copy of the gene, but inbreeding increases the likelihood of having two copies of the bad gene and thusly the disease.
yes, about the gene thing. an example is that I have heard that due to inbreeding Charles V holy Roman emperor, had a slightly deformed/protruding chin that he and some of his predecessors carried.No, it doesn’t produce retarded offspring, but it does increase the likelihood of them receiving genetic illnesses caused by recessive traits. Most genetic illnesses are caused by a mutation at a specific allele. For example, if a random mutation occurs at a specific allele in a royal bloodline, it isn’t really an issue as long as each individual has at least one good copy of the gene, but inbreeding increases the likelihood of having two copies of the bad gene and thusly the disease.
Originally Posted by We shall fwee...Wodewick:
In all fairness, it's not fair to judge ANY culture by the norms of one. Just as we may find some cultures past and present barbaric and uncivilised, they may think the same as us.
The things that seperate different cultures are their values and morals more than anything else. Just because Incest is consider heinous now doesn't make it so then.
In all fairness, it's not fair to judge ANY culture by the norms of one. Just as we may find some cultures past and present barbaric and uncivilised, they may think the same as us.
The things that seperate different cultures are their values and morals more than anything else. Just because Incest is consider heinous now doesn't make it so then.
I couldn't have said it better myself. We really don't have the right to judge what people thousands of years ago did, and whether it was right or wrong. We would just be implying our own modern ideas and morals to them, and twisting the image. I like to view the past and history in general, as it was then, with no bias or bull in it. You also, have to remember, Pyrrhos lived in a time before Judeo-Christian beliefs were dominant in the west. It was a whole different world back then.
Yeah, but desert is right. Incest was not accepted back then either. Since such weddings among brother and sister did not produce any outrage, I think one can surely say that those marriages were only political in nature.
too true there PP, it's kinda stupid when people read about incest/ homosexuals or other "odd" things in the past and get all creeped out by it. after all, times have changed, so have morals and such
Originally Posted by Pontius Pilate:
yes, about the gene thing. an example is that I have heard that due to inbreeding Charles V holy Roman emperor, had a slightly deformed/protruding chin that he and some of his predecessors carried.
Charles II of Spain was even worse:yes, about the gene thing. an example is that I have heard that due to inbreeding Charles V holy Roman emperor, had a slightly deformed/protruding chin that he and some of his predecessors carried.
Originally Posted by :
Charles II was the last of the Spanish Habsburg dynasty, physically disabled, mentally retarded and disfigured (possibly through affliction with mandibular prognathism — he was unable to chew). His tongue was so large that his speech could barely be understood, and he frequently drooled. He may also have suffered from the endocrine disease acromegaly. He was treated as virtually an infant in arms until he was ten years old. Fearing the frail child would be overtaxed, he was left entirely uneducated, and his indolence was indulged to such an extent that he was not even expected to be clean. When his half-brother John of Austria the Younger, a natural son of Philip IV, obtained power by exiling the queen mother from court, he insisted that at least the king's hair should be combed.
Poor guy :(Charles II was the last of the Spanish Habsburg dynasty, physically disabled, mentally retarded and disfigured (possibly through affliction with mandibular prognathism — he was unable to chew). His tongue was so large that his speech could barely be understood, and he frequently drooled. He may also have suffered from the endocrine disease acromegaly. He was treated as virtually an infant in arms until he was ten years old. Fearing the frail child would be overtaxed, he was left entirely uneducated, and his indolence was indulged to such an extent that he was not even expected to be clean. When his half-brother John of Austria the Younger, a natural son of Philip IV, obtained power by exiling the queen mother from court, he insisted that at least the king's hair should be combed.
Originally Posted by Tretii:
The gizzer named Noah
Poll: Typo or best pun ever?The gizzer named Noah
(Sorry, it was stronger than me.)
-Glee
Originally Posted by Dutchhoplite:
Charles II of Spain was even worse:
Poor guy :(
Ferdinand I and Charles II are my favourite Habsburgs.Charles II of Spain was even worse:
Poor guy :(
Hatshepsut (sp) anyone? Or the Bourbonic dynasty of Spain?
Originally Posted by Tretii:
Errm, they were doing it in Bible, in case you didn't know. The gizzer named Noah got screwed by all his three daughters as long as I member.
I think we are not doing it because we can distinguish between normal and [messed] up.
There's of course the theory that people used to be genetically stronger than we are now, because naturally we all degrade. So in that case Noah's daughters would have gotten healthy kids! In any case, it's only until Moses that the Bible comes up with rules against incest. There's no other way if Adam and Eve really existed, you know. (:Errm, they were doing it in Bible, in case you didn't know. The gizzer named Noah got screwed by all his three daughters as long as I member.
I think we are not doing it because we can distinguish between normal and [messed] up.
Originally Posted by Intrepid Adventurer:
There's of course the theory that people used to be genetically stronger than we are now, because naturally we all degrade. So in that case Noah's daughters would have gotten healthy kids! In any case, it's only until Moses that the Bible comes up with rules against incest. There's no other way if Adam and Eve really existed, you know. (:
Genes aren't "strong" or "weak", only recessive and dominant. Sumskilz' post sums it up nicely.There's of course the theory that people used to be genetically stronger than we are now, because naturally we all degrade. So in that case Noah's daughters would have gotten healthy kids! In any case, it's only until Moses that the Bible comes up with rules against incest. There's no other way if Adam and Eve really existed, you know. (:
-Glee
Romans thought it was disgusting, in practise it wasn't so much the same IIRC.
Some people think when they are kings they are divine, and when it comes to the Myths.... God's love their incest.
Some people think when they are kings they are divine, and when it comes to the Myths.... God's love their incest.
Well, the gods really didn't have anyone else to marry (not counting mortals) - They're all one big family.
Just wanted to make some things clear.
First of all, incest does not necessarily lead to retarded children. It's just preferred for two persons of different families to marry, because their children get different genes when the zygote is formed. So basically, if two brethren of first cousins marry and get children, their kids have a greater chance of getting the same genes, which in not good in most cases. There are cases of incest where their children are absolutely fine whatsoever. That's some basic genetics.
Secondly, in the ancient world (Greece, that is) marriage was a tool and had no emotional meaning. Women where wed to men with the sole purpose of producing good (male) citizens, not because the couple had feelings for each other. There are cases of couples being truly in love though, or rather getting to love each other in the course of time. But marriage was also used as a political tool, for example alliances where formed when nations allowed their royalty to intermarry. In many cases, women where also wed to close relatives because in that way her dowry would remain within the family.
Anyway just my two cents here.
Maion
First of all, incest does not necessarily lead to retarded children. It's just preferred for two persons of different families to marry, because their children get different genes when the zygote is formed. So basically, if two brethren of first cousins marry and get children, their kids have a greater chance of getting the same genes, which in not good in most cases. There are cases of incest where their children are absolutely fine whatsoever. That's some basic genetics.
Secondly, in the ancient world (Greece, that is) marriage was a tool and had no emotional meaning. Women where wed to men with the sole purpose of producing good (male) citizens, not because the couple had feelings for each other. There are cases of couples being truly in love though, or rather getting to love each other in the course of time. But marriage was also used as a political tool, for example alliances where formed when nations allowed their royalty to intermarry. In many cases, women where also wed to close relatives because in that way her dowry would remain within the family.
Anyway just my two cents here.
Maion
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO