|
Xguard86 posted:Every time I hear someone swing to the opposite of the "Great Man" theory (what is the official name for that, circumstantial history?) I think about Diocletian and how that system fell apart almost overnight without his personal touch. There's times when so much power is wielded by a single person that he becomes a psychohistorical force of himself.
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 15:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:00 |
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:Another one is that gladiator fights were not as bad as modern society thinks they are. Basically, weren't all these myths perpetuated by the Christians to make themselves morally superior to those damned hedonistic Romans. Yeah but don't go too revisionist- they were still pretty awful. Here's a famous passage about a battle between criminals-- not gladiators, to be sure, but it'll give you an idea: Seneca the Younger, Epistles 7.3 posted:By chance I attended a mid-day exhibition, expecting some fun, wit, and relaxation, - an exhibition at which men's eyes have respite from the slaughter of their fellow-men. But it was quite the reverse. The previous combats were the essence of compassion; but now all the trifling is put aside and it is pure murder./a The men have no defensive armour. They are exposed to blows at all points, and no one ever strikes in vain. Many persons prefer this programme to the usual pairs and to the bouts "by request." Of course they do; there is no helmet or shield to deflect the weapon. What is the need of defensive armour, or of skill? All these mean delaying death. In the morning they throw men to the lions and the bears; at noon, they throw them to the spectators. The spectators demand that the slayer shall face the man who is to slay him in his turn; and they always reserve the latest conqueror for another butchering. The outcome of every fight is death, and the means are fire and sword. This sort of thing goes on while the arena is empty. You may retort: "But he was a highway robber; he killed a man!" And what of it? Granted that, as a murderer, he deserved this punishment, what crime have you committed, poor fellow, that you should deserve to sit and see this show? In the morning they cried "Kill him! Lash him! Burn him; Why does he meet the sword in so cowardly a way? Why does he strike so feebly? Why doesn't he die game? Whip him to meet his wounds! Let them receive blow for blow, with chests bare and exposed to the stroke!" And when the games stop for the intermission, they announce: "A little throatcutting in the meantime, so that there may still be something going on!" Here's a citation for a random article I haven't read but which promises to be pretty interesting. The Philosopher and the Gladiator Pierre Cagniart The Classical World , Vol. 93, No. 6 (Jul. - Aug., 2000), pp. 607-618 Published by: Classical Association of the Atlantic States Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4352467
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 15:46
|
|
|
Eggplant Witch posted:Yeah but don't go too revisionist- they were still pretty awful. Here's a famous passage about a battle between criminals-- not gladiators, to be sure, but it'll give you an idea: I know it has been discussed before probably, but is the reason why the Romans didn't have a penal system because they didn't understand the use of it or had no concept of it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:He probably did charge out with his big red cloak shouting COME ON YOU PUSSIES or whatever the proper Roman equivalent would be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 17:06
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:I know it has been discussed before probably, but is the reason why the Romans didn't have a penal system because they didn't understand the use of it or had no concept of it? I don't know of any ancient society that used imprisonment for longer periods than it took to try a person and get to the "real" punishment, so it was novel enough when Caesar suggested it for the Catiline conspirators. However, the real reason is that it was too expensive: the vast majority of taxes went to pay for the army. There was simply not enough surplus production to pay for an army AND a nobility AND a bunch of people sitting around in prison. One may suggest that placing someone in slavery for certain crimes (perhaps for a fixed period) would present an alternative to death/fines/banishment/corporal punishment. It is interesting that as far as I know, this was not practiced. I suspect this is connected with the elimination of debt bondage in the early days of the Republic. Of course, I'm no expert, I may be way off on the latter part.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 17:53
|
|
|
Yeah, ancient societies didn't really do imprisonment. Either someone was dangerous enough to be killed or not, no reason to have them sit around doing nothing otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
Maybe they were more civilized. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 18:14
|
|
|
This sort of goes hand in hand with the fact that Rome really didn't have much in the way of criminal law until the middle of the Empire. The vast majority of disputes were handled as private suits involving monetary compensation; there were the usual laws against murder and such, but even something like theft was pursued through a lawsuit rather than by public prosecution. Prisons and public prosecution go pretty much hand in hand, since keeping criminals at public expense makes very little sense unless the trial and sentencing apparatus is also public. Eventually you start to get a more robust criminal law system, but even then it's highly localized; Roman criminal law was pretty much only applicable in the city of Rome itself, and this was largely true in all the major provincial cities as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Maybe they were more civilized. I started typing an answer to his question and realized I was swerving into weird territory when in the second paragraph I started wondering why the hell we bother with the current system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
The crime of treason was heavily prosecuted in Rome though. That was one popular crime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 21:21
|
|
|
Xguard86 posted:I started typing an answer to his question and realized I was swerving into weird Presuming you mean America as we there's generally been a different reason for the specific treatment of prisons in different regions and eras, for a lot of post-civil war American history the primary purpose of penitentiaries was to suppress black Americans. You could argue that's still the primary purpose but I believe in general today we continue with the system because it provides a bunch of government jobs in a politically expedient field and it provides a lot of massively profitable slave labor. Really it's both, though  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 21:30
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The crime of treason was heavily prosecuted in Rome though. That was one popular crime. I mean yes, in one sense. We should bear in mind, though, that prosecution still had to be brought BY someone, even for criminal offenses, until quite late in Roman history. The special category of criminal offenses mostly meant that they could be prosecuted by any Roman citizen, not that the government would itself do the prosecuting, although obviously in practice the government would almost certainly be involved on some level.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 22:03
|
|
|
Yeah, I tend to think the origin of prisons (as we currently understand them) came about as a result of religious and philosophical ideas that the Romans didn't have. I don't think a Roman would think of crime as being transgressions against society or punishments as being intended to rehabilitate. There also wasn't the need for slave labor from prisons, because, well, the Romans already had slave labor.Troubadour posted:One may suggest that placing someone in slavery for certain crimes (perhaps for a fixed period) would present an alternative to death/fines/banishment/corporal punishment. It is interesting that as far as I know, this was not practiced. I suspect this is connected with the elimination of debt bondage in the early days of the Republic. Temporary slavery would probably not have worked out, considering that masters had absolute power over their slaves and could maim or kill (or, on the other hand, manumit) them as it pleased them. So to say, essentially, "this guy's your slave for five years, but you can't do any permanent damage to him, kill him, or free him" would likely undermine things quite a bit. Also, in the Twelve Tables, the punishment for theft during daylight was that the thief was to be handed over as a slave to the person he was convicted of stealing from. But this is contrasted against the punishment for theft under the cover of darkness, which was death. (Note that if you were already a slave and were convicted of stealing by day, the punishment was to be thrown from the Tarpeian Rock, which was also the punishment for high crimes like treason.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:Yeah, I tend to think the origin of prisons (as we currently understand them) came about as a result of religious and philosophical ideas that the Romans didn't have. I don't think a Roman would think of crime as being transgressions against society or punishments as being intended to rehabilitate. There also wasn't the need for slave labor from prisons, because, well, the Romans already had slave labor. I thought that after about 70BC Roman masters actually could not maim or kill their slaves unless they had a good reason to. I bet in practice they could still do it whenever they wanted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
There were a number of laws concerning slaves and the treatment of slaves, and what was acceptable changed over time, yes. The advent of the Emperors was, if little else, better than the Republic for slaves. I don't think this, in general, was because the Emperors wanted to ingratiate themselves with slaves (because who cares about what a slave thinks?) or because they found slavery morally repugnant, but instead as a means to undermine the traditional idea of private property and foundations of patrician society. edit: That is to say, in earlier Roman culture, the paterfamilias was the head of the household with the power of life and death over everyone in it - his slaves, his children, his wife (to the extent she wasn't protected by her own father) and so on. I think this kind of family structure (and by extension, social structure, since you had a bunch of these guys who had to get along with each other) influenced Roman political life and contributed to why republican government took hold there, as opposed to kingship or democracy. So as a practical matter, I think the dictators in the late Republic and the early Emperors had an interest in trying to dismantle this and render the power of the paterfamilias less absolute within the private sphere. One way to accomplish this without directly attacking ~family values~ would be to pass laws reforming what could and could not be done to slaves. This is, of course, just my speculation. I tend to think slavery was significant in the classical world in a way that we moderns have a lot of difficulty recognizing. By this I mean -- well, when I think "ancient dudes had slaves", my mental image of it is generally in economic terms - I can imagine what slaves might have done around the house, what they might have been treated like, and so on. But I can't easily imagine what kind of effect the proposition "owning other human beings is perfectly normal" or "I have absolute power over these people's lives" (much less more specific facets) would have had on people's interior lives, how it might or might not have been significant. fantastic in plastic fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Oct 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
I was debating with someone today about free speech, who tried to convince me that the Roman Republic was the golden age of free speech, where you could say anything you liked without punishment. Now obviously that's pretty eye-rolling and cannot be true in any way, but can you guys give me some examples of stuff you could say in the Republic that would get you punished (fined/executed etc.) for legal reasons? Weirder the better. edit: thanks! the wording of that translation does make me laugh though. v v v Captain Mediocre fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Oct 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 00:33
|
|
|
Not exactly sure if this is a "weird" example, but since I was looking at the Twelve Tables earlier:Twelve Tables posted:LAW VIII. Probably not prosecuted at all times and in all respects, since we have the Catullus diss poem, but your friend is a little misguided. There weren't people from the government listening in on conversations (remember, as Bel Canto pointed out, most prosecutions were done on the basis of one individual accuser, not "the people of Rome versus..."), but if you pissed some citizen off by talking poo poo about him and you caught an unsympathetic magistrate, there could definitely be punishment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
Once again, freedom of speech, but not freedom from the consequences of your speech.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
Munin posted:I have to say that the perception of the Germanic tribes etc also being cultureless brutes is also annoying. Totally agreed, fortunately there's a lot of work being done on revising that these days. Until recently whatever Romans wrote about the "barbarians" was usually just accepted as fact, now we know better. Eggplant Witch posted:* I was reading the other day about a 19th century excavation (in a modern work) and they straight up threw out all the bones found in some 8th century tombs in Latium NO BIGGIE I honestly try not to read about old archaeology anymore because it's so loving depressing. I think the switch to science instead of treasure hunting was a little earlier but it is a recent phenomenon. It's sad how much we lost to the old tomb raiders. achillesforever6 posted:Another one is that gladiator fights were not as bad as modern society thinks they are. Basically, weren't all these myths perpetuated by the Christians to make themselves morally superior to those damned hedonistic Romans. Victorian writers in particular are where a lot of the IMMORAL ROMANS!! mythology comes from. Gladiator fights were plenty nasty, the part that's mythical is that they were constant to the death bloodbaths. Matches were not intended to end in death (unless it was a prisoner execution via combat for entertainment) except in rare occasions. And we have advertisements of those matches that specifically say this one is to the death, which presumably was a big draw. achillesforever6 posted:I know it has been discussed before probably, but is the reason why the Romans didn't have a penal system because they didn't understand the use of it or had no concept of it? Imprisonment as punishment just wasn't a thing until modern times. It was used for nobles who you couldn't simply execute off-hand but not anyone below that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 01:29
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I honestly try not to read about old archaeology anymore because it's so loving depressing. I think the switch to science instead of treasure hunting was a little earlier but it is a recent phenomenon. It's sad how much we lost to the old tomb raiders. Look at it this way, it gives cultural historians a large insight into the people of the time these excavations were going on at least. That's one reason I don't get totally depressed looking at how much was chucked out at, say, Great Zimbabwe or Hisarlik. Hopefully we're past all this now. There's still a shitload under the ground out there and now we hopefully know better! Sorry, not directly Rome related. More Rome related, I know Iberia was very Romanised and that the economy was very plugged into the wider Roman economy, especially the olive oil but how frequently did they revolt over there? Any celtic seperatism at all after absorption into Rome etc.? Regional differences? I read a lot about various people making their fortune there to later come back to Rome but that's about it. NLJP fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Oct 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 03:08
|
|
|
Captain Mediocre posted:I was debating with someone today about free speech, who tried to convince me that the Roman Republic was the golden age of free speech, where you could say anything you liked without punishment Cicero was executed and had his writing hand nailed to a door. The grachi were killed for their land reform. It was an accepted tactic to have your supporters physically remove or beat your opponents during election debates. Then there's the fact that over 99 percent of the people in Rome and the empire has no voice at all except for occasionally forming a mob around a top guy. Plus slavery. Sure most of this was not really legal but no one in the US is afraid of being dragged of a stage and stabbed for their speech.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
Xguard86 posted:Cicero was executed and had his writing hand nailed to a door. The grachi were killed for their land reform. It was an accepted tactic to have your supporters physically remove or beat your opponents during election debates. Then there's the fact that over 99 percent of the people in Rome and the empire has no voice at all except for occasionally forming a mob around a top guy. Plus slavery. Well, what happened to politicians wasn't necessarily from their speaking, it was from their political actions as well. Cicero snubbed Anthony in the Senate, the Gracchi were promoting land reform (by taking it away from the large estate owners), Biblius was opposing Caesar. I guess the question is whether the man on the street would have faced trouble for speaking his mind. In the first 400 years of the republic, who knows? Only in the last hundred years when we read about the Gracchi being murdered with 300 of their supporters, or Marius, Sulla and Octavian's reported massacres of their opponent's followers do we start seing people killed solely on the basis of their political associations. But then, "not being murdered for speaking your mind" is a pretty low bar to determine a "golden age" of free speech. Citing an impeccable, unimpeachable source, there was the episode of Rome where Caesar's right hand slave has some guy who is bad-mouthing Caesar assassinated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 04:33
|
|
|
Well, it's not like there were thought police and gestapo. You could talk poo poo all you wanted but if someone didn't like it you could get sued or beaten to death by a mob. I don't think I'd consider it any freer than the modern US or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 04:36
|
|
|
Did the Romans think Italy looked like a boot?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 11:47
|
|
|
Best question in the thread. I believe I have read Romans referring to Italy as boot shaped, yes. I cannot remember which writer or what book it was in and hope someone else knows. I could be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 12:09
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Best question in the thread. Did the Romans have such a thing as a boot?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 13:25
|
|
|
furushotakeru posted:Did the Romans have such a thing as a boot? Caligula would like a word
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 13:55
|
|
|
Barto posted:Caligula would like a word Granted their idea of a boot is what we would call a sandal with extra straps. Did they ever use boots or shoes that were closer to our conception of them? I imagine the Gauls would have had proper boots due to living in much colder climates, and the idea of wrapping leather around your feet with a hard bottom is not a super complicated idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 15:38
|
|
|
Barto posted:Caligula would like a word Cutest nickname for a horrible tyrant ever.  Were there any other Emperors who were stuck with names that they didn't like during their time?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 17:05
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Cutest nickname for a horrible tyrant ever. The Queen of Bithynia for Caesar would be one, for his rumored and most likely made up dalliances with the king there when he was diplomat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
No, I mean like being called that popularly. I don't think anyone but Caesar's worst detractors called him that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Cutest nickname for a horrible tyrant ever. The later Roman emperors had some good ones: Constantine "the poo poo name" and Michael "the Forger". Dunno if they were called that to their faces or just by their opponents, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Granted their idea of a boot is what we would call a sandal with extra straps. Did they ever use boots or shoes that were closer to our conception of them? I imagine the Gauls would have had proper boots due to living in much colder climates, and the idea of wrapping leather around your feet with a hard bottom is not a super complicated idea. Caligae had nails in the sole. They were literally leather wrapped around your foot with a hard bottom. They were boots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 18:19
|
|
|
sullat posted:The later Roman emperors had some good ones: Constantine "the poo poo name" and Michael "the Forger". Dunno if they were called that to their faces or just by their opponents, though. Caracalla was another. Like Caligula, referred to an article of clothing (in this case, a hooded cloak) that he wore often. IIRC in The History of Rome its mentioned as never being used in his presence due to his distaste for it. Edit: Or I could be wrong and it might be a posthumous nickname. Either way, Emperor named after clothes!
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 18:19
|
|
|
BoutrosBoutros posted:Caligae had nails in the sole. They were literally leather wrapped around your foot with a hard bottom. They were boots.  That's not Italy-shaped. Not even close. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
I meant something like This The Romans were clearly advanced enough to figure it out, I was wondering if they actually used them officially.
WoodrowSkillson fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Oct 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:I meant something like This The Romans were clearly advanced enough to figure it out, I was wondering if they actually used them officially. I don't know man, that seems a bit like asking why didn't Romans wear T-Shirts. They had different types of shoes, but they were basically all sandal-ish. The military caligae weren't any less advanced than those boots you posted either. In some ways they were better. They were more durable since there was much less stitching, and being more open meant you wouldn't get blisters or trenchfoot as easily. If it was cold they wore socks under them, no big fashion faux-pas about it back then. The shoes they had worked for them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 03:05
|
|
|
I did always think it was strange that they didn't have different footwear for soldiers in places like Britain, but I suppose it was easier to just mass produce caligares and have the soldiers bring some socks. For the Mediterranean climate they were definitely better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 04:53
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I did always think it was strange that they didn't have different footwear for soldiers in places like Britain, but I suppose it was easier to just mass produce caligares and have the soldiers bring some socks. For the Mediterranean climate they were definitely better. I was going to make a joke about government supply contracts, and that got me wondering... how exactly did the Romans supply soldiers with equipment? I gather in earlier eras soldiers would have equipped themselves, but in later times was there any sort of mass or at least standardized production? Cottage industry, perhaps?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:00 |
|
|
State mass production. Equipment was standardized and manufactured for the legions. Legions also had their own smiths and such for repairs/replacements in the field.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 05:21
|
|