September 1[edit]

Why were the Byzantines unable to hold onto all of Italy and defend it against the Lombards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 03:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When? Where did you read this? Is it homework? Can you link to what you've read? Or do you think we can read your mind? Play a part in your own education. μηδείς (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By destroying the Ostrogothic kingdom, the Byzantines pretty much ended up opening the way for the Lombards. Italy was disunited for the following 1300 years, more or less... AnonMoos (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Italy was symbolically important as the original home of the Empire, but the eastern empire was pretty busy fighting wars everywhere else and didn't have the resources to dedicate to Italy without losing some other territory. While they were fighting the Lombards, they were were fighting the Persians, the Arabs, Slavs, Bulgars, etc. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Italy had been ravaged by a century of back-and-forth warfare, remember that the loss of the Western Empire was long in coming; starting with the century of mismanagement under the last several Western Emperors. If you follow the leadership of the West starting in about 400, there was a never ending string of ineffective, short-term emperors, usurpers, etc. Most were Emperor-in-name-only, they were puppets of Germanic military warlords like Stilicho, Ricimer and Odoacer. Odoacer, when he deposed the last Western Emperor, simply made de jure what had been true de facto for decades by then. Following Odoacer, you have the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Theoderic the Great, another Germanic warlord. The recapture of Italy was brief, really dependent on the unique skills and leadership ability of Justinian I; the reason it fell to the Lombards shortly thereafter is the same reason that it hadn't been controllable for about a century before that: low population density, low resources, and distance from the economic heart of the Empire, which had been Constantinople for a very long time. The resources necessary for the Empire to take and hold the West during the Migration Period were just far too great compared to what they gained by keeping it. It was a resource sink, and only pride and "honor" were served by keeping it. Pragmatic emperors after Justinian simply recognized the situation for what it was; not worth it. --Jayron32 11:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a somewhat similar situation occurred later during the Crusades, where Jerusalem and the Holy Land was the prize, rather than Rome and Italy. That is, Crusaders could manage the resources to retake a portion, but maintaining that level of resources permanently, to hold it, was another question. StuRat (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Plague of Justinian weakened the Byzantines a lot.John Z (talk)

The Byzantine Empire was in financial trouble by the 560s. The Plague of Justinian decreased the Empire's population and created manpower shortages for both the army and the labor force. Meanwhile, Justinian maintained peace with the Sasanian Empire by paying annual subsidies to the Shah, and further emptying the imperial coffers. Following the standstill of the Lazic War (541-562), the Byzantines agreed to pay the annual sum of 30,000 golden solidi as a subsidy to the Sasanians.

Empress Sophia, who was largely in charge of the economy following Justinian's death, inherited a difficult situation. "Having inherited an exhausted treasury, they set about repaying the various debts and loans of Justinian to bankers and money-lenders. According to Theophanes, Sophia was in charge of the examination of the financial records and the payment; thus restoring the credibility of the royal treasury. The imperial couple was trying to cut down on expenses and increase the treasury reserves. Evagrius, John of Ephesus, Gregory of Tours and Paul the Deacon all mention it while accusing both Justin and Sophia of greed. She did research their debts and repaid them, which gained her a lot of contemporary praise."

In order to raise an army for defense, you have to pay for it. A poor economy does not help. Dimadick (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing a commercial for something. It featured a Polynesian setting. In the commercial, a woman is seen styling another lady's hair. The woman is wearing a Polynesian costume. The lady is wearing a different one. What are those people?2604:2000:7113:9D00:E489:B375:36EB:1AC5 (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a youtube video for the commercial, perhaps we could help? --Jayron32 11:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively you could go read our 16 Articles listed in Category:Polynesian clothing to find what you seek. --Kharon (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't exactly remember the product being advertised. But do I remember the commercial was in a Polynesian setting.2604:2000:7113:9D00:A8B8:1AD6:A37A:10F3 (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found something. The woman styling the lady's hair is wearing a pareo over a bikini. The lady is wearing a muumuu. Would that help?2604:2000:7113:9D00:A8B8:1AD6:A37A:10F3 (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does STEM education include foreign languages, history, psychology, art? When the US government strives to improve the STEM education for economic reasons, can it accomplish this by excluding the fields mentioned above? B8-tome (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NO. STEM. If you can edit WP, you can READ IT. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No to the first, second or both? B8-tome (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is some foreign languages, history, psychology and art inside the standard lessons of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. You could of course strip all mentioned away just like you could feed everyone only with some tasteless, colorless nutrient paste and pure water. I am very certain tho that no government in the world would want that for its subjects. --Kharon (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The STEM fields are what leads to technological progress, which in turn drives economic growth, and those are fields where the US is deficient. A knowledge of art is nice, but it won't keep the US ahead of the competition. I'd much rather be able to shoot down north Korean nukes than to evaluate the artistic value of the paint scheme on the missiles: "The missile decor is minimalist, with a powerful use of negative space, while the subject matter...BLAM !" StuRat (talk)

Blam! Bus stop (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1st question: foreign languages, history, psychology, art?

• not directly (but might be part of education), the federal gov has funded research in computational linguistics, second language acquisition, sociolinguistics, and translation, among other fields.
• no, but maybe they should include it to understand the sputnik crisis and to question whether the US is behind other nations in STEM or whether there is a shortage in STEM education in the US.
• yes (many psychology degrees are included: Cognitive Psychology and Psycholinguistics, Comparative Psychology, Developmental and Child Psychology, or Behavioral Sciences),
• not directly (but design is in).

Source, | degree list

2nd question: its stated goal is to spur innovation. They do not claim the fields above should be ignored.Hofhof (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

STEM education refers to technical disciplines such as mathematics, but most universities require liberal arts classes to graduate (I was a math major, and I took a full year of world history, a year of English literature--my favorite classes--and 2 years of Latin). I think the renewed focus on STEM is meant to encourage people who wouldn't otherwise think to major in a technical field to give it consideration. OldTimeNESter (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]