|
Mustang posted:Another good book on the day to day lives of Romans is Life in Ancient Rome by E.R. Cowell. Even tells you how ancient Romans used to take a dump. 
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 10:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:19 |
|
|
Amused to Death posted:In regards to the equites and merchant class, wasn't one of the problems there in terms of Senate membership the fact that technically under law Senators weren't allowed to engage in trade? So nominating a man with 20 vessels sailing to India every year might be a bit of a political problem.  The big prizes were war spoils and mining rights. A senator could always profit from being a landlord. So one landlord might get tenant rents, another might sell pine nuts, but if you had a good metal mine, you were rolling. I'm of the opinion that that is precisely why Caesar invaded Britain. His mentor Marius had been funded by mining rights (tin esp.), and here Caesar finds himself sitting across a small body of water from the actual Tin Isles, so of course he made a grab for it. Didn't work out in the end but there you have it (my opinion!). If you subscribe to that theory, it also tells you how far Caesar was willing to go to avoid civil war. If he could have locked them down he'd have become fabulously rich and done it within the rules. PS Pompey wasn't more aristocratic than Crassus, the opposite actually. Pompey was the son of Pompey Strabo, who was himself a fantastically rich Picentine landowner. Not even Romans! Pompey is just the son of an Italian rustic...a consular Italian rustic but rustic all the same.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 13:29
|
|
|
physeter posted:"Engages in trade" was a smear....mercantile pursuits were for money-grubbing plebs not men of property. I guess this attitude carried over into eastern Rome. I remember now that you said it how in Cyril Mango's book he talks of the same attitude, in terms of them being money grubbers, in regards to merchants who came to Constantinople.(I assume elsewhere too, but the topic at that point was trade inside the city)
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:In regards to the equites and merchant class, wasn't one of the problems there in terms of Senate membership the fact that technically under law Senators weren't allowed to engage in trade? So nominating a man with 20 vessels sailing to India every year might be a bit of a political problem. Another way around this was by using your freed slaves, who continued to be under patronage obligations to you even after they were freed, to trade on your behalf. The prejudice against trade is common in every society dominated by a landowning aristocracy, which is essentially what Rome was (at least, in the beginning). Even in Britain, for example, there was a feeling right down into the twentieth century that industry was not really for a gentleman. There was less prejudice against banking or finance, and there are theories that blame the decline of British industrial power and the power of the financial sector on these attitudes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 19:04
|
|
|
It's kind of strange how trade is looked down upon in so many societies, but I suppose it makes sense as a wealth alternative and therefore threat to the landholding aristocracy. Ancient China does virtually the same thing with its traders, though the Confucian justification is that traders just move stuff around and don't make anything, therefore their labor is not respectable. Crassus' story is the one you want to read to understand the relationship between wealth and real prestige. Compare to someone like his buddy Julius Caesar, who was perpetually broke as hell and in massive debt (thus, why he buddied up with rich ol' Crassus) yet infinitely more respected. As an aside I've always wondered if the word pompous is derived from Pompey. It fits so well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:It's kind of strange how trade is looked down upon in so many societies, but I suppose it makes sense as a wealth alternative and therefore threat to the landholding aristocracy. Ancient China does virtually the same thing with its traders, though the Confucian justification is that traders just move stuff around and don't make anything, therefore their labor is not respectable. It comes from Latin pompa (a procession) from the Greek pempein (to send). I suppose it's possible that the name Pompey is related to pompa, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
Golden_Zucchini posted:It comes from Latin pompa (a procession) from the Greek pempein (to send). I suppose it's possible that the name Pompey is related to pompa, though. That's a shame. It would've been glorious to imagine he was such a pompous rear end that his name is still the word for it today.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:That's a shame. It would've been glorious to imagine he was such a pompous rear end that his name is still the word for it today. If it's any consolation, crass does from crassus (thick, fat, dense), though again it was probably a word before it was a name, like caesar. Edit: Also, brute comes from brutus (heavy, dull, stupid). Golden_Zucchini fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Aug 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:It's kind of strange how trade is looked down upon in so many societies, but I suppose it makes sense as a wealth alternative and therefore threat to the landholding aristocracy. Ancient China does virtually the same thing with its traders, though the Confucian justification is that traders just move stuff around and don't make anything, therefore their labor is not respectable. I have a an inkling that dislike of trade and traders as a societal thing comes from the classes involved. In many societies, traders form a distinct class, separate from the peasantry and the aristocracy. Traders make their profits by buying cheap and selling dear. This process can be viewed as a kind of theft by both peasants and nobles, so merchants end up pissing off both the majority of the population and that population's rulers. e: ludicrously simplistic, of course. What are the biggest holes in this idea?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 03:26
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:I have a an inkling that dislike of trade and traders as a societal thing comes from the classes involved. In many societies, traders form a distinct class, separate from the peasantry and the aristocracy. Traders make their profits by buying cheap and selling dear. This process can be viewed as a kind of theft by both peasants and nobles, so merchants end up pissing off both the majority of the population and that population's rulers. Well from my very basic understanding of political economy and history, that's pretty much accurate. However, it's not like they were oppressed too much (well, maybe in China, China loving hated the bourgeoisie), but societal conditions simply weren't right for the bourgeoisie to take power (that's what the merchant class is. The word literally means "city-dweller" in French, as the merchants and craftsmen lived in the cities). In a pre-modern agricultural society, you can only support so many doctors/lawyers/merchants/craftsmen. With the discovery of the New World and the arrival of transatlantic trade and globalization, merchants gained a whole lot more power, which had a whole mess of effects, including (possibly, I'm not an expert, I've read this though) causing the industrial revolution, and the decline of the old aristocracy in Europe and the growth of liberalism. That more than answered your question though, so yeah, neither the landed aristocrats nor the peasantry liked bankers at all. This continues somewhat to the modern day, hence all the conspiracy theories about Illuminati, Jewish bankers, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 04:06
|
|
|
When did the patrician and plebian status become out dated? I know it was important during the kingdom of rome and its founding, but im guessing it sort of dies out as provincials become citizens?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 06:36
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:It's kind of strange how trade is looked down upon in so many societies, but I suppose it makes sense as a wealth alternative and therefore threat to the landholding aristocracy. Ancient China does virtually the same thing with its traders, though the Confucian justification is that traders just move stuff around and don't make anything, therefore their labor is not respectable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 11:24
|
|
|
Morholt posted:Moneylending provides an even more abstract benefit, thus pretty much every society ever, including our own, despising bankers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
Another way bankruptcy laws are designed to protect creditors is that they ensure that each creditor has a chance of getting some money back. With out any law, only one creditor would end up getting paid off (generally).
euphronius fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Aug 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
physeter posted:In contrast, I've read that the samurai of feudal Japan were big fans of borrowing money for decades, then just wiping out the bankers and starting over. They believed (correctly) that a new crop of vultures would always show up to make money in the margins. This was also a contributing factor to quite a few pogroms from the 12th century on (and the ethnic cleansing of Jews from England, Spain, France and elsewhere); Jews were also a subordinate caste considered religiously acceptable to murder who happened to more often be the ones involved in banking. atelier morgan fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Aug 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
After Christianity was adopted by the Empire, how did all the Pagan institutions that had been established react? What was the last major temple to be shut down or converted?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
Most ended up converting fairly quickly, although fake conversions were fairly common (ie they continued to practise pagan religious rites in secret). Passive resistance like not enforcing the laws against paganism was also fairly common. Constantine forbade building new pagan temples, and later emperors, including his son, ramped up the persecution dramatically. In 350ish, a guy by the name of Magnentius led a rebellion based on official toleration of pagans and Christians. He was defeated a couple years later, though, and Constantius decreed the death penalty for taking part in pagan rituals. In 360, you have the last pagan emperor, Julian the Apostate (because he was raised Christian and converted to the traditional Roman religion). He re-instated the pagan religion and rites and began persecution of Christians. This might've continued, but he was killed while fighting in Persia in 363. In the late 300s, St. Ambrose of Milan was a big influence on the emperors and pushed hard for killing and otherwise persecuting pagans. In the early 400s, there was a bit of a resurgence. When "barbarians" sacked Rome and terrorised some of the countryside, a lot of people believed that it was a punishment for abandoning the old gods. This prompted St. Augustine to write "City of God" which religiously justified their losses. There were some later movements, but with the power of the state against them, they didn't really meet any long term success. I don't know if it's the last, but Plato's Akademia was closed in 529 and the scholars fled to Persia. There may have been other pagan areas open, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
There were pagans kicking around Europe well into the Middle Ages. Whether they were following Roman gods, corrupted versions of them, or other traditional gods I don't know. Depends where they were I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 03:31
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:There were pagans kicking around Europe well into the Middle Ages. Whether they were following Roman gods, corrupted versions of them, or other traditional gods I don't know. Depends where they were I guess. Yeah, it continued outside the empire for a very long time. The last European country to convert away from their polytheistic religion was Lithuania which was fully Christianised in 1413. Hellenistic religions did continue, but Germans, Slavs, Celts, etc. had their own pantheons they followed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 03:43
|
|
|
There is some evidence that the last temple in Greece didn't close till the Ottoman Empire. It may have been more of late starting cult. No one is really sure
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 15:05
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Crassus was so wealthy it boggles the mind. His worth I have seen estimated at something like 100-400 billion of today's dollars, with some people claiming even more ludicrous numbers. His wealth equaled that of the treasury at one point. This brings up a question I've been meaning to ask. How are these conversions done? Comparing food costs then and now, or something? That seems like it would tell you more about food scarcity than about money itself, but any other scheme I can imagine is equally dubious. Do historians really place credence in these calculations, or is it just sort of a fun game to play?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 15:10
|
|
|
I think it's done by comparing costs. We actually have fairly complete price lists from a ridiculous experiment in price fixing by Diocletian, where the government would dictate the maximum price of every item in the empire. We also have ideas of what things cost in other eras. There might also be a calculation using the amount of gold/silver, though there's a problem with that because the figures are usually given in talents and we aren't actually sure how much a talent was. It's not terribly valuable for history. What matters was Crassus' wealth versus other people at the time, not what you could estimate it being in dollars. So like the $400 billion figure is fun but meaningless; Crassus' personal wealth being equal to the treasury of the entire empire, however, is not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 16:33
|
|
|
It's all relative. Even the richest people today are unlikely to be able to own people. You can hire people, sure. But it's just not the same thing... On the other hand, even with all of their riches the ancient money men did not have sports cars with A/C and radio. Sure, you could have a horse drawn carriage or a litter with slaves fanning you and serving you cooled wine, and maybe you could also have a troubadur to entertain you during the trip. But it's just not the same thing...
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
The guy literally made money by refusing to put out fires in Rome until all the surrounding property was sold to him at rock bottom prices. And if you didn't sell, welp, have fun with the pile of ashes because he's not putting it out and there's nobody else that can do it. He wanted prestige so he raised an army with his personal wealth and invaded a neighboring country on his own. It is fundamentally different.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
Yeah, that's about what I figured, but I hear such calculations so much (and with so few explicit caveats) that I thought hell, maybe historians really had come up with a genuinely meaningful way to make comparisons. Thanks for clearing it up!
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 18:42
|
|
|
2,000 years ago today our dear friend Caligula was born! He went on to prove that you can never love a horse too much*. *And yes I do realize those were probably baseless rumors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
bean_shadow posted:2,000 years ago today our dear friend Caligula was born! He went on to prove that you can never love a horse too much*. True to an extent, but in my opinion, misinterpreted. Romans in general and the Julio-Claudians had a wicked appreciation for the absurd. Appointing his horse to public office was probably Caligula's way of saying "this loving horse is more competent than the people surrounding me". My favorite story involves the triumph of Julius Caesar. Cruising around in his chariot, JC passes the Senate, who of course all applaud him, regardless of their personal feelings on the issue. Except for one young tribune, named Pontius Aquila. Caesar gets irritated and yells out, "Hey Pontius Aquila, what do you want me to do? Restore the Republic? Huh?" Then he drives off. For about a week after that, when anyone asked Caesar to do anything (pass a law, choose a dinner menu, put on his toga, etc), he'd tell them to go check with Pontius Aquila to see if it was okay.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
Caligula hated the Senate and it was a giant gently caress You to the Senate to make his horse Consul.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 19:20
|
|
|
physeter posted:Caesar gets irritated and yells out, "Hey Pontius Aquila, what do you want me to do? Restore the Republic? Huh?" Then he drives off. For about a week after that, when anyone asked Caesar to do anything (pass a law, choose a dinner menu, put on his toga, etc), he'd tell them to go check with Pontius Aquila to see if it was okay. The quote was closer to "Come then, Aquila, take back the republic from me, you tribune." Its one of the most badass taunts I have ever read, and also one of Caesar's most petty moments. I can just imagine the cocky smirk on his face as he rode off on his chariot in a 2000 year old version of "come at me bro!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 20:38
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:The quote was closer to "Come then, Aquila, take back the republic from me, you tribune." Its one of the most badass taunts I have ever read, and also one of Caesar's most petty moments. I can just imagine the cocky smirk on his face as he rode off on his chariot in a 2000 year old version of "come at me bro!" And, for once, everyone was literally standing up and applauding. Caesar is one of the handful of people in history whose life was basically a series of shitthatdidnthappen.txt stories, but they actually happened. "Oh, yeah, did I tell you about the time I got kidnapped by pirates but I ended up crucifying them? Well, it happened this way..." euphronius posted:Caligula hated the Senate and it was a giant gently caress You to the Senate to make his horse Consul. And, well, he was insane.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
Doubtful if Caligula was insane. Inanity was a common smear. The aristocrats hated him because he killed them and took their land. Who knows if he was sane or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I think it's done by comparing costs. We actually have fairly complete price lists from a ridiculous experiment in price fixing by Diocletian, where the government would dictate the maximum price of every item in the empire. We also have ideas of what things cost in other eras. There might also be a calculation using the amount of gold/silver, though there's a problem with that because the figures are usually given in talents and we aren't actually sure how much a talent was. Do we have any estimates for the cost? How much would, say, an average (so; bottom rung, but not slaves non-rich) family have for total income? How much of that would go to rent, food etc?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
General Panic posted:Caesar is one of the handful of people in history whose life was basically a series of shitthatdidnthappen.txt stories, but they actually happened. Did he actually get kidnapped and crucify them? I thought I heard the whole thing was probably made up, but I guess it does make more sense if he just made up the parts about him and the kidnappers chillin like bros.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
General Panic posted:"Oh, yeah, did I tell you about the time I got kidnapped by pirates but I ended up crucifying them? Well, it happened this way..." "And then there was this time when my dudes were all scared so I went and charged an entire army on my own, and then dodged the hundreds of javelins thrown at me till my soldiers all manned up to protect me."
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I think it's done by comparing costs. We actually have fairly complete price lists from a ridiculous experiment in price fixing by Diocletian, where the government would dictate the maximum price of every item in the empire. We also have ideas of what things cost in other eras. There might also be a calculation using the amount of gold/silver, though there's a problem with that because the figures are usually given in talents and we aren't actually sure how much a talent was. It also matters that some objects have different opportunity costs in different eras. I can walk to the shops and get a loaf of bread for $1. That's like 1.8% of my daily income. How many loaves of bread could a labourer afford per day? Industrialisation and modern supply chains have made many objects disproportionally affordable. So this just makes it harder to compare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 00:32
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:It's kind of strange how trade is looked down upon in so many societies, but I suppose it makes sense as a wealth alternative and therefore threat to the landholding aristocracy. Ancient China does virtually the same thing with its traders, though the Confucian justification is that traders just move stuff around and don't make anything, therefore their labor is not respectable. I don't find it strange at all, but because a people seem interested I'd like to share two quotes. They come from roughly the same time period, but opposite ends of the world; I think they fit together nicely. Here, Aristotle talks about certain, unnatural practices: quote:There are two sorts of wealth-getting, as I have said; one is a part of household management, the other is retail trade: the former necessary and honorable, while that which consists in exchange is justly censured; for it is unnatural, and a mode by which men gain from one another. The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of the modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural. Here, the Book of Lord Shang gives a practical quote that acts on the recognition of commodity trading as improper and unproductive: quote:Do not allow merchants to buy grain nor farmers to sell grain. If farmers The over-arching topic of the second quote is the agricultural development of unused land.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Caligula hated the Senate and it was a giant gently caress You to the Senate to make his horse Consul. It was what we know as a joke. As in, it didn't happen. He just said he could do it. And this is according to Suetonius.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
My main professor/mentor/all around cool guy converted me to the side of people who say neither Caligula or Nero were insane, but they were both trying to strip the senatorial class of their power and authority. They failed, and then the history about them was written by those very same people who were being stripped and hated their loving guts. There's enough in Caligula's story to say that he probably was not a nice person. He was handed absolute power as a young man, and that does tend to gently caress people up to an extent in any era. But there's a gap between that and completely goddamn insane. You can read most of what he (and Nero) did two ways, either the insane rear end in a top hat narrative that the history portrays, or as someone trying to change the society in fundamental ways and getting their rear end kicked for it. Given Roman writers' love of LOL LOOK AT THIS INSANE EVIL gently caress whenever they dislike the subject, I always take that sort of story (and the evil stepmother trope) with a huge grain of salt. The horse consul story is, I think, much more likely a way of Caligula saying how little he respects the old republican institutions than it is that he was literally insane enough to think his horse would make a good consul. It's hard to dismiss all the stories, Caligula was almost certainly a dick and maybe a bit nuts, but I doubt it was anything like our view of him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 04:06
|
|
|
Anyone read Marguerite Yourcenar's Memoirs of Hadrian? I found it by accident in my house yesterday and I don't really have time to read it now, but is it worth setting aside for a rainy day? Furthermore, is it styled in the same way as Graves' I, Claudius, which I enjoyed?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:19 |
|
|
Imagine if a couple of thousands years from now somehow enough of contemporary sources will get lost or muddled for future generations to be certain that the ancient president Barack HUSSEIN Obummer was a mad communist tyrant who set up death panels and ate dogs for dinner every night and played electric guitar while the forests burned. FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Sep 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 06:44
|
|
