|
Woah who bought the  smiley?
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:41 |
|
|
archduke.iago posted:What are your favorite stories about crazy things happening in Rome? Things like Honoria asking Attila to rescue her from a boring marriage and Attila invading the Empire (ostensibly) because of it. Supposedly she was raped by a giraffe and torn to pieces by wild animals.  Also, I'm just going to believe Wikipedia on this one because I couldn't get through this section without laughing my rear end off.wikipedia posted:Commodus the gladiator Antiquity
cargo cult fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Woah who bought the It's from the E/N Comics thread in GBS. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3499406&pagenumber=55&perpage=40#post407396962 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 03:11
|
|
|
cargo cult posted:
We've brought that one back... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 03:11
|
|
|
tucoramirez posted:I apologize if this isn't the best forum, but I'm a giant Ancient Rome nerd and I'm heading to Rome in a couple months for about 10 days. As someone who lives in there and is an huge antique history nerd, there isn't really anything that is THAT far out. Hanging around in the zone around Coliseum / Piazza Venezia will get you to most of the must-do's. (coliseum, archs, Ara augustea, circus maximum which is now a strangely-shaped grass field, but still impressive, etc). Perhaps, a check on the Gianicolo - it's not really ancient Rome (It's full of Italy reunion-era stuff), but it's basically the only point from which you can get full view on Rome. Makes for REALLY good photos. I'd make a detour to see some still-working tracts of aqueducts, but again, i'm also huge on engineering. (I still think Rome's tap water is the best in the world, and my mind was BLOWN when i was told some came off 2000-year old aqueducts) in 10 days you aren't really going to get down in the details, anyway. I'd still recommend making sure you get a hang of the cooking, there's good stuff all around, especially around Trastevere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
I remember going to Rome, aw that segway tour was fun, but terrifying since the bus drivers had to go on strike. I remember the tour guide taking us to a place called "The Keyhole" where he told me that naked women were dancing or some poo poo. All I got was a clear shot of St.Peters and some hurt pride. God Greece was a bit of a nightmare to deal with that trip being it was 2010. Ephesus was pretty awesome though, really good ruins there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 03:49
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:On a day-to-day "average Publius" basis, you're right. On the other hand, the upper classes essentially served as credit institutions for their clients and each other - not exactly banks, since it was one guy with all the assets, but not terribly different in practice if your social standing was high enough. On the other hand, owing a lot of money to a fellow senator put you under their thumb to an extent, so generosity in lending was obviously a political tool as much as it was a financial system. The Roman aristocracy was all in debt to each other. It was a way of forming communities. If everyone was in debt to one another, then you couldn't exactly allow someone to default or get shafted in some way because it was your money they are losing. This is assuming they're all equals (case in point: Crassus bank rolling Caesar, Caesar repaying him and then Crassus taking the money and using it to take on the Parthians, etc.). But when we're talking about credit-debts between different classes of people, it took on a different meaning. It was more like how loan sharks, the mafia, and prison gangs operated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 15:40
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Woah who bought the so pleased with however did this, it's clear proof that it's only a matter of time before humanity returns to the Classics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 01:12
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:
Hopefully not before a post-apocalyptic scenario.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 08:35
|
|
|
This is an awesome article about the recently found Roman mosaic in Turkey, and how Carthage drove the Romans from Turkey: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205416/How-far-did-Romans-Massive-mosaic-Turkey-leads-think-spread-empire.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 09:52
|
|
|
Charlie Mopps posted:This is an awesome article about the recently found Roman mosaic in Turkey, and how Carthage drove the Romans from Turkey: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205416/How-far-did-Romans-Massive-mosaic-Turkey-leads-think-spread-empire.html Oh my loving god this article.  TURKEY WAS NOT A BACKWATER IT WAS A VITAL ROMAN PROVINCE FOR OVER A THOUSAND YEARS THEIR loving CAPITAL WAS IN TURKEY FOR A THOUSAND YEARS AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 10:04
|
|
|
It's the Daily Mail. I'm surprised the comments are actually decent this time!
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 10:24
|
|
|
Yes, it's the Daily Mail. Even seeing its front page in my peripheral vision when I'm at a newstand causes my blood pressure to shoot up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 11:42
|
|
|
I’ve got some more questions on auxiliary pay and retirement. I understand that if you served for 25 years you would get loads of cash, land, and citizenship. My questions are more logistical. First, how common was it for someone to survive the 25 years? Military work sounds really hazardous, so I’d imagine it was very difficult. Was there a system in place for wounded auxiliaries who couldn’t make it to 25 years due to injury, or were they out on the streets with a begging cup and no citizenship? Finally, let’s say you were lucky enough to get to 25 years. Who paid for all your sweet benefits and what was stopping them from putting a bunch of 24 year veterans on the front line of some suicide attack in order to save some coin? I guess I have the same questions regarding the legions as well. They were already citizens, so that’s one incentive that isn’t needed. Were they paid more than the auxiliaries or require a shorter time in service to get to retirement? Any idea on the rank and pay structure? Also, what can you tell me about the evocati? I’m guessing that this is all very different before and after the Marian reforms.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 15:22
|
|
|
First of all, as with everything else in Roman history, the structure of the army changed over time. From about the Marian reforms to the Principate, the practice of land/cash/citizenship needed to be passed as a decree of the Senate for individual commanders at the end of a campaign.* This also prevented what you mention later on - whole legions were called up and disbanded at the same time, so everybody finished at the same time. In the Principate, the legions took an oath to the emperor personally so he was the one to make sure they got their benefits. The disbanded soldiers then ended up as clients of the commander/emperor, so the latter had an additional incentive to make sure they got what they signed up for. (no idea what happened to the injured, sorry) * In fact, the Senate blocking benefits for Pompey's veterans was one of the major reasons why the first triumvirate happened. The auxiliaries were paid the least, then the legionaries, and depending on rank they would be paid different amounts as well. The legionaries also had a shorter term of service, I believe 20 years. The praetorian guard was paid several times what even the legionaries were paid as well. Also, it became expected over time that an incoming emperor would pay several years' wages in a donative when they entered office, which could be expected to happen at least once during a legionary's term. I believe granting land and citizenship to veterans was very rare to unheard of before Marius.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
Was there much need for settlement land for these retiring soldiers and did that drive expansion in any way? Would that land be generally purchased inside the Empire or expropriated? I presume that also changed over time obviously.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
Hazborgufen posted:I’ve got some more questions on auxiliary pay and retirement. I understand that if you served for 25 years you would get loads of cash, land, and citizenship. Hazborgufen posted:My questions are more logistical. First, how common was it for someone to survive the 25 years? Military work sounds really hazardous, so I’d imagine it was very difficult. Hazborgufen posted:Was there a system in place for wounded auxiliaries who couldn’t make it to 25 years due to injury, or were they out on the streets with a begging cup and no citizenship?  Hazborgufen posted:Finally, let’s say you were lucky enough to get to 25 years. Who paid for all your sweet benefits and what was stopping them from putting a bunch of 24 year veterans on the front line of some suicide attack in order to save some coin? Hazborgufen posted:I guess I have the same questions regarding the legions as well. They were already citizens, so that’s one incentive that isn’t needed. Were they paid more than the auxiliaries or require a shorter time in service to get to retirement? Any idea on the rank and pay structure? Hazborgufen posted:Also, what can you tell me about the evocati?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
A lot of this pretty much confirms what I had assumed, but the nitty-gritty details are very interesting. It stands to reason that people wouldn't have joined the Roman army if it had a reputation for screwing over the soldiers. This coupled with the potential for war loot would have made a very tempting proposition to someone whose employment prospects were otherwise nonexistent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
 So it's 107 BCE and consul Gaius Marius has been tasked with beating up on Jugurtha. Jugurtha was a Numidian king who had been giving Rome trouble in North Africa for a while--he's an interesting guy but for this story, only relevant because he needed to be destroyed. Marius has no soldiers and there's nobody available. As a result, he creates an entirely new way of organizing the Roman legion. The fundamental change was where he recruited. Since there were no landholding men available, Marius turned to the vast new population of urban poor. He brought them in, trained them and provided equipment. This is the shift to the first professional army, at least in the west but I believe in the world. No longer would soldiers be farmers who came out to fight when needed; being a soldier would now be a job. This required a change in the organization of the legion itself. Equipment was now the responsibility of the Roman state. I'm not 100% on this but I believe this is why the hastati/principes/triarii distinction is eliminated. Romans had mass production, it was simpler and cheaper to just issue the same equipment to every soldier. And, frankly, the doctrine was that triarii weren't supposed to be in the battle anyway, while the other two ranks were armed similarly. So it wasn't a huge revolution just to kit out everyone identically. It also allows for standardized training. Everybody has the same weapons, everyone's fighting the same way. Specialists can be trained later. The legionaries are also trained in construction, providing the legion another benefit that other armies can't boast. The legion can throw up defensive works, fortresses, walls, bridges, siege equipment--anywhere, any time. The obvious consequence of this is that soldiers are now dependent on the empire, rather than having their own property to provide for them. Since there's no VA or anything of that sort, in practice this means that the soldiers are dependent on their generals for their pay and benefits. And uh. I think we're all familiar with how well this ends up going for the empire in the long term. As for the actual field organization. There is no single, unified, authoritative source for how a legion fights. Vegetius is one of the more common sources. But anyone telling you THIS IS THE ABSOLUTE DEFINITE WAY THE LEGION WORKED is incorrect. It's all a matter of probably. Also, depends on the period since the legion is always evolving. The basic concept of the maniple is kept. The legions are reorganized into cohorts, which is typically made of six 80-man centuries. It's most commonly believed that each century fights in an individual maniple unit, and the six centuries are all together in one part of the line. The depth/breadth of the formation depends on the situation. The legions are made up almost entirely of these centuries of heavy infantry. The old velites are replaced by the new auxilia troops. Auxilia are the... auxiliary troops, drawn from Roman allies. Remember that the ranks of actual citizens are pretty narrow at this time, most of the people in the empire are technically allies. Auxilia fight for pay and for the citizenship they will receive upon completing their service. The legion has its own cavalry, but it's a very small force mostly for scouting and sending messages around. The auxilia provide the legion with the light infantry, skirmishers, ranged troops (both bowmen and archers), and cavalry. In battle, the legion rolls up on you, skirmishers and slingers pelt with ranged weapons, the legionaries throw their pila, and then the stabbin' begins. The reason it's so much more effective than the forces it fights is that the legion's equipment is high quality, the soldiers are the best trained in the world, and they have serious discipline. The battle line of a legion is much more likely to hold, in perfect formation, than the line they're going up against. Soldiers were (probably) rotated. The front ranks fight for a bit, the guy right behind moves up and the guy from the front goes to the back. Rest for a while, then return to the front. The professional army also brings some extra benefits. Soldiers are kept well fed, they have access to excellent medical care, they have homes. They don't have to worry about where their next meal or paycheck is coming from. You might get stabbed in the face, but all things considered, it's a pretty stable life for the ancient world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 08:16
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:
And great thread, I've throughly enjoyed reading it!
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 08:28
|
|
|
shezihka posted:What's the difference?  I meant to type bowmen and slingers. I will leave it unedited as a monument to my dumb.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 08:31
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The fundamental change was where he recruited. Since there were no landholding men available, Marius turned to the vast new population of urban poor. Just to specify if this isn't clear to everyone who doesn't know how bigoted Romans were at this period, these were still citizens, he didn't just grab any poor guy off the streets and toss him a sword and shield. This still caused a huge uproar in the Senate even when there was a war going on that needed to be won and they didn't have any loving soldiers to fight it. Marius didn't pull the reforms off easily. Most of the senators were like at double Mitt Romney level at this point when you are talking about their disdain for the poors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 12:16
|
|
|
Given a few of the posts here OP, I have to ask, how much time do Classics majors spend studying primary sources? Do undergraduate Classics majors focus on secondary sources, and concern themselves mainly with remembering major dates and the general flow of history as condensed by a modern professor? I have never studied the Classics in a formal institution. I started out by focusing almost entirely on primary sources, re-reading some of them multiple times (such as herodotus), and it wasn't until years later that I started picking up secondary sources now and again. I still read primary sources the vast majority of the time, and I find it noticeable that sometimes when I'm discussing the Classics people don't seem to draw on the language of the primary sources so much as they seem to be drawing from some sort of essay or lesson plan that just referred to those texts while painting an over-all picture of classical history. Grand Fromage posted:The fundamental change was where he recruited. Since there were no landholding men available, Marius turned to the vast new population of urban poor. He brought them in, trained them and provided equipment. This is the shift to the first professional army, at least in the west but I believe in the world. No longer would soldiers be farmers who came out to fight when needed; being a soldier would now be a job. Come on now, you must know better than that. Marius lived 157 BC to 86 BC, there had been professional soldiers/armies centuries before he was born. The Romans would have known about standing armies and units, just think about Sparta for example, along with the city-states that later retained a standing army or elite brigades of full-time hoplites. Even the Mede had dedicated, standing units. Think about large mercenary units, too, like Xenophon and the 10,000. That you think it was with Marius that soldiers first became professionals rather than farmers is just bizarre. E: and seeing as you mentioned the world, Marius would have been alive during the Han Dynasty which did maintain some standing units of professional soldiers. Agesilaus fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Sep 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 04:41
|
|
|
I didn't major in classics, I was a history major with a focus in archaeology. In that program, you read primary sources but the secondary sources are what you spend most of your time with. Primary sources are obviously valuable, but they're also all unreliable in some way or another--things like the Vindolanda Tablets are honest but limited to a tiny part of the world, whereas something like Herodotus or Plutarch are absolutely riddled with bullshit. Primary sources are very important but focusing on them to the exclusion of everything else would give someone a highly inaccurate view of the ancient world, so it's not done. A combination of primary sources, secondary analysis and archaeology is necessary to get anything resembling accuracy. There is some theorizing that the Akkadians had a full time professional army, it's hard to tell from the lack of sources. The Spartans certainly didn't, they were highly trained and spent a whole lot of time fighting but were still citizen-soldiers. Mercenary groups are not considered standing armies by anybody. I specified the west because I figured there's a good chance the Chinese had done it already (this is true with many things in history), but I don't know Chinese history very well. I didn't just invent this, it's commonly accepted. However there is debate on what, exactly, constitutes a professional army. The Roman army fits with our standard modern definition since when the emerging European states reintroduced professional military forces in the late Middle Ages, they were based directly on the legion. It is possible to define what constitutes a professional state army differently and expand what's included. It doesn't really matter who did it first so I don't care at all about that debate. The relevant part is the change to the Marian style legion was new for the empire and represented a fundamental change in the power structure that was both necessary for Rome's continued growth and an uncontrollable monster that bit everyone in the rear end for centuries to come.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 05:12
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I didn't major in classics, I was a history major with a focus in archaeology. In that program, you read primary sources but the secondary sources are what you spend most of your time with. Primary sources are obviously valuable, but they're also all unreliable in some way or another--things like the Vindolanda Tablets are honest but limited to a tiny part of the world, whereas something like Herodotus or Plutarch are absolutely riddled with bullshit. Primary sources are very important but focusing on them to the exclusion of everything else would give someone a highly inaccurate view of the ancient world, so it's not done. A combination of primary sources, secondary analysis and archaeology is necessary to get anything resembling accuracy. Huh, I thought you were a Classics major, that explains things. I didn't realise you could be a Roman Historian without being a Classicist. I totally disagree with your opinion of primary sources and the value of studying them, but that's neither here nor there. Anyway, back to the army. You said with Marius there was the first shift to a professional army, and that soldiers now were professionals rather than farmers. I don't know why you would deny that the Spartans had a professional standing army, given that the majority of adult men were barracked year round and barred from most non-military pursuits. Depending on the period, Spartans lived under arms for generations as a permanent standing force continously at war. A number of Greek city states also had elite, publically-funded military units; see Argos and Thebes for example. The Mede had standing units in addition to the non-professional levies, same with the Chinese. I don't know why you think it's significant that Spartiates were citizens, given that Marius was recruiting citizens as well. Even if Marius wasn't recruiting citizens, who cares? What do you think constitutes a standing army, or perhaps I should say, what is the "commonly accepted" position in the history major community as to what constitutes a standing army and a professional soldier?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 05:35
|
|
|
I prefer the historian over the classicist, because the requires you to be highly critical of sources rather than an incredulous buffoon. I think it's fair to say that the Spartans were a standing army, considering they were mobilised throughout the entire year. But I think the key decider is the separation between citizen and citizen-soldier. Pre-Marian, they had the citizen and the citizen-soldier. Post Marian they had the citizen and the professional soldier. The Spartans had nothing but the soldier. All primary industry was performed by slaves. If there's no peaceful citizen class, then is there any distinction in calling the spartan army professional?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 06:19
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:Huh, I thought you were a Classics major, that explains things. I didn't realise you could be a Roman Historian without being a Classicist. I totally disagree with your opinion of primary sources and the value of studying them, but that's neither here nor there. Was being a condescending prick part of your education, or were you just gifted that way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 07:01
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Was being a condescending prick part of your education, or were you just gifted that way. Well, most Classicists I've met don't fantasize about owning slaves so...
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 07:27
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:I think it's fair to say that the Spartans were a standing army, considering they were mobilised throughout the entire year. But I think the key decider is the separation between citizen and citizen-soldier. Pre-Marian, they had the citizen and the citizen-soldier. Post Marian they had the citizen and the professional soldier. The Spartans had nothing but the soldier. All primary industry was performed by slaves. If there's no peaceful citizen class, then is there any distinction in calling the spartan army professional? It'd probably be more accurate to consider Spartans as a warrior class than a standing army. They were more akin to the Celtic solduras nobility, or even the knights of the European medieval age; their life was focused upon martial pursuits, but they remained part of the larger community. They were citizen-soldiers - training separately and then called together into service when required. Also, Sparta certainly did have a free civilian class, though they were not citizens. They were called the Perioeci: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perioeci
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 09:43
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:I prefer the historian over the classicist, because the requires you to be highly critical of sources rather than an incredulous buffoon. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 10:54
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:Huh, I thought you were a Classics major, that explains things. I didn't realise you could be a Roman Historian without being a Classicist. I totally disagree with your opinion of primary sources and the value of studying them, but that's neither here nor there. In my experience as an Ancient History major most of my time is spent reading the primary sources. But you know, it's not like we take for granted what they say is true all the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 11:04
|
|
|
Any talk about climate/weather of the regions of then that we can compare to now? I swore I remember reading that at it's height Egypt was lush and green. Just curious if there was any obvious differences in climate compared to what we have now. Mind you, not a global warming debate. As I know the world goes through warm/cold shifts throughtout time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 20:11
|
|
|
Christoff posted:I swore I remember reading that at it's height Egypt was lush and green.  It never stopped being that. The useless desert was still useless desert 2000 years ago, but the Nile stands eternal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 20:19
|
|
|
By any recorded history it was probably not any different compared to today, unless there was some serious goat herding going on like in other parts of Africa. To quote wiki: "The climate of the Sahara has undergone enormous variation between wet and dry over the last few hundred thousand years.[13] During the last glacial period, the Sahara was even bigger than it is today, extending south beyond its current boundaries.[14] The end of the glacial period brought more rain to the Sahara, from about 8000 BC to 6000 BC, perhaps because of low pressure areas over the collapsing ice sheets to the north.[15] Once the ice sheets were gone, the northern Sahara dried out. In the southern Sahara though, the drying trend was soon counteracted by the monsoon, which brought rain further north than it does today. The monsoon season is caused by heating of air over the land during summer. The hot air rises and pulls in cool, wet air from the ocean, which causes rain. Thus, though it seems counterintuitive, the Sahara was wetter when it received more insolation in the summer. This was caused by a stronger tilt in Earth's axis of orbit than today, and perihelion occurred at the end of July around 7000 BC.[16] By around 4200 BC, the monsoon retreated south to approximately where it is today,[7] leading to the gradual desertification of the Sahara.[17] The Sahara is now as dry as it was about 13,000 years ago."
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 22:31
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:Huh, I thought you were a Classics major, that explains things. I didn't realise you could be a Roman Historian without being a Classicist. I totally disagree with your opinion of primary sources and the value of studying them, but that's neither here nor there... What do you think constitutes a standing army, or perhaps I should say, what is the "commonly accepted" position in the history major community as to what constitutes a standing army and a professional soldier? Again, as a doctoral student in Classics, I can tell you that the things he has said about a professionalized standing army is ~commonly accepted~ among Classicists as well. A professional army is one in which the soldiers' primary occupation, to the exclusion of other occupations, is to engage in warfare. The Spartans' main duty was to engage in warfare, and they had slaves (Helots, don't tell me they're not slaves) to do the agricultural necessities. They're a pretty special case, but even so, the whole point with Sparta is that if you were a full Spartan citizen, you were a soldier. That was it. There was no choice involved. There were no other professions. It's not a job; it's a duty. His point about the primary sources is that they are not reliable as a sole source of evidence. They are a very, very important source of evidence, true, and indeed they are the fundamental basis of my profession. They are not, however, God's own truth. Archaeological evidence sometimes even totally contradicts what we find in e.g. Livy. For example, the Romans believed that they settled at Rome in (roughly) 753 BC when Romulus founded their city on the otherwise uninhabited Palatine Hill. Archaeological evidence shows habitation from much earlier, around 1000 BC. In the ancient world, where they had much much worse access to sources for previous events, and where science was just beginning, myth was a kind of history. What constituted truth was debatable and certainly doesn't jive with what we'd call "fact" now.. It was absolutely standard practice to make up speeches out of the whole cloth. If you take all primary sources literally you'll find yourself in a pretty mess very quickly due to out-and-out contradictions. That was cool in the 19th century, but we don't do that anymore.* Charlie Mopps posted:Classicists literally sometimes reason 'well Herodotus/Cicero/Caesar said this or that, thus it is true for the entire classical world in every century'. Or they take satirical works completely serious. Its just baffling reading such things as a historian. Uhh. I don't know which Classicists you're reading, but those are the minority.* * I have read some dumb stuff occasionally but mostly that's less about historical realities and more about whether or not authors were telling the truth about themselves all the time in their poetry OR playing a part OR some mix of the two, and how much biographical information we can glean from what they say depending on our opinion on that. This isn't really a Roman history issue so much as a poetry issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
Back in the day there were also some desert civilizations in North Africa, such as the Garamantes, that eventually vanished because they depended on fossil water supplies that they'd run out of one day, without a way of finding new sources. Muammar Gaddafi's Manmade River project could be seen as a modern extension of that legacy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 01:01
|
|
|
Was there ever (so far as we know, of course) any attempt to bring back the republic? And if not, why not? Now I know that the hard division that historians have between the Republic and the Empire is a contemporary concept by historians, and Augustus etc claimed to be restoring the republic, but surely any educated Roman in subsequent generations could read the famous books and letters of Caeser, Cicero et al and see that the political system they lived in with its boisterous elections and competitive conquering were far different from Rome under the Emperors. What's more, Rome under the Republic had conquered most of the Ancient World, while Rome under the Emperors seemed mainly to be content with the very occasional push to make its borders more defensible. Was there any effort, say after the demise of the Julio Claudian line, or during the Third Century Crisis, to bring Rome back to a Republican system?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
Christoff posted:Any talk about climate/weather of the regions of then that we can compare to now? Not much different. There is some theorizing that there was a climate shift in the late 200s CE that lasted for a couple centuries and caused agricultural problems that contributed to the chaos of the period. I'm not well versed in that beyond knowing it's a hypothesis that exists. Generally though, it was the same as today. There are some references to forests in the Atlas Mountains that no longer exist, which might imply that it was a little bit wetter. Sahara + pleasant strip of Mediterranean climate along the northern coast of Africa was the same general idea though. And in Europe it was the same. Eggplant Wizard posted:Again, as a doctoral student in Classics, I can tell you that the things he has said about a professionalized standing army is ~commonly accepted~ among Classicists as well. A professional army is one in which the soldiers' primary occupation, to the exclusion of other occupations, is to engage in warfare. This, plus I would say you have to have complete state funding/support of the army. Spartans still supplied their own equipment and I do not believe they were paid, they were supported off their Helots. There really were only a handful of states up to Roman times that could've afforded to do it--armies are expensive. Eggplant Wizard posted:His point about the primary sources is that they are not reliable as a sole source of evidence. They are a very, very important source of evidence, true, and indeed they are the fundamental basis of my profession. They are not, however, God's own truth. Yup, this is what I meant. The primary sources are incredibly valuable and the sheer quantity of them is why we know so much more about Rome than a lot of other ancient societies, but they are still just one part of a larger picture. Eggplant Wizard posted:Archaeological evidence shows habitation from much earlier, around 1000 BC. Do you have a link to this? I'm intrigued, I've always read that the Palatine settlements are from the 8th century. That would be cool if they're that much older. I really wish we had some records from before 400.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:
Thanks a lot, Brennus. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:41 |
|
|
Eggplant Wizard posted:Again, as a doctoral student in Classics, I can tell you that the things he has said about a professionalized standing army is ~commonly accepted~ among Classicists as well. A professional army is one in which the soldiers' primary occupation, to the exclusion of other occupations, is to engage in warfare. The Spartans' main duty was to engage in warfare, and they had slaves (Helots, don't tell me they're not slaves) to do the agricultural necessities. They're a pretty special case, but even so, the whole point with Sparta is that if you were a full Spartan citizen, you were a soldier. That was it. There was no choice involved. There were no other professions. It's not a job; it's a duty. What's the definition of a professional army that is "commonly accepted" for in Classics and History departments at universities? Despite reading a few posts on it now, I still don't see why people are claiming that Marius created the first standing army, and where soldiers were no longer farmers but professionals. You seem to be saying that the Spartans maintained a professional army in this post, so are you agreeing that it is wrong to say that Marius was the first to institute this sort of thing? If so, then how is it the "commonly accepted" position that there wasn't a professional army until Marius? I also don't understand the relevance of saying that Spartans didn't have a choice; that may be true, but it doesn't change the nature of the Spartan life style. Anyway, what is the position on elite, standing units that were maintained by city states, and on Eastern standing units? Argos in the 4th century had a professional, publically funded unit, Thebes had such a unit, reading Xenophon it seems there were publically funded cavalry training, if not a full time unit, at Athens, I mean... these sound like professional soldiers in a full time unit, rather than some people who are going to go home after the fighting season in order to plant the crops. Grand Fromage posted:This, plus I would say you have to have complete state funding/support of the army. Spartans still supplied their own equipment and I do not believe they were paid, they were supported off their Helots. There really were only a handful of states up to Roman times that could've afforded to do it--armies are expensive. The equipment depends on time period and at any rate it's not clear, and it's also not really fair to talk about state funding/support in that manner given the nature of the Spartan economy. Is it state funding/support if you are ideally provided a certain amount of land and agricultural yield by law, with the farm hands being public property? Spartan citizens definitely provided their own equipment for some period of time, and you can find stories about them doing so later (like in Plutarch, where a Spartan has his own shield with a fly painted on it). On the other hand, it's clear that some city-states started to provide uniform equipment; in Xenophon's Hellenica, for example, a Spartan picks up a Sicyon shield which has a Sigma on it. I imagine that such public equipment would have been necessary to arm the lower classes during the late 5th century onwards. Agesilaus fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Sep 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 05:02
|
|