|
Anyone know much about Maxentius? I only know of him in connection to Constantine and I have to write an essay on whether or not he deserves his title of Conservator urbis suae. I mean, I have a huge amount of articles waiting for me but I'd rather read a cool write-up by one of you guys too, just to get my head around the subject.
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 04:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:24 |
|
|
Agesilaus posted:Wow, I didn't expect everyone to immediately agree with me, but I did expect people to think a little before pressing the post button. There's really nothing of substance for me to respond to; I guess when you're right you're right. I see you aspire to keep the Roman tradition of smugness alive. Collum barba tenus sapientes?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 16:18
|
|
|
Octy posted:Anyone know much about Maxentius? Unfortunately anything but the basics is outside my area of knowledge here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:I see you aspire to keep the Roman tradition of smugness alive. Watch it, we're clearly no matter to his rhetorical skills that he has learned from the Ancients. There just is no substance in this thread!
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 16:56
|
|
|
It's good to know. I wouldn't have wanted to go another 42 pages without saying anything of substance. It would be an awful tragedy. Some more ~*~wisdom of the ancients~*~ Restitutus says: “Restituta, take off your tunic, please, and show us your hairy privates”.  (Pompeii) To the one defecating here. Beware of the curse. If you look down on this curse, may you have an angry Jupiter for an enemy.  (Colosseum) “Secundus defecated here” three times on one wall. People have not changed for thousands of years. Seriouspost: ancient people seem wise because only the best 0.00001% of what they wrote survives. On the rare occasion you get to glimpse the full society, you see the fundamental nature of people is no different than it ever was. And drawing dicks on stuff is eternal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 17:06
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:Culturally and philosophically, many modern people are in a worse position than learned Hellenes, where they are given to false moral and religious teachings. Christianity is of course ancient, but if we're talking about the heights reached by humans, then it remains that the most correct and helpful moral texts and cultural practices come from Ancient Greece and China. Just for clarity, did you achieve enlightenment by sacrificing a pigeon to Athena or by eating a tiger penis?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
If you lot can't respond to what I've said, then just move on. There's no need to trot out the same, tired joke about ancient graffiti. I never said ancients were better or worse at graffiti, in case you're legitimately wondering, so give it a rest.Grand Fromage posted:It's good to know. I wouldn't have wanted to go another 42 pages without saying anything of substance. It would be an awful tragedy. Nenonen posted:Watch it, we're clearly no matter to his rhetorical skills that he has learned from the Ancients. There just is no substance in this thread! No, there's plenty of substance in this thread. The problem is that there's little to no substance in the responses to my post. You lot clearly aren't capable of formulating an actual response to the facts I laid out, and instead I'm just getting a lot of modern, gut-reaction disagreement. Grand Fromage posted:Seriouspost: ancient people seem wise because only the best 0.00001% of what they wrote survives. On the rare occasion you get to glimpse the full society, you see the fundamental nature of people is no different than it ever was. Thanks, but again, that doesn't really respond to what I'm saying. I specifically noted a number of ways in which certain ancient institutions, beliefs and practices were superior to many of their modern equivelants. In terms of what I'm saying, it hardly matters if only the best texts survive; it still stands that many moderns are lagging behind certain ancients in their understanding of how society ought to be ordered, what is right and what is wrong, what ought to be, etc. That you can find some childish graffiti, or claim that a lot of ancients weren't bright, is neither here nor there. I'm not concerned about whether an ancient ploughboy is smarter or dumber than your average, modern yank. None of you have bothered to take the time to read and respond, so let's just move on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 17:59
|
|
|
There's no reason to respond to you. You're literally arguing for the moral superiority of civilizations that would throw a parade and shower you with honors for murdering and enslaving millions of people. Who considered it a moral duty to go out and destroy entire civilizations. You are either insane or do not have any idea what you are talking about, so there's no point in the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:Thanks, but again, that doesn't really respond to what I'm saying. I specifically noted a number of ways in which certain ancient institutions, beliefs and practices were superior to many of their modern equivelants. In terms of what I'm saying, it hardly matters if only the best texts survive; it still stands that many moderns are lagging behind certain ancients in their understanding of how society ought to be ordered, what is right and what is wrong, what ought to be, etc. Did you skip your class on Classical democracy? Are you suggesting that we go back to social classes and citizenship? What is the ideal ratio of slaves to freedman? What wars should we fight for conquest? Is times square a good spot for a triumph? Should we disregard the scientific method for philosophy? What kind of equipment would hospitals need to properly ballance the humors? I'm sure once we can figure out all the little details, this will be a great idea. Agesilaus posted:None of you have bothered to take the time to read and respond, so let's just move on. Well that's because the ideas you're advocating are laughable. What do you think the Enlightenment and revolutions were about? Nobody wants to go back to being ruled by a landed aristocracy. I should also point out that you wouldn't even be a part of that ruling class, so I don't know why you're so eager to serve them. Frosted Flake fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Aug 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
But you guys, how can we forget that beating would-be reformers to death is an acceptable way to prevent social change?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
Hate to go Godwin, but this reminds me of when WWII German apologists saying "They had some good ideas, right? "
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
And to cut it off, you can't just pick out the parts of the culture you like and toss the rest. Cultures are integrated, agglutinative systems. The ability to sit around philosophizing is built on the backs of millions of corpses and millions of slaves and as much as classical fetishists want to put up a wall between the two, it doesn't work that way. The Greeks and Romans were terrible people by any modern definition of morality. It is unfair to judge them on modern standards of morality, but it is also stupid to ignore that we would rightly consider these people genocidal, violent, closed-minded, bigoted maniacs if they existed today.
Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Aug 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
Retarded Pimp posted:Hate to go Godwin, but this reminds me of when WWII German apologists saying "They had some good ideas, right? Those Romans, they had good ideas. -Benito Mussolini 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
I'm seriously laughing right now over how ridiculous and close-minded you lot are being. It's been made extremely clear that you're happy to just assume, with no deep thought whatsoever, that all modern people do literally everything better in every respect. I can't accept that sort of blind, unthinking worship of everything modern, so unless you're willing to challenge yourself the discussion is kind of dead. You lot should go back to discussing dick dimensions on ancient graffiti or whatever the topic was before I joined in.Frosted Flake posted:Did you skip your class on Classical democracy? Are you suggesting that we go back to social classes and citizenship? What is the ideal ratio of slaves to freedman? I don't see where you're going with this, but here goes: No; yes; and that's a topic for discussion. Up for discussion; yes. No. No idea, I'm not a medical doctor. Yes, I agree that it will be great. quote:Well that's because the ideas you're advocating are laughable. What do you think the Enlightenment and revolutions were about? Nobody wants to go back to being ruled by a landed aristocracy. I should also point out that you wouldn't even be a part of that ruling class, so I don't know why you're so eager to serve them. "Enlightenment" and "revolution" aren't magical words that dispell the worth of what I'm saying. I have no idea what you think the terms represent, and I have no idea how you've managed to divine the will of the world's population in concluding that nobody wants to be ruled by aristocracy. Even if you were right about the global will of the people, that may well mean that modern academia has failed in its role of educating humanity. At any rate, I would be an aristocrat. It hardly matters, though, because the fundamental point is that an aristocratic society is a step up regardless of my station. Grand Fromage posted:And to cut it off, you can't just pick out the parts of the culture you like and toss the rest. Cultures are integrated, agglutinative systems. The ability to sit around philosophizing is built on the backs of millions of corpses and millions of slaves and as much as classical fetishists want to put up a wall between the two, it doesn't work that way. The Greeks and Romans were terrible people by any modern definition of morality. It is unfair to judge them on modern standards of morality, but it is also stupid to ignore that we would rightly consider these people genocidal, violent, closed-minded, bigoted maniacs if they existed today. Yes, you can pick out the parts of the culture you like and toss the rest. Read my posts, I just did so a page ago. We can proceed to discuss how those superior aspects of the ancient world were reliant on things we might not like, how the superior aspects may be implemented in our modern society, and what adjustments might need to be made, and various other topics. Regardless, the idea that we can't compare and extract specific institutions, practices, and beliefs is wrong, as proven by any amount of serious thought. Same goes for moral and political systems. I don't need to promote the shield wall as a modern battle tactic in order to point out that the Spartan disdain for the tradesman was right. Furthermore, morality is eternal and unchanging. Fundamentally, it doesn't matter if the learned ancients were terrible by any modern definition of morality, unless that modern system of morality is actually correct. The real question is what is right and what is wrong, and what ought to be, and when you have discussed this then how do the ancients and moderns stack up. Given the complexity of humanity, you're also going to find that various people stack up better in various respects. Unlike you, I'm not going to ignore all complexity, and then assume that some popular and modern moral code is automatically right and that the ancients are inferior in all respects because they don't easily fit into that modern code.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:You lot should go back to discussing dick dimensions on ancient graffiti or whatever the topic was before I joined in. Seriously you're posting supporting slavery and caste systems. gently caress off and exit this thread you goon. Agesilaus posted:
Bum the Sad fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Aug 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
Bum the Sad posted:Of course you would. You wouldn't be some ones rear end bitch slave. Oh no not Agesilaus. The ancients would clearly recognize your Internet greatness and weave you the finest fursuits and throw parades in your honor. No ones ever the ditch digger in their little fantasy world they dream up because their current life is so lovely. My life is great now, and it would be great in a better world, too. I get to read the Classics and apply them either way, living the life of a noble gentleman. If your strongest objection to what I'm saying is "well you would be at the bottom of society in your ideal world!", then surely you have to stop defending the instant world given that you're probably low class nobodies right now. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
Nobody gives a poo poo about your life or your 'arguments'. This is one of the best threads on SA atm, please stop loving it up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:
Why? As someone who is fascinated with the Titanic, this reminds me of when people speak of the ship and always imagine if they could go back on it they'd be riding high in first class, walking down the grand stairway to dinner, never a 3rd class passenger who can't speak English or shoveling coal in the boiler rooms.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 20:12
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Are you suggesting that we go back to social classes and citizenship? What is the ideal ratio of slaves to freedman? Agesilaus posted:yes; and that's a topic for discussion. Well, let's discuss it. Since you'll be an aristocrat, presumably you will own slaves. How many slaves would you like? Aren't you worried about creating a situation similar to the turmoil of the late republic where an over-abundance of slaves created a work shortage for freedmen? e: I'm very interested in your justification for owning other human beings. ee: Back on topic, did the Social War have long term repercussions? I'm interested in the social issues of the republic, since there really was a difficult situation with regards to the labour market. Frosted Flake fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Aug 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
That's not really a topic for this thread, though. If Agesilaus wants, he can start his own "Ask me about what a gigantic arse I am" thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 20:53
|
|
|
Agesilaus derail over please. Bro you are not doing good things for the classicist image.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 21:06
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Back on topic, did the Social War have long term repercussions? I'm interested in the social issues of the republic, since there really was a difficult situation with regards to the labour market. Well, it resulted in the extension of Roman citizenship or Latin status to a large group of non-Roman Italians, so you can see it as the beginning of the trend towards a wider Imperial citizenship, not one that was limited to Rome itself. Having said that, in AD 47 there were just under 6 million Roman citizens (including wives and children) and the total population of the empire was maybe 70-90 million, so it was still an elite status. Becoming a citizen was a big deal, especially outside Italy. It was a bit like becoming a made guy in the Mafia - nasty things could be done to you, but only with sanction from the top. You were protected from some of the arbitrary treatment dished out to non-citizens by local officials, soldiers and so on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
So speaking of romanticizing the societies that came before us- did the Romans do that with any society? I know Grand Fromage mentioned the Romans used Greek learning but didn't really respect Greek people, so I'm curious what, if any, ancient societies they idolized. And were there any concurrent societies around the world that they respected or even feared or was it Rome > all?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:ee: Back on topic, did the Social War have long term repercussions? I'm interested in the social issues of the republic, since there really was a difficult situation with regards to the labour market. It gradually leads to the expansion of Roman citizenship beyond the city of Rome itself. It didn't happen right away, but the increased status that the Italian allies gained as a result of the war was the first step on that road. It also marks where power begins to shift. Prior to the Social War, Rome is really the only part of the empire that matters politically. After that, Italy as a whole begins to matter more. Ultimately the shift of power to the provinces is largely because power becomes linked to having an army and that's where the armies are (plus, money is out there) but I think the psychological change is important too. By the time power is really moving to the provinces, the Romans are already willing to accept power outside of Rome proper. Prior to the Social War very little outside the city mattered to the political game. Now the Italian allies had a voice. A small one, but you have to start somewhere. Vigilance posted:So speaking of romanticizing the societies that came before us- did the Romans do that with any society? I know Grand Fromage mentioned the Romans used Greek learning but didn't really respect Greek people, so I'm curious what, if any, ancient societies they idolized. And were there any concurrent societies around the world that they respected or even feared or was it Rome > all? They had a huge amount of respect and romanticism for Egypt. Romans respected the old, and Egypt was old. It's easy to forget that when Romans are showing up in Egypt, Egypt's already been around for three thousand years. Egypt always retained special treatment in the empire and that was a large part why. They definitely feared the Parthians/Sassanids. And it depends what period you're talking about for fear. They were afraid of the Gauls, Carthage, various Muslim empires, Mongols, Goths, Huns at different times. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Aug 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
So how come Romans didn't make more use of horse archers if it was that dominant a form? They fought civilizations which made great use of it. I'm guessing it was a climate thing? I know in order to have a massive horse archer army you need a way to feed all those horses and it's probably more suited for a mobile raiding force than as a standing army type deal. Did Roman legions ever use any horse archers even as skirmishers in front of their lines?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 01:21
|
|
|
Europe is not well suited for large cavalry armies. Most of the horse archer armies come down off the Eurasian steppe because that's prime horse land, endless seas of grass. You can just let your horse graze off the land. In Europe (except the plains in the east) there's not a ton of good grazeland and cavalry armies will eat it up surprisingly quickly. Plus, as expensive as the legions are to maintain, cavalry are much more expensive. Since it's a professional force and the state is bearing the responsibility of funding the military, this is a huge deal. Compared to the size of the empire the legions are quite small--that's why. They're expensive. They couldn't handle it costing more. That said, as time goes on the army does incorporate more cavalry units. By late antiquity there are large cavalry divisions in the army, primarily as a quick-response force for border incursions. Send out the cavalry to deal with an invasion, if they can't handle it they can keep them busy until the legions show up. The most important reason why they didn't use horse archers specifically is that horse archery is a whole culture. People like Mongols are literally raised on horseback, they spend their entire lives becoming experts at the art of fighting on horseback and can do unbelievable things with it. It is simply incompatible with the Roman professional army. They could have put people on horses and trained them to fire a bow from horseback, but there's no way the Romans could have replicated a true horse archer culture's army. It was much easier to just hire some if you needed it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 01:34
|
|
|
Also the horse archer relies upon the composite recurved bow - something that literally falls apart in the wetter Mediterranean and Western European climates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 07:20
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The most important reason why they didn't use horse archers specifically is that horse archery is a whole culture. People like Mongols are literally raised on horseback, they spend their entire lives becoming experts at the art of fighting on horseback and can do unbelievable things with it. It is simply incompatible with the Roman professional army. They could have put people on horses and trained them to fire a bow from horseback, but there's no way the Romans could have replicated a true horse archer culture's army. It was much easier to just hire some if you needed it. This is more medieval than classical, but weren't the cataphracts of the Eastern Roman Empire horse archers? Heavily-armored ones, but they had bows--or did they?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 07:52
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:This is more medieval than classical, but weren't the cataphracts of the Eastern Roman Empire horse archers? Heavily-armored ones, but they had bows--or did they? They were primarily heavy cavalry. There were cataphract archers, but it's not the same thing. They were basically just infantry archers who were on a horse so they could keep up with the heavy cavalry and support them. The steppe horse archer is a different way of fighting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 07:56
|
|
|
It's been mentioned a few times how advanced Roman medicine was, so I was wondering if we have any estimates for infant mortality, both relative to their contemporaries and to societies that followed them. Also, was there a decline in medical practice as the Eastern empire superceded the Western, or did Byzantium still maintain the best standards?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 11:27
|
|
|
The standard of medicine remains pretty high in the eastern empire, not just in the sense of ancient knowledge being preserved but also in new techniques being tried out. Off hand I can't provide a reference for this, but I did read an interesting article a while back on an attempt made by Byzantine surgeons in the tenth century to separate conjoined twins. The procedure actually worked, although the patients died from unspecified complications a few days later. Of particular note with regards to this topic is the support that the Komnenoi gave to the practise of medicine. Alexios I and John II both founded hospitals, and certain sources even attest to Manuel I providing care to an injured Baldwin III (replacing poultices and bandages, and such). Of tangential interest is the fact that a founding charter of one of the hospitals funded by Alexios I (I forget which) indicates that it employed both male and female physicians, working at the same level.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 12:02
|
|
|
Infant mortality was just as bad as ever in Rome. Maybe a bit lower because there weren't many disruptions to the food supply and the sanitation system made it a healthier place to live, but as good as Roman medicine was they couldn't do much about diseases and those are responsible for a lot of the deaths. When you haven't discovered antibiotics yet there's a limit on what you can do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 12:05
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Europe is not well suited for large cavalry armies. Most of the horse archer armies come down off the Eurasian steppe because that's prime horse land, endless seas of grass. You can just let your horse graze off the land. In Europe (except the plains in the east) there's not a ton of good grazeland and cavalry armies will eat it up surprisingly quickly. I once read a book by David Chandler about warfare in the age of Marlborough. That's a long time after the Romans (early 18th century) but it gets across pretty clearly how much the pace of campaigning in European wars then was dictated by having to get hay for the horses - the draft horses, as well as the cavalry ones. I think there may be reasons why it's not that great for horses to solely subsist on grass, but I'm not a horse person myself, so don't quote me on that. Every so often you had to stop the army, send out foraging parties to cut the hay, make sure they were properly guarded because they were a prime target for enemy raids, get the hay back and distribute it, and so on. Plus, you could only campaign at certain times of year - when the grass was ready to cut for hay. The fewer horses you had, the less of that problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 12:45
|
|
|
Who were some of the great Roman artists? GF mentioned earlier in the thread that painting was consider the higher art than sculpture, but I am sure that when you think of Roman art the first thing that pops into your head is plain marble busts and statues. The reality was that those statues would have been painted in all kinds of crazy colours, and so was architecture, if I remember correctly. Also, looking at statues of Augustus and then of statues of Constantine, there seems to be a significant difference in the quality, with Augustus' looking, well perfect and Constantines looking more stylised. Did the quality of art decline over time? Or was more emphasis placed on other aspects of art or am I looking at this all wrong? Was architecture considered art?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 13:51
|
|
|
You're looking at it wrong. It wasn't a decline in quality but a change in style. At the time of Augustus, hyper realism was the popular style. Figures would be sculpted to look as real as possible, though often they would be made to look older and more weathered since that made them nobler. Augustus was actually one of the first to buck that trend and have his sculptures depict him as a young, vibrant man. As time goes on, realism is less valued and you end up with more stylized art, eventually turning into what we have in the Middle Ages. Architecture was considered art in a similar way to today. Buildings are heavily decorated. I have to admit I'm drawing a blank on famous Roman artists. I took a rather intense course on Greek and Roman sculpture but the names are escaping me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 13:56
|
|
|
Thanks for that. I thought that might be the case with the shift in style. And I was actually going to say that the art and scuplture of the later Empire was more similar to the style in the middle ages. Were there any Leonardo da Vinci type characters of Ancient Rome? Some guy who killed it at engineering, art and sciences? Someone who the set this benchmark and was revolutionary but not necessarily through politics. Agrippa(?) was a phenomenal general and engineer, as I understand, but that is kinda off the mark of what I am thinking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 14:19
|
|
|
Vitruvius was a "renaissance man". Before the Renaissance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitruvius
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 14:23
|
|
|
Hero of Alexandria is who you want to read about. He invented the first primitive steam engine and the first vending machine, among other things. E: And Vitruvius, right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 14:23
|
|
|
Thank you, this thread is fantastic and you all are fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 14:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:24 |
|
|
Nenonen posted:Those Romans, they had good ideas. Fun fact, the very term fascist goes back to these dudes - http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/b/bronze_figurine_of_a_lictor.aspx See that bundle of sticks he's carrying? That's what Fascism is named after. Mussolini was very big on 'Fascist Italy is Rome reborn'. Given how the actual Romans thought, early Imperial Rome is probably actually not that bad an analogue to fascism if you discount the anti-Semitism in the German variant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 15:25
|
|
