|
Sylphid posted:One thing has always made me wonder about the Eastern Roman Empire: how were they able to survive so long? Many factors, these are the ones that come to mind. One, they were under attack a lot but so was everyone back then, so it's not as big a factor as it sounds like. Rome was at war more or less constantly for two thousand years. The empire had excellent generals now and then and the Roman army remained the best funded, disciplined, and technologically advanced army in the west until well into the Middle Ages. I mean it's 1000 AD and the Romans have guys running around with flamethrowers and grenades. You didn't want to gently caress with them. The empire also constantly loses ground and then gains it back. More than once it's pushed back to being little more than Constantinople, then rebounds. Second factor was Constantinople itself. Until the Ottomans roll up with the largest cannon on Earth it was quite literally impregnable. Many armies reached its walls and died at them. Three, the east was always quite rich, far richer than the west. When the west came apart it didn't really affect the east all that much. They were also impressively advanced in science and technology compared to their enemies. It took a long time for their foes to start catching up to what the Romans had already figured out. Four, their enemies were disorganized. They were getting attacked on all sides, but it was by 20 different groups that didn't coordinate anything or have common goals. The times you see Rome in real trouble are when they're facing a disciplined, organized enemy. Persia, the Caliphate, the Ottomans, the Crusaders. Usually they're able to deal with their enemies one by one. Lastly, they got pretty drat lucky many times.
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 13:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:26 |
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Lastly, they got pretty drat lucky many times. It gets pretty ridiculous sometimes. Battle of Manzikert, Byzantine army is hosed, no hope in sight, then this guy rolls around and buys the Empire another couple centuries. I mean that's simplified version of events of course, but still...
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 13:49
|
|
|
I'm getting pretty close to the end of The History of Rome podcast, and looking for a book or another podcast to pick up where it leaves off. I've got the History of Byzantium podcast in my feed ready to check out, but I think i'm more interested in continuing the history of the kings, military and development of Western Europe. Dan Carlin's Hardcore History delves into immediately post-collapse in the west in his Thor's Angels podcast, ending with the ascension of Charlemagne, which was pretty rad. I'd love a book/podcast that covers the transition of late antiquity into the middle ages for the West, preferably more modern as not to fall into the trap of viewing this period as the 'Dark Ages'- any recommendations?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
Cervixalot posted:I'm getting pretty close to the end of The History of Rome podcast, and looking for a book or another podcast to pick up where it leaves off. I've got the History of Byzantium podcast in my feed ready to check out, but I think i'm more interested in continuing the history of the kings, military and development of Western Europe. Chris Wickham's 'Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, 400-800' or 'The Inheritance Of Rome: A History of Europe from 400 to 1000' both look pretty decent. The first one also won several awards for history books and looks like the one more suited towards an interested amateur audience.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:It gets pretty ridiculous sometimes. Battle of Manzikert, Byzantine army is hosed, no hope in sight, then this guy rolls around and buys the Empire another couple centuries. I mean that's simplified version of events of course, but still... The Byzantines had roller-coaster ride of good emperors and bad emperors, that's for sure. Of course, Komnenos triggered the Crusades, which came back and bit the Byzantines in the rear end a mere century later, but that's someone else's problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 17:50
|
|
|
Cervixalot posted:I'm getting pretty close to the end of The History of Rome podcast, and looking for a book or another podcast to pick up where it leaves off. I've got the History of Byzantium podcast in my feed ready to check out, but I think i'm more interested in continuing the history of the kings, military and development of Western Europe. The Forge of Christendom by Tom Holland is a really interesting book that I enjoyed and seems to fit what you're asking for. It covers the time period of Charlemagne to a few decades after the Norman conquest of England with a focus on the rise of Western Europe. There are also tidbits about what was going on with the Byzantines throughout the time, and it also discusses how the power of the Church influenced politics/the development of Western Europe. Here's the description that's on the back of the book: quote:At the approach of the first millennium, the Christians of Europe did not seem likely candidates for future greatness. Weak, fractured, and hemmed in by hostile nations, they saw no future beyond the widely anticipated Second Coming of Christ. But when the world did not end, the peoples of Western Europe suddenly found themselves with no choice but to begin the heroic task of building a Jerusalem on earth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Going down the rabbit hole...what as the Ummayad tax policy, and why did it help and also bring about the end? Given what we know about conversion rates, Ummayad taxation policy had very little to do with conversion rates. Egypt (from which we have the best records) more then likely didn't hit 50% of the population until sometime in the 11th century and didn't react it's current levels till the 13th. Conversion is generally very slow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Byzantium talk. This is very informative, thanks. I often consider it an amazing feat that direct Roman government lasted for about 2200 years, but then you read stuff about Roman technology, discipline, society, engineering, military, government, etc. and you realize how much of that success was deserved. They really took to heart the fact organization, tactics, leadership, and technology can make the difference on almost any battlefield. Another question on an unrelated topic: from what I understand, when Hannibal took his army over the Alps, he was expecting to have a bunch of Italian cities turn against Rome, but instead almost the entire peninsula remained loyal because of the connections Rome built with them over the previous few centuries. Is that a correct understanding of what happened?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
Sylphid posted:This is very informative, thanks. I often consider it an amazing feat that direct Roman government lasted for about 2200 years, but then you read stuff about Roman technology, discipline, society, engineering, military, government, etc. and you realize how much of that success was deserved. No, the Gauls and non-Roman Italians were pretty cool with him and even joined his army in droves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 22:35
|
|
|
Cervixalot posted:I'm getting pretty close to the end of The History of Rome podcast, and looking for a book or another podcast to pick up where it leaves off. I've got the History of Byzantium podcast in my feed ready to check out, but I think i'm more interested in continuing the history of the kings, military and development of Western Europe. This Open Yale podcast course on the Early Middle Ages (284-1000) is pretty good: http://oyc.yale.edu/history/hist-210
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
Sylphid posted:Another question on an unrelated topic: from what I understand, when Hannibal took his army over the Alps, he was expecting to have a bunch of Italian cities turn against Rome, but instead almost the entire peninsula remained loyal because of the connections Rome built with them over the previous few centuries. Is that a correct understanding of what happened? sullat posted:No, the Gauls and non-Roman Italians were pretty cool with him and even joined his army in droves. A little of this, a little of that. What you say Sylphid is broadly correct. Many Italians, especially the ones closest to Rome (Latins), remained loyal. Remember, it's their land getting attacked too, and the whole official reason for the Roman alliance system was mutual defense. There were plenty of groups in Cisalpine Gaul (not really subdued by the Romans yet mostly) and in Campania who did join Hannibal, however. Capua is the classic example.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
Yeah, Hannibal was gambling that everyone in Italy hated their Roman masters and would rise up against them. It was true in some cases but not nearly enough for it to be decisive the way he wanted it to be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
Eggplant Wizard posted:Capua is the classic example. And the Samnites, who really hated Rome in a way that wasn't really equaled afterwards by anyone else. The first enemy is always the most bitter.  Fact or fiction: Is it true that history knows more about Pontius Pilate then they know about Jesus (of Nazareth)? DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Dec 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Fact or fiction: Is it true that history knows more about Pontius Pilate then they know about Jesus (of Nazareth)? That wouldn't be hard. We only know about Jesus through gospels and the like. And from what I recall, only the Gospel of Thomas has many supporters as being first century CE (outside of the NT canon, which is all first century or very early second). Outside of religious texts we just have testimony that some groups sang hymns to Jesus and worshiped him "as a god". edit: But it's been the better part of a decade since I read any historical-critical stuff here; it's possible the consensus has shifted on the dating of some book or other. But I'm pretty sure nothing new has been discovered, certainly not in the way of historical testimony to the existence & deeds of Jesus of Nazareth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 02:18
|
|
|
There's not really any record of Jesus outside of religious sources. There are mentions of early Christians but not Jesus directly. Pontius Pilatus wasn't a particularly big deal, he was just a provincial prefect, but there are a few mentions of him outside of religious sources.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
Realistically Jesus wasn't a big deal at the time either, there were a lot of guys like Joshua The Carpenter From Nazareth Who Had A Splinter Jewish Following. Other contemporaneous guys doing the same kind of thing simply didn't catch on and take over the Empire with their religion over centuries. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 02:32
|
|
|
Yeah, that's why there aren't records. It wasn't important until well after the fact.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yeah, that's why there aren't records. It wasn't important until well after the fact. Also, the records would have been in Jerusalem, which is a bad place for them to be in that time frame.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:There's not really any record of Jesus outside of religious sources. There are mentions of early Christians but not Jesus directly. Pontius Pilatus wasn't a particularly big deal, he was just a provincial prefect, but there are a few mentions of him outside of religious sources.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
sullat posted:Also, the records would have been in Jerusalem, which is a bad place for them to be in that time frame. Yup. But even then there wouldn't have been much. Pontius Pilatus was prefect of a small province, like thousands of other men were over the years. Jesus was a criminal executed by the state (assuming he existed), like many thousands of others. There wouldn't have been any special records kept at the time, they just weren't important or different than anybody else. brozozo posted:Josephus is the first person to mention Jesus in a non-religious source, right? As far as I know, but he wrote 60 years later and his sources would've been the early Christians so it's not any more reliable. It's a valuable source for other reasons but usually this is a "did Jesus exist?" discussion, trying to find some independent confirmation, and there is none. Personally I am a filthy heathen atheist but have no strong opinion either way on whether Jesus existed. Gun to my head I'd say there was some real person at the root of the mythology but you can make cogent arguments either way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 05:00
|
|
|
brozozo posted:Josephus is the first person to mention Jesus in a non-religious source, right? There was a Roman historian Suetonius who talked about the early Christian events, including the expulsion of the Jews from Rome. He writes decades earlier than Josephus (AD 64 versus AD 93), but many historians have favored Josephus since Suetonius never mentions a Jesus figure specifically (like the other Roman historians Tacitus and Pliny the Younger). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius_on_Christians
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
Yet another person here who just caught up on this thread after reading through the whole thing over a few weeks. Thanks to all the contributors!Grand Fromage posted:Gun to my head I'd say there was some real person at the root of the mythology but you can make cogent arguments either way. For one of those arguments, Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All presents quite a compelling case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 06:50
|
|
|
I'm not sure what that guy's specific argument is. The mythology is clear bullshit--the Jesus story is virtually identical to any number of other similar mystery cults from the time. The historians who support a historical Jesus don't claim the story is true, it's obviously not. There are two things that are largely considered to be true. Jesus was a messianic figure of the time (one of many) and he was executed by the local Roman authorities. Everything else is a mythological construction like any religion. So if his argument is just that the story is bull, then yeah, that's not controversial. In any case I don't think it matters much, and don't want to skirt too close to a religion derail. Whether he existed or not doesn't matter once Christianity gets going. The religion is the force that changes history, Jesus himself was just another guy who got crucified for loving around with the Romans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 07:21
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:In any case I don't think it matters much, and don't want to skirt too close to a religion derail. Yeah, this. Let's not make this thread into a  christians heh circlejerk.e: Wow, I also refuse to take anyone seriously who uses Papyrus on their title page, unless it's a book on overused fonts maybe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 14:41
|
|
|
Bullet point summary: Did Pontius Pilatus exist? Probably. Did Jesus exist? Maybe. Is there evidence that the story as told in the gospels is true? No. Why don't we know? Because it was a standard prisoner execution and was not important at the time. I think that covers just about everything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 14:58
|
|
|
The time in Iudaea was revolutionary. At the time (in general) the Jews were looking for a messiah, the Romans were wary of revolt, and the Sanhedrin was trying to keep a lid on everything. Jesus was very popular (allegedly) and posed a problem for the Sanhedrin who wanted to keep the little autonomy that they had. So Jesus had to go. But that did not end the revolutionary fervor in Iudaea. 30 or so years after Jesus' death the first Jewish-Roman War happened. And about 100 years or so after Jesus the Jews revolted again and the Romans (Hadrian) went completely bonkers and all the Jews were killed and expelled from Iudaea and the province was renamed Syria Palaestina. And as you can see all of that has serious importance in modern times.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 15:18
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:And the Samnites, who really hated Rome in a way that wasn't really equaled afterwards by anyone else. The first enemy is always the most bitter. Fun fact: The final time the Samnites fought a battle as a distinct organized force, before they were destroyed as a people, they fought to defend the gates of Rome under the command of one Pontius Telesinus. (They lost)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 22:05
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Did Jesus exist? Maybe. I was looking at the citations on the subject of the existence of Jesus, and it makes it sound like that the academic consensus is that Jesus was a real person. But then I scroll down and the evidence of the earliest known written references are all at least thirty years after he died. Is that what's considered proof enough that there was such a person? Because I'm of the opinion that mentioning someone who died thirty years before is not proof that someone was ever a someone. Not that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but I'm not buying it based on writings that happened far after the fact.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
Star Man posted:I was looking at the citations on the subject of the existence of Jesus, and it makes it sound like that the academic consensus is that Jesus was a real person. But then I scroll down and the evidence of the earliest known written references are all at least thirty years after he died. Is that what's considered proof enough that there was such a person? Because I'm of the opinion that mentioning someone who died thirty years before is not proof that someone was ever a someone. Not that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but I'm not buying it based on writings that happened far after the fact. Really it's closer to 60 years, because Josephus is the first one to acknowledge him individually. The Wikipedia page is, of course, heavily disputed. Essentially it's a matter where the adherents point to the broad academic support to the idea, and the opposition points out that most Jesus Historians are Christian in the first place. But yeah, it's probably too controversial a topic to tackle in this thread. There's been some discussion of the matter in the religion threads, I'd suggest checking them out. Kaal fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
Kaal posted:But yeah, it's probably too controversial a topic to tackle in this thread. Yep that'd be why I suggested it stop. I didn't mean for it to be so much a suggestion as an order, so I'll make that clear. MOD HAT ON Let's not talk about Jesus anymore. Boring. MOD HAT OFF Anyone know anything about the "copy-books" that art historians often refer to when talking about painters & mosaicists in the Roman world? I'm not sure if there's any evidence for them or if it's just a theory that was cooked up to explain how you get such super similar scenes all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:34
|
|
|
Did they have anything like restaurants in the ancient world?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
One of the buildings in Herculaneum that I visited was apparently a sort of Roman carry-out/food truck place, and of course there were taverns and brothels which had food available. It all depends how you define restaurant, really.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:48
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Did they have anything like restaurants in the ancient world? Poor Romans didn't have kitchens, so they basically ate at the equivalent of fast food restaurants. It was a sign of great wealth to have a kitchen in your home.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:49
|
|
|
One Wikipedia check later, I can tell you that those carry out places I mentioned were called Thermopoliums.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
Eggplant Wizard posted:Anyone know anything about the "copy-books" that art historians often refer to when talking about painters & mosaicists in the Roman world? I'm not sure if there's any evidence for them or if it's just a theory that was cooked up to explain how you get such super similar scenes all over the place. I've seen stone carving guide lines at the amphitheater in Capua but that's the closest I have personally. And that's architecture, not sculpture. I'm not sure about the actual copy books, I could hit up a source and see if he knows where it comes from.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 06:13
|
|
|
King of False Promises posted:Poor Romans didn't have kitchens, so they basically ate at the equivalent of fast food restaurants. It was a sign of great wealth to have a kitchen in your home. Didn't Romans (residents of the city, I mean) receive grain rations from the state? How were those distributed/prepared?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 06:34
|
|
|
What were the ways Romans counteracted coin counterfeiting?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 06:58
|
|
|
sullat posted:Didn't Romans (residents of the city, I mean) receive grain rations from the state? How were those distributed/prepared? There were communal bakeries all over the city. You'd take your grain there, the baker took a cut, and he baked bread with the rest and gave it to you. achillesforever6 posted:What were the ways Romans counteracted coin counterfeiting? I think you can check it to see if it's really gold or whatever. Later when the coins are hugely debased it might've been a problem, but the money was so worthless anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 07:03
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:What were the ways Romans counteracted coin counterfeiting? Weigh-scales, for one. And officially stamping the coins was the first attempt at preventing counterfeiting - forgers would have to replicate the stamp, or avoid ruining it when debasing real currency. And of course by imposing the death penalty for forgers. Check out this cool counterfeit silver coin!: http://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?zpg=8640 Grand Fromage posted:I think you can check it to see if it's really gold or whatever. Later when the coins are hugely debased it might've been a problem, but the money was so worthless anyway. The Romans had of course heard of the Archimedes Principle. Probably the most famous story about counterfeiting in antiquity. Tasked with discerning whether the king's new crown was actually made entirely of gold, the Greek mathematician was stumped because of the irregular shape of the crown and the inability to melt it down. While taking a bath he realized that he could use volumetric measuring to discern the true density of the material and then compare that to a measure of pure gold of equal weight. Naked, he ran down the streets of Syracuse shouting, "Eureka". (Something most people don't know: The crown wasn't pure gold after all, so some guy dies at the end of that story.) Anyway, the Romans could use that to figure out the volume and relative density of any object that could be submerged in water. While that wouldn't stop a contemporary forger who might drill out the gold and replace it with a similar-density material like steel and then coat it with gold, it would catch anyone who was just shaving down coins or minting their own alloy. Also, as I'm sure you know, Roman coinage was debased throughout its history. It was never entirely pure, as far as I know. The Roman government would gradually debase their coinage more and more over the centuries, in an ancient form of expansionary monetary policy and public taxation. Though they didn't have the economic theory to fully understand the system, their adherence to a slow inflationary policy was actually quite helpful for stabilizing their economy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes#Archimedes.27_principle Kaal fucked around with this message at 09:20 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 08:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:26 |
|
|
One of my students' papers argued that the Britons adopted Roman coinage because it was pure gold & silver  unlike British coins. (He'd been confused because I'd talked about how sometimes votive objects are base metals very thinly coated in silver or gold so they looked richer, and he extrapolated that to all British coinage).
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 15:17
|
|