|
Volmarias posted:That took me a few seconds, but holy poo poo what a burn. This guy sounds like he was stellar! Plus, I missed out on sottum's secondary implication of drunkeness, good to see that our beloved national stereotypes have a sound historical lineage  I'll stop posting about Post Roman Europe now if ye like; I feel I've perhaps strayed a little too far from the threads mainstay.
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
When it came to Roman medicine, how often did infection kill the wounded? Did they disinfect the wounds with alcohol or something similar? I know that they had a pretty good grasp on dealing with wounds through surgery and all that, but I'd like to know what they knew about preventative medicine and suchlike.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 03:42
|
|
|
How did Romans communicate with people they conquered? I've been relistening to the History of Rome, and Mike describes the defeated British leader Caractacus being taken back to Rome, and delivering an oration to Claudius which saved his life and got him a farm in Italy to live out the rest of his days on. What language would he have spoken in to do that? Did the Romans have interpreters?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
They had interpreters. Also a lot of the rich/powerful on the borders of the empire learned Latin, same way people learn English all over the world today, so many could've communicated without one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 05:38
|
|
|
I think people forget that outside the Roman borders was in fact not a wilderness of just tribes in huts or whatever. There were civilizations that had traders and rich people just like Rome, and if you're bordering a superpower, it bodes well to learn their language and gain favor in their rich circles.(or just find ways to suck silver/gold out of them). Although I do wonder how the the Roman diplomatic mission to China in 166 went. They received an audience with the Han Emperor supposedly, but given this was the first recorded direct contact, I can't imagine the Romans were too up to date on......what was spoken in China at the time? Nor could I imagine the Han imperial court having anyone around who knew really any Latin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 07:07
|
|
|
I would wager they used merchants. Maybe there wasn't anyone who knew both Latin and Chinese, but you could've had a team. Latin to Persian to Chinese or Latin to some Indian language to Chinese or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 07:10
|
|
|
I can't imagine it would be too difficult. Probably just a lot of smiling politely, stand when everyone else stands, bow when everyone else bows, etc. I'd imagine the audience was more of a ceremonial "present gifts to the Emperor and receive a lot of gifts in return" kind of gigs, not a detailed discussion on foreign policy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 07:15
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I would wager they used merchants. Maybe there wasn't anyone who knew both Latin and Chinese, but you could've had a team. Latin to Persian to Chinese or Latin to some Indian language to Chinese or whatever. I have the most wonderful mental images of the Roman ambassadors meeting the Han emperor, and in between them is a line of 7 people needed to translate. It just becomes this high level diplomatic game of telephone which by the end of it the Emperor is told the Roman ambassadors are asking if he happens to have any extra apples which they can use to wipe their noses with 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 07:20
|
|
|
I'd also bet that the diplomats sent were Rome's most experienced. They weren't stupid and unsophisticated, they had a diplomatic corps of some sort--we think of their foreign policy as being  but there was much more to it.Sadly there's no information. There aren't really any Roman records and the Chinese ones have never been translated. I'd put my money on a largeish expedition with a lot of translators and a whole group of diplomats.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 07:24
|
|
|
Well we know that Roman traders had interaction with Chinese traders at about halfway right? That'd probably be enough to get some direct Latin-Chinese translators involved on a big expedition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 07:29
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Well we know that Roman traders had interaction with Chinese traders at about halfway right? That'd probably be enough to get some direct Latin-Chinese translators involved on a big expedition. It's unclear. The land trade went through Parthia, and the Parthians did their damnedest to make sure no Romans and Chinese ever met. They made a tidy profit on being the middleman, after all. But Romans also took the sea route, which started in the Red Sea ports, over to the Roman trade ports in India, then around Southeast Asia up to China. Direct Roman/Chinese contact could've happened there. We just don't know. Being able to chain multiple translators was absolutely possible, having a direct Latin-Chinese may have been but there's no way to know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 07:33
|
|
|
A friend told me a story about a guy who essentially made up a god, conned a bunch of people, and got famous for it. So I'm curious if that's true or not. What do you know about Glykon, and the guy behind it? I think that was the name anyway.
TracyFentonHS fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Dec 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 09:04
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:There aren't really any Roman records and the Chinese ones have never been translated. I'd put my money on a largeish expedition with a lot of translators and a whole group of diplomats. The sources of this article look interesting enough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daqin Sadly, I can't look at them, as my department at the university doesn't have online-access to these journals
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 12:17
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Sadly there's no information. There aren't really any Roman records and the Chinese ones have never been translated. I'd put my money on a largeish expedition with a lot of translators and a whole group of diplomats.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 15:35
|
|
|
Archaeology hasn't really been a priority of the Chinese lately (or ever, really), and they aren't very open to letting foreigners come in and muck around. Even if they were, the number of people willing to learn classical Chinese on the off chance they are allowed in and are able to find something relating to Rome is tiny. The Daqin wikipedia article doesn't pass the smell test for me - the main block quotations in the article refer to Mr. Hill's self-published book. Looking at the draft of this fellow's translation of some Chinese text, I'm further suspicious - the text gives only cursory details about a whole variety of places, but then goes into quite a bit of detail about Da Qin. If the document is real, I'd want to look at other translations or a philological study of it, since the change in style is very jarring.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 17:53
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:Archaeology hasn't really been a priority of the Chinese lately (or ever, really), and they aren't very open to letting foreigners come in and muck around. Even if they were, the number of people willing to learn classical Chinese on the off chance they are allowed in and are able to find something relating to Rome is tiny. http://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/weilue/weilue.html The translator's website, on the University of Washington server. The translation is not bad. It's just the below text. The vague outline given in the Hou Hanshu- that's all there is guys. There's no secret untranslated documents. Later imperial histories all basically repeat this version. Any additional records would have been destroyed when Dong Zhuo burned Luoyang or when Chang'an got sacked later on. And if it wasn't then, it sure was the next dozen times the imperial capital got burned to the ground. 大秦國一名犁鞬，以在海西，亦云海西國。地方數千里，有四百餘城。小國役屬者數十。以石為城郭。列置郵亭，皆堊塈之。有松柏諸木百草。人俗力田作，多種樹蠶桑。皆髡頭而衣文繡，乘輜軿白蓋小車，出入擊鼓，建旌旗幡幟。 所居城邑，周圜百餘里。城中有五宮，相去各十里。宮室皆以水精為柱，食器亦然。其王日游一宮，聽事五日而後遍。常使一人持囊隨王車，人有言事者，即以書投囊中，王至宮發省，理其枉直。各有官曹文書。置三十六將，皆會議國事。其王無有常人，皆簡立賢者。國中災異及風雨不時，輒廢而更立，受放者甘黜不怨。其人民皆長大平正，有類中國，故謂之大秦。 土多金銀奇寶，有夜光璧、明月珠、駭雞犀、珊瑚、虎魄、琉璃、琅玕、朱丹、青碧。刺金縷繡，織成金縷罽、雜色綾。作黃金塗、火浣布。又有細布，或言水羊毳，野蠶繭所作也。合會諸香，煎其汁以為蘇合。凡外國諸珍異皆出焉。 以金銀為錢，銀錢十當金錢一。與安息、天竺交巿於海中，利有十倍。其人質直，巿無二價。穀食常賤，國用富饒。鄰國使到其界首者，乘驛詣王都，至則給以金錢。其王常欲通使於漢，而安息欲以漢繒綵與之交市，故遮閡不得自達。至桓帝延熹九年，大秦王安敦遣使自日南徼外獻象牙、犀角、玳瑁，始乃一通焉。其所表貢，並無珍異，疑傳者過焉。 或云其國西有弱水、流沙，近西王母所居處，幾於日所入也。漢書云「從條支西行二百餘日，近日所入」，則與今書異矣。前世漢使皆自烏弋以還，莫有至條支者也。又云「從安息陸道繞海北行出海西至大秦，人庶連屬，十里一亭，三十里一置，終無盜賊寇警。而道多猛虎、師子，遮害行旅，不百餘人，齎兵器，輒為所食」。又言「有飛橋數百里可度海北」。諸國所生奇異玉石諸物，譎怪多不經，故不記云。 http://ctext.org/hou-han-shu/xi-yu-zhuan?searchu=%E7%94%98%E8%8B%B1&searchmode=showall#result Barto fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Dec 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
Thank you for clearing that up Barto. Translating that text via google translate was interesting to say the least. Anyway, one or the other might have played Europa Barbarorum, my favourite mod of Rome: Total War. How is this relevant for this thread here? Check out the faction preview of the Celtiberians in Europa Barbarorum 2: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?s=32ea907f8f859ad6b9f609f95621a96e&t=577585
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 22:41
|
|
According to the Chinese sources, the Romans had ‘divine tortoises’ – tortoises used for divination. 
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 04:32
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:According to the Chinese sources, the Romans had ‘divine tortoises’ – tortoises used for divination. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_bone
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 07:27
|
|
|
danquixotic posted:rad as hell stuff about Ireland with a picture Are you 100% about this being purely an Irish creation? I ask because there's a pretty clear yin-yang symbol on the left - mind, it would seriously be the coolest thing in the entire world if Ireland was secretly Daoist in the post-Roman era, but.. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 07:53
|
|
|
Yeah, but right above it is one with three lobes, and the right has ones of increasing complexity. Totally plausible that geometric shapes like that can come up independently or through the cultural equivalent of convergent evolution or whatever. E: Now if that poo poo showed up repeatedly in x context, it would be a different story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Are you 100% about this being purely an Irish creation? I ask because there's a pretty clear yin-yang symbol on the left - mind, it would seriously be the coolest thing in the entire world if Ireland was secretly Daoist in the post-Roman era, but.. Interlocked sworls like that (and the trisworl above it) are a common part of Celtic art dating back at least 2500 years, and is unrelated to Taoism. (On the other hand, that symbol doesn't appear to have shown up in Chinese art until about 800 years ago, although the concept of yin and yang is roughly the same age as the Celtic whorls.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
It's an easy design to come up with independently. Swastikas appear all over the place in ancient art, same thing. There wasn't necessarily any connection between them. Buddhism made it to the Roman Empire and vanished pretty quickly because nobody was interested. That's about it for eastern religion going west. There seems to have been at least one Hindu in Pompeii as well, maybe. There's a Hindu votive statue of Lakshmi that was found there and isn't made of anything intrinsically valuable, so either the person liked it visually or it was a Hindu. Rome and India had regular contact so either is reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Now why did Dalmatian language disappear next door to Italy while Romanian made it to this day? The disappearance of Dalmatian is easily explained by these very connections to Italy: it was only spoken in coastal urban communities, which under Venetian rule adopted varieties of Italian as their main language. Exactly why Romance languages became restricted to the coast is a harder question. Some claim that the interior of Illyria was never fully Latinised; and even if it was, it seems that the countryside adopted Slavic easily, and the divide was sharpened by the contrasting ecoomic and social alignments of the areas. The rural population was in close connection with the Slavic population, while the coast maintained their independence and links to Romance speakers in Italy. The history of Romanians between the abandonment of Dacia and the establishment of independent Romance states in the area (so between the 270s and the 1300s) is a bit of a mystery. Essentially, some sort of rural communities of Romance speakers remained in the Balkan mountains and/or Transylvania, survived all of the various nomadic invasions in the area, and united in the Middle Ages to form the basis for modern day Romania, but exactly where and how is not known. The Wiki article is very detailed and interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Romanians
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
Besesoth posted:Interlocked sworls like that (and the trisworl above it) are a common part of Celtic art dating back at least 2500 years, and is unrelated to Taoism. (On the other hand, that symbol doesn't appear to have shown up in Chinese art until about 800 years ago, although the concept of yin and yang is roughly the same age as the Celtic whorls.) Disappointing but still good to know.EDIT: Actually, while I'm at it, what do we know about Roman contact with Greek Bactria? Beamed fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Dec 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 03:49
|
|
|
So I'm curious about the influence of non-Greek cultures on the Roman empire. Conquest and intermingling between Indian, Arab and Persian culture led to the formation of hybrid languages such as Urdu for example. Were there any similar occurences in or at the borders of the Roman empire? Or between the Byzantines and Turks/Arabs? How much of an influence did non-Greek conquered peoples have on Roman culture and/or language? On an unrelated note I'm interested in pre-Caesarian figures in the late Republic that were key players in the tensions that led to its downfall. I'm familiar in passing with the Gracchis, Marius and Sulla; would anyone mind doing a few blurbs on any of the others? mila kunis fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Dec 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 07:17
|
|
|
It's hard to find anyone who had a huge influence like the Greeks. The Etruscans for sure were a huge part of Roman culture, but there is always debate about exactly how that worked. Were the Romans an Etruscan offshoot, were they independent but Rome adopted a lot of Etruscan stuff? Nobody really knows. For other cultures, none had the kind of wide-ranging influence that Greece did. But they did influence specific areas. Much of Roman military technology came from the Gauls. Their chainmail armor and general metalworking techniques are straight up Gallic. The gladius comes from Spain. Roman shipbuilding was Carthaginian. There was a big Egypt fad, though that was mostly superficial stuff and some art. Egyptian mystery religion was more of a "real" influence I guess, Isis was a popular cult in Rome. Mithras was an eastern thing too, and much of the underpinnings of Christianity were of the same vein. In different areas there would be a lot of local influence. Generally speaking the Romans didn't actively wipe out cultures and the local people remained more or less intact after being conquered. Roman-ness eventually would spread and take over as time went on, but the local traditions would stick around and be incorporated. Romans from Britain and Romans from Morocco and Romans from Turkey would've been different in a lot of ways, while still having common Roman culture. So in that sense there's a lot of influence. But there's nobody that had the kind of lasting and pervasive influence like the Greeks did. As far as I know there was no Islamic influence--Rome influenced Islam but not the other way around. By that time Rome was much more insular and unwilling to change or incorporate outsiders.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 07:31
|
|
|
tekz posted:On an unrelated note I'm interested in pre-Caesarian figures in the late Republic that were key players in the tensions that led to its downfall. I'm familiar in passing with the Gracchis, Marius and Sulla; would anyone mind doing a few blurbs on any of the others? Catiline. Although his attempts at power were abortive, the discovery of the conspiracy he headed was enough to convince many senators of an inevitable forthcoming military coup backed by the urban poor - the 'next Sulla.' The whole episode was a bit prophetic in itself: Cicero was apparently the first who caught wind of the plot, and immediately had the senate summarily execute the five captured confidants. Caesar was present and made a big show of dissenting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
Some ancient battles were decisive but other times the opposing army was able to retreat and live to fight another day. How? How did 10,000+ blood thirsty maniacs just disengage from battle and run off without getting hacked to pieces?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
Huskalator posted:Some ancient battles were decisive but other times the opposing army was able to retreat and live to fight another day. How? How did 10,000+ blood thirsty maniacs just disengage from battle and run off without getting hacked to pieces? Sometimes they could back off in good order, or with a rearguard, keeping their pointy things facing the victors, who knew when to not press their luck. Other times, weather/time of day/geography could intervene. Sometimes the looser ditched all their stuff, lightening their loads and encouraging the victors to start looting. Lots of things. If the retreating side was on their turf they could run to fortifications or into terrain that they knew better than the winning team. Cavalry was used a lot to screen/pursue or pursue. At least in ye olde ancient Greece, light cavalry with javelins weren't big killers, but they could force an enemy phalanx formation into its 'shields up' position and drive off light infantry. On the flip side, if you'd routed the enemy and they had no cavalry to counter your own, the horsemen could do a lot of damage to a disorderly retreat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
Huskalator posted:Some ancient battles were decisive but other times the opposing army was able to retreat and live to fight another day. How? How did 10,000+ blood thirsty maniacs just disengage from battle and run off without getting hacked to pieces? People who thrown away their weapons and armour can run faster than people still carrying theirs. Being able to hack a routing army to pieces requires having a mobile reserve in place that you can commit. Don't have any cavalry? Tough. Your cavalry went off to fight their cavalry and is now several miles away going god knows what? Tough. The key thing to remember is that an army that disintegrates and isn't able to rally on a convenient base is usually effectively wiped out - surviving levies are going to take the chance to get the gently caress away, mercenaries might decide the contract isn't worth it, minor nobles will defect etc etc. You don't have to kill everyone to destroy an army.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
On the other hand, a well-led and disciplined army (such as Julius Caesar's legions - even he had to retreat at times, and did so successfully) could disengage in an organized fashion, not just tossing their spears on ground and running - provided that they have food and water available at all stops and there is a cavalry screen to cover the marching columns from enemy cavalry. The pursuing enemy would also have to stop to eat and rest, and they must watch not to run headlong into ambushes or be overrun by cavalry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
There's also a danger in pursuing a fleeing enemy. Even disorganized, if some of the victors break ranks and chase after them, they become just as disorganized as the people their pursuing, in a situation like that it's possible for the fleeing army to rally and turn the tables on their pursuer. Especially if only a fraction of the victors had decided to chase them. Another simpler reason is that the winners were just too drat tired to chase them down. Fighting in armor, swinging a relatively heavy piece of metal around, etc, is tiring work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:There's also a danger in pursuing a fleeing enemy. Even disorganized, if some of the victors break ranks and chase after them, they become just as disorganized as the people their pursuing, in a situation like that it's possible for the fleeing army to rally and turn the tables on their pursuer. Especially if only a fraction of the victors had decided to chase them. This is also part of how the Mongols won. They would feign a retreat and let the enemy rush after them, straight into the actual army lying on wait. Ancient warfare didn't always have great detail on opposing forces, so there's always the need to be wary of troops you didn't account for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 23:55
|
|
|
Huskalator posted:Some ancient battles were decisive but other times the opposing army was able to retreat and live to fight another day. How? How did 10,000+ blood thirsty maniacs just disengage from battle and run off without getting hacked to pieces? The victorious army would often fall to looting. One of the strengths of the Spartan army was that individual hoplites were strictly barred from looting while there was still fighting going on. Another example of a Roman army's successful withdrawal (though barely) was Mark Antony's fighting retreat from Parthia. It was a total nightmare, with lots of soldiers falling to disease, dehydration, and ambushes. If I recall correctly Antony and his personal guard had to ride up and down the entire column fighting Parthians and trying to keep the whole army from panicking. This is all according to Plutarch, at least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 02:02
|
|
|
sullat posted:There is the legend of the Roman legionnaires captured at Carrahae and sold as slaves or as mercenaries who ended up in Western China. Just a legend, of course, backed up by on;y a few slivers (probably misinterpreted) of evidence, but it makes for a good story. I'm a bit late on this, but the Han annals record a visit by Roman merchants around AD 166. Other merchants visited China later and Roman goods have been found in Malaysia and other places on the Indian Ocean trade routes. The Roman mercenary theory was put forth in the 1950s and has been thoroughly debunked. The mercenaries were likely Bactrians or others trained in Greek styles of warfare. The main crux of the argument is that the Chinese described the Huns as having a fortified double palisade wall, which the historian notes is distinctly Roman, except that it is not distinctly Roman and the Huns used them elsewhere in Central Asia. The modern Chinese are running with the theory to promote tourism in western China.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
First, I wanted to thank you for this WONDERFUL thread man. Many thanks from Peru! There is one question that is popping in my mind tho, is there any reason for the red some of the officers wore?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2012 09:49
|
|
|
Someone who knows more will probably go into detail (please do!), but the impression that I've got is that red was a dye that was affordable for an officer, but not cheap.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2012 10:21
|
|
|
I don't think there's any definitive answer, but red clothing hides dirt better and is fairly conspicuous, so it seems to me that men could be told that if they become confused in the heat of battle, they should look for the nearest guy in red and do what he's doing. Brown and green (the other relatively common dye colors) would be harder to pick out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2012 11:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
Logically.. Red.. Blood.. Wouldn't that have played into it? Psychologically speaking, hide your officers wounds to inspire morale, etc.Grand Prize Winner posted:Someone who knows more will probably go into detail (please do!), but the impression that I've got is that red was a dye that was affordable for an officer, but not cheap. That's how purple was, I would be surprised if the same was true for red. Iseeyouseemeseeyou fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Dec 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2012 12:54
|
|