|
Logiwonk posted:If you had to boil down the reasons for Rome's amazing success as an empire/military power to a couple of bullet points, what would they be? 1) Inclusion. An inclusive society that has balanced its need for labor and conquest with simple concepts of liberty, justice and social advancement. They were Sparta without the broken economics, insane fascism and widespread misery. 2) The Centuriate. Antiquity wasn't running out of great generals or people to follow them. Knowing what to do when you got to the enemy is what mattered, and very often that meant everything from troop discipline to building 6-story siege towers. Centurions did this and more. Roman opponents gave bounties for killing centurtions for a reason. It was because these men could consistently turn farmers and fishermen into world-class heavy infantry in a matter of weeks. Most cultures did not have men like these, and not in this number. The number of veteran centurions would at all times correlate directly with Rome's ability to make war. They were a fascinating mini social class of their own that really didn't have analogues elsewhere. 3) Exceptionalism. Grand Fromage has mentioned this. They thought they wouldn't lose and if they did lose, they didn't give a gently caress. No, really, they really didn't. They'd just keep getting more and more pissed. After Cannae, Rome is just sitting there totally vulnerable and Hannibal is like "surrender!" and the whole city was like "no, gently caress you, Hannibal." Hannibal probably should have gone home at that point. This would be like Truman calling up Japan after the nukes and asking them if they wanted to surrender, and Japan being all like "No, why?" In the First Punic War, the Romans lost ~100,000 men in a day. A DAY. That was 10% of the male population. This is one medium-sized city and it's allies, remember. They lost those men when 250 ships went to the bottom in a storm. So they built another fleet. Immediately. In Rome, what passed for courage would today be deemed utter psychosis but it brought them victory time and time again. At first because they'd keep gutting it out long after everyone else was done, then later on because most sane people were too terrified to find out if they were bluffing.
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:48 |
|
|
Puukko naamassa posted:Most of Rome's allies and clients stayed loyal to them (Capua IIRC being the biggest exception, and even they severed ties with Rome only after Cannae), and Romans showed just how stubborn they could be by not suing for peace even after getting the poo poo kicked out of them. They toughed it out, and eventually Hannibal had to leave Italy with nothing to show for his efforts except a bunch of thoroughly traumatized Romans. The big question though is was Rome broken enough after Cannae that they would have given up the siege? The Romans were devastated after Cannae, and if Hannibal had immediately marched on Rome, the populace may have overwhelmingly asked for peace out of sheer terror. Rome had never been beaten like that, and he gave them a respite when he probably should not have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
physeter posted:2) The Centuriate. Antiquity wasn't running out of great generals or people to follow them. Knowing what to do when you got to the enemy is what mattered, and very often that meant everything from troop discipline to building 6-story siege towers. Centurions did this and more. Roman opponents gave bounties for killing centurtions for a reason. It was because these men could consistently turn farmers and fishermen into world-class heavy infantry in a matter of weeks. Most cultures did not have men like these, and not in this number. The number of veteran centurions would at all times correlate directly with Rome's ability to make war. They were a fascinating mini social class of their own that really didn't have analogues elsewhere. Yeah, Rome figured out how important NCO's are before anyone else, really. Backbone of the Legions. I'd also add Adaptation to that list. When Romans saw something that worked they didn't pass it off as silly barbarian stupidity, they adopted it. If their enemy kicked their rear end, they looked at what they did and then either duplicated it or devised a new strategy. When the times changed, Rome changed with them (until to a point of course, but no state has lasted as long).
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 23:28
|
|
|
euphronius posted:
Like being played by BRIAN BLESSED in "I, Claudius".
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
During Trajan's time, how were legionnaire's compensated? Was it all cash or did they still receive land (obviously in the conquered provinces and no longer Italy)? Also, how did the legates and other higher ups get compensated besides cash? Obviously titles, etc.?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 00:50
|
|
|
Girafro posted:Anyways, how did the Byzantine empire come to be? What differentiates it from the Roman Empire? Nothing. Byzantine Empire is a name invented by later historians, it has no real value. The culture does change significantly but it's a state that lasts 2,200 years, so of course it changes. It changed a lot in the classical Roman period too. Baron Porkface posted:Is there any corporate institution other than the Papacy and patriarchies that has survived from ~150A.D.? Not that I'm aware of. Other than the Illuminati.  euphronius posted:Caesar only had proconsular authority at that time in Gaul. He had not authority to lead a legion in Italy (since he was not a consul). There was also a massive taboo about bringing armed men into the sacred boundary of Rome. The first taboo, you could say--Romulus kills Remus over it in the legend. The Romans were highly superstitious so this mattered a lot, but fortunately for Caesar, the taboo had already been broken by Marius and Sulla. But yeah, the Rubicon was the boundary of the province and Caesar had no authority to cross it with an army. And since the senate was busy outlawing him and trying to get him out of Gaul it was pretty clear what he was up to. Per posted:Why is Marcus Antonius' name changed to Mark Antony in English texts? I can't immediately think of that happening to any other names. Is it Shakespeare's fault? It just happens with some of the names, I don't know why. Pompey's another prominent example, the actual name is Pompeius. I don't think it's Shakespeare's fault but it might be. Shakespeare!  TEBOW 3 16 posted:Hell, I have a question to contribute: When Hannibal was stomping everybody's poo poo in Italy why didn't he march on Rome? There wasn't really a force available at the time to contend with him. Nobody knows. One of history's mysteries. Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:During Trajan's time, how were legionnaire's compensated? Was it all cash or did they still receive land (obviously in the conquered provinces and no longer Italy)? Cash and loot was always good. Slaves, for yourself or to sell. Retired legionnaires still got land grants, that didn't change. The retirement benefits were very good, it was how they recruited a lot of people. If you were a non-citizen provincial, you could join the legion and serve for 25 years. Upon your retirement you were granted a plot of land, a large discharge bonus, a pension (unclear whether you got land and a pension or could choose), and you and your family received Roman citizenship. Legates got titles and advancement in rank, along with the piles of loot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 01:53
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Nothing. Byzantine Empire is a name invented by later historians, it has no real value. The culture does change significantly but it's a state that lasts 2,200 years, so of course it changes. It changed a lot in the classical Roman period too. I thought non-citizens could only serve in the Auxiliaries?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 02:02
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:I thought non-citizens could only serve in the Auxiliaries? Yes, you're right. Sometimes it's hard to distinguish the groups, especially the auxilia cohortes. We also get lazy and call the whole army the legion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 02:06
|
|
|
On the subject of payment, how much truth is there to the assertion that wages were paid in salt, and that's how we got the word salary?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 02:15
|
|
|
Walliard posted:On the subject of payment, how much truth is there to the assertion that wages were paid in salt, and that's how we got the word salary? It's not true. Salt was part of the rations. Pliny the Elder says it as an off-hand comment in one of his histories (and he claims it as an old defunct practice even when he's writing) and it got blown out of proportion. They were paid in coin. There is a linguistic connection between salt (salarium) and salary but it's unclear where it comes from. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Jun 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 02:17
|
|
|
Agrippa is such an unmitigated badass. Not only was he probably the best general and naval officer of the era, but he was likely the best architect/engineer in the empire  Also how the gently caress are you guys not mentioning Maecenas? He was basically Octavian's director of communication and invented early propaganda. He had such vanguard theories as letting the plebs criticize the princeps to placate them instead of just murdering them outright. Paterculus posted:"of sleepless vigilance in critical emergencies, far-seeing and knowing how to act, but in his relaxation from business more luxurious and effeminate than a woman." FizFashizzle fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Jun 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 02:32
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Agrippa is such an unmitigated badass. Agrippa is a strong candidate for the most capable single person in Roman history. Any ruler at any point in history would be lucky to have him as his right hand man. Augustus could not have achieved nearly as much as he did without him. I'd go as far as to say that Agrippa was just as important for the foundation of the principate as Augustus. Augustus was brilliant, but Agrippa got poo poo done.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 02:36
|
|
|
The best thing about Agrippa is there's absolutely no comparison to him throughout roman history. he won all of augustus' battles for him and never once challenged the throne. Anyone with a tenth of his achievements in the 3rd century would be marching for rome. Assuming he doesn't prop up Octavian and takes control for himself (through a bunch of crazy poo poo that would have had to happen), he'd probably be only behind Trajan in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 02:42
|
|
|
I'm a huge Rome nerd myself, mostly the principate but the already-mentioned History of Rome podcast gave me a growing interest for Honorius. Could someone who knows the later half of the western empire better than me attempt to present a clear outline of just who all these puppeteers pulling the poor idiot-emperors strings are? I lost track round-about the time the incest-rumors with Galla Placidia start!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
Paxicon posted:I'm a huge Rome nerd myself, mostly the principate but the already-mentioned History of Rome podcast gave me a growing interest for Honorius. Could someone who knows the later half of the western empire better than me attempt to present a clear outline of just who all these puppeteers pulling the poor idiot-emperors strings are? I lost track round-about the time the incest-rumors with Galla Placidia start! There's like a billion of them. Also, the gooniest emperor was almost certainly Claudius. He most likely had aspergers and only survived various purges because everyone thought he was retarded. The only time he could talk was when he was confined to the rules of public discourse. In private conversation he was a stuttering fool. He got in trouble with his family for publishing a history of the Julio-Claudians which was probably a little too honest. He got murdered by his wife.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 02:49
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:There's like a billion of them. How can he be goony if he had a wife, let alone contact with females?  Did any Emperors try to create a "Pure" line (via incest) and pass down the Emperor ship to their "pure" son?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:How can he be goony if he had a wife, let alone contact with females? Nothing as blatant as Commodus in Gladiator but the Romans didn't really understand genetics per se and if you go through the marriage lines, especially with the Julio Claudian line, a lot of that was kissing cousins. Keep in mind though that marriage was as powerful a political tool as there was, so OFFICIALLY a lot of the heirs weren't incestuous. Even back then straight up incest was considered a crime against nature, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 02:56
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Did any Emperors try to create a "Pure" line (via incest) and pass down the Emperor ship to their "pure" son? Eeeh... Yes/No/Maybe/But. The Juleo-Claudians were crazy for keeping it all in the family, thanks to Augustus and Livia setting up marriage contracts 2-3 generations ahead of time as well as legitimacy reasons. Claudius married Agripinilla (His niece) mainly for image reasons. Nero was married to Claudius daughter Octavia and then later tried to remarry a SECOND daughter of Claudius - This was mostly an image thing as I see it. ("See, we're a happy family! Happy! What? Collapsing roofs and poison 'shrooms? Nonsense!"). Everyone knows about Caligula and his sisters, but Suetonius was the G.R.R. Martin of his time and so cant finish a sentence without incest, rape or food being involved. Vespasian allegedly also had some half-baked scheme to marry Domitian to Titus daughter, but luckily that particular atrocity never got underway. Mostly I think we can blame the constant incest-talk on the roman senatorial-class and their love of gossip. Marriage in Rome was really a legal contract first and foremost, so it does make a kind of sake to keep all that inheritance circulating in the ol' family fund. EDIT: Spelling am hard sumtime
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
So what's the deal with the Holy Roman Empire? Considering it was made up of mostly Germanic kingdoms and Rome had become the seat of Catholicism, how did power shift from Italy to the Germans like that? How does Bohemia, Austria, and Burgundy manage to become such huge players in the empire? (I know this is much, much farther on, but I'm curious how the Roman empire effectively moved from being Italian to being predominantly German.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
Why did they even bother with that "lets hang out in Ravenna" buisness?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 04:06
|
|
|
Ravenna was easily defensible. Those were all puppet emps that lived there anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 04:07
|
|
|
Then build a doom-fortress in the Alps if defense is what you care about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 04:10
|
|
|
Girafro posted:So what's the deal with the Holy Roman Empire? Considering it was made up of mostly Germanic kingdoms and Rome had become the seat of Catholicism, how did power shift from Italy to the Germans like that? How does Bohemia, Austria, and Burgundy manage to become such huge players in the empire? (I know this is much, much farther on, but I'm curious how the Roman empire effectively moved from being Italian to being predominantly German.) That's a completely separate thing and not really related to the Roman Empire that's being discussed here, if I'm not mistaken. EDIT: Throughout history a handful of different groups have claimed that they're the continuation of the Roman Empire, or they're the next Rome, I think the HRE is one of those. Another example is the Russian Empire which called itself the third Rome, and named it's leaders Tsar which is a Russian form of the word Caesar. Modern Day Hercules fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Jun 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 04:10
|
|
|
Girafro posted:So what's the deal with the Holy Roman Empire? Considering it was made up of mostly Germanic kingdoms and Rome had become the seat of Catholicism, how did power shift from Italy to the Germans like that? How does Bohemia, Austria, and Burgundy manage to become such huge players in the empire? (I know this is much, much farther on, but I'm curious how the Roman empire effectively moved from being Italian to being predominantly German.) This is going to cause a bit of bickering I'm sure, but the Holy Roman Empire isn't really the Roman Empire... An old joke goes that the HRE "Isn't Roman, Isn't an Empire and certainly isn't Holy". I present to you the shortest and most inaccurate version possible : Traditionally we say the Western Roman Empire collapses in 476 A.D. when Romulus Augustulus is deposed. The Eastern Emperor becomes nominal de-jure Emperor of the western empire with German kings ruling 'in his name' (Altough 100% independant.) Flash forward a couple of centuries. The Eastern Empress and the Pope get into a slap-fight, while said Pope is chilling at Charlemagnes court. While Charlemagne is praying, the pope slaps a crown on his head and declares him Emperor while he wasnt looking. Charlemagne sighs and goes about founding the Holy Roman Empire, which was simply a new name for he Frankish Kingdom consisting mostly of modern day france, north italy, west germany and northern spain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
Girafro posted:So what's the deal with the Holy Roman Empire? Considering it was made up of mostly Germanic kingdoms and Rome had become the seat of Catholicism, how did power shift from Italy to the Germans like that? How does Bohemia, Austria, and Burgundy manage to become such huge players in the empire? (I know this is much, much farther on, but I'm curious how the Roman empire effectively moved from being Italian to being predominantly German.) I really like the quote that the HRE wasn't Holy, Roman nor an Empire. e: goon above beat me by 15 seconds 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 04:12
|
|
|
The ROmans did build a doom fortress in Constantinople. Probably one of the biggest reasons the east lasted so long.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 04:12
|
|
|
Paxicon posted:This is going to cause a bit of bickering I'm sure, but the Holy Roman Empire isn't really the Roman Empire... An old joke goes that the HRE "Isn't Roman, Isn't an Empire and certainly isn't Holy". Alright, makes sense. So it was basically just a sort of dick waving competition where the name was used just to be a one up then? Also I didn't know France was a part of the HRE? I know parts of it were like Burgundy and Bar but I didn't know France west of those two was a member state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
Girafro posted:So what's the deal with the Holy Roman Empire? Considering it was made up of mostly Germanic kingdoms and Rome had become the seat of Catholicism, how did power shift from Italy to the Germans like that? How does Bohemia, Austria, and Burgundy manage to become such huge players in the empire? (I know this is much, much farther on, but I'm curious how the Roman empire effectively moved from being Italian to being predominantly German.) Northern France and most of Germany were backwater forests until the fall of the western empire, but the Germanic tribes were in ascent while Italy was in decline (the reasons for the latter are numerous, but constant warfare, declining economic importance and the disintegration of secular authority all played part), and eventually the kingdom of the Franks became the top player in European politics. The Pope had gently caress all power at this point, but when Charlemagne saved him once from being killed by some Roman nobles, he got the brilliant idea of crowning him emperor, thus establishing a precedent of Pope having the authority to crowning emperors, and the west having its own imperial legacy too, as a big gently caress you to Constantinople. Charlemagne's sons and successors began to fight over his lands, and the imperial title passed back and forth between West Francia (France) and East Francia (Germany), until from the 900s onwards it became established as a German and/or Italian title, and France became a kingdom of its own with little involvement in affairs of the HRE. As there were no continentally important lords in Italy for most of the time, the throne tended to remain in Germany, but that wasn't a steadfast rule: Frederick II, one of the most important emperors, for example, ruled in Sicily. In retrospect, the HRE's claim to Roman legacy was extremely tenuous, and was based essentially on a mystification of Charlemagne's imperial might, rather than any real spiritual descent from the Roman emperors; but it was a myth that served many powerful lords well. Oddly, the HRE was finally abolished by another cocky romanophile French emperor, Napoleon. Girafro posted:Also I didn't know France was a part of the HRE? I know parts of it were like Burgundy and Bar but I didn't know France west of those two was a member state. The French kings didn't care about the imperial title much, and it only mattered inasmuch as people were willing to pay respect to it. At times, the imperial title was a complete joke: once the king of Castile and a brother of the king of England were hailed as kings of Germany by people simultaneously, but they were never crowned emperor because their claims were ridiculous. There were long periods when no holy roman emperor ruled. Ras Het fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Jun 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 04:18
|
|
|
Pardon my ignorance, and I have heard the "wasn't X, Y, or Z" quote, but wouldn't it still consititute an empire in its own right? Or was the way the kingdoms were ruled not empirical?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:Pardon my ignorance, and I have heard the "wasn't X, Y, or Z" quote, but wouldn't it still consititute an empire in its own right? Or was the way the kingdoms were ruled not empirical? The emperors sometimes held no practical power and couldn't act independent of their nominal vassals at all, I think that's what the "not an empire" part refers to. And of course, "empire" is an arbitrary construct and its meaning depends on context.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
Girafro posted:Alright, makes sense. So it was basically just a sort of dick waving competition where the name was used just to be a one up then? EDIT: I am an idiot who cant get [TIMG] to work, so here you go! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Frankish_Empire_481_to_814-en.svg This is a map of Charlemagnes empire, or rather of the growth of the Frankish Kingdom - I cant tell you when France became an independant entity in the HRE, but the Empire itself did lay a very theoretical claim to the entire Western Roman Empire... Which by the time of the traditional collapse of 476 really wasnt much more than Italy itself. SECOND EDIT: And yes, I'd call it a dick-waving competition that went out of hand. Take the story with a grain of salt, but tradition has it that Charlemagne was literally ambushed with a crown by the pope at prayer-time and crowned on the spot. Alan Smithee posted:Pardon my ignorance, and I have heard the "wasn't X, Y, or Z" quote, but wouldn't it still consititute an empire in its own right? Or was the way the kingdoms were ruled not empirical? Not to derail the thread too badly, but the basic difference people point out as to why it "isn't an empire" is that the HRE was nowhere near as structured and centralized as the old Roman Empire had been. Times had changed and by the time Charlemagne gets crowned, the feudal system with its sometimes very autonomous local lords had superceded any sort of central bureaucracy. Paxicon fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Jun 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 04:30
|
|
|
THe Franks (France) were a german tribe, by the way. They started being active in the Rhine area in the 4th century or so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 04:32
|
|
|
Speaking of Parthia and adapting, wasn't Crassus' failed campaign there clearly the Roman's cunning-plans-not-being-thought-through point? The all powerful legions had a hole and that was being surrounded by a bunch of dudes who could range them with horses. I guess the later Romans had horse archers if I'm not mistaken but did they ever really learn from the mistakes of Crassus? And on the subject of the lost standards, what ever happened to them? I know they had extreme religious importance but they couldn't always be recovered, so did they simply become bullet items on their to-do list alongside "marble up the house" and "unclog the aqueducts"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
They got them back. THe scene is on a famous statue of Augustus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 04:43
|
|
|
I know it's supposed to be symbolic of...something but the baby hanging from his leg is funny without context
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 04:49
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:I know it's supposed to be symbolic of...something but the baby hanging from his leg is funny without context The baby (Eros) is riding a dolphin actually. To art nerd for a moment, when you see a marble with a support strut like that, or like this more blatant one (apologies for the watermark, but it was a good angle):  That means it's a marble copy of a bronze original. Bronze statues could stand up on their own more easily, so you could do poses that would make a marble break under its own weight. When they'd copy it in marble, they added a support column for the weight, and would try to integrate it into the design somehow so it didn't look dumb. Also, something everyone forgets is that all statues were painted originally. Painting was actually considered the higher art, but it just doesn't survive very often so we don't think of it that way. We can reconstruct the painted versions though, this is what the Augustus of Prima Porta would've looked like originally.   Another famous example, this Greek archer.  Nice and classy, right?  Until the DISCO INFERNOOOOOO.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 05:02
|
|
|
Interesting... What evidence are those reconstructions of statue painting based on? Are there paint traces on the original statues? Are those realistic depictions of clothes/uniforms up to some limit, or stylized?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 05:19
|
|
|
Base Emitter posted:Interesting... What evidence are those reconstructions of statue painting based on? Are there paint traces on the original statues? Are those realistic depictions of clothes/uniforms up to some limit, or stylized? I went to an exhibition in Stockholm last year where these were featured. I dont know the exact methods of it, but they have found pigment traces on the statues and have used some sort of method with  lasers to fill in the blanks of the pattern. They're definitely heavily stylized - Your average soldier wouldn't have been able to afford a sock as scarlet as Augustus cloak is in that picture.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 05:25
|
|
|
Base Emitter posted:Interesting... What evidence are those reconstructions of statue painting based on? Are there paint traces on the original statues? Are those realistic depictions of clothes/uniforms up to some limit, or stylized? Paint traces is the only method I've heard of. The paint is gone but you can analyze the surface and find microscopic bits of it that tell you what color it was. There are, very rarely, statues found with some of the paint intact. The Naples Museum of Archaeology has a few bronzes with the eyes still painted in. And no, they're not realistic uniforms. Romans did love bright colors but you just couldn't afford to do all that for a soldier's uniform. And I wasn't clear, the second one is a Greek statue, not Roman. The art is closely related though so you can talk about both at the same time. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Jun 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:48 |
|
|
Twat McTwatterson posted:Rome survived from 753 BCE to 1453 CE. I think you mean 1922.  :turkey:
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 07:45
|
|
