|
brozozo posted:You think so? I like them quite a bit. In fact, if I ever get a chance to visit Italy, I'd really like to go to that church in Ravenna where that mosaic of Justinian and Theodora is and see it for myself. Yeah, the only thing worse than Byzantine mosaics are Byzantine coins. In my opinion, the best Roman mosaics are from the East (e.g., Antioch) from AD 150-250. Tetrarchic portraiture had a profound impact on Roman art from 300 onward, though the seeds of that sort of abstraction were planted a few decades earlier. Others might disagree, but technical execution declined drastically.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:10 |
|
|
BrainDance posted:Getting away from, Rome, Greece and Europe Is there anyone here who knows a bit about Sumer? I know a bit about the Sumerians. They wrote tons of poo poo down. There are tens of thousands of tablets, but most of them are contracts, payroll stubs, bills of sale, tax records. Exciting stuff. As far as their literature goes, the epic of Gilgamesh was clearly drawing on earlier stories that were inserted into the epic to give it some cred. Like how Gilgamesh meets Sumerian-Noah and learns about the secret of immortality. Spoiler alert: He loses it while taking a nap As far as their city-states, at first it appears that they were organized around the temples and led by priest-kings. The laws were given to them by the Gods, so that mankind could live in cities. As time went on, however, non-priests starting seizing control of the cities and began to marginalize the temple government. Like Gilgamesh seized power and ignored the dictates of the priests in Uruk. Or how Lagash had a coulple decades of civil war between the landed nobility and the priests which on;y ended when Big Man Zaggesi sacked the place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
Speaking of Mesopotamian civilizations, I know this was mentioned in the thread somewhere, but what was that one kingdom that was basically forgotten by everyone because they were destroyed so thoroughly?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 06:00
|
|
|
Redczar posted:Speaking of Mesopotamian civilizations, I know this was mentioned in the thread somewhere, but what was that one kingdom that was basically forgotten by everyone because they were destroyed so thoroughly? Assyria (probably neo-Assyria?), although I believe almost all the Mesopotamian civilizations were something of a mystery until reasonably modern times. Weren't people really excited to find Babylonian ruins since they were confirmation of something in the Bible? What's the difference between the neo-Assyria/Babylonia etc and original ones anyway? Is it just a name only thing for status or were they actually a resurgent form of the old ones? BrainDance posted:Getting away from, Rome, Greece and Europe Is there anyone here who knows a bit about Sumer? You might be thinking of the myth of Inanna; the oldest written story in human history. It all forms a kind of coherent tale, although it's broken up in a way you'd expect from something written five or six thousand years ago. It sounds like what you described, although really it's fairly important to read anyway since it's the oldest written story in human history. I also think it might be that because it's the only piece of Sumerian writing I've actually read so I don't have a lot of other options to draw from.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
Koramei posted:What's the difference between the neo-Assyria/Babylonia etc and original ones anyway? Is it just a name only thing for status or were they actually a resurgent form of the old ones? Neo-Assyria was around roughly 934 BC–609 BC. There was a sort of blank period between 1075-934 BC due to certain upheavals and general problems in the area. You can basically imagine the time between the Middle Assyrian empire and Neo-Assyrian empire as being as if for 150 years in the middle of its reign, the Roman Empire had suddenly collapsed to having Rome control only Rome itself and some limited surrounding areas in Italy, and then re-expanding bakc to the full borders of the Roman Empire. There was basically a period where Assyrian empire was suddenly gone, with Assyraia only controlling itself, even though that territory isn't nearly as small as a city-state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 06:38
|
|
|
sullat posted:Like how Gilgamesh meets Sumerian-Noah and learns about the secret of immortality. Spoiler alert: He loses it while taking a nap God, I love that story. So much of that really old writing is interesting but hard to relate to because the culture is so foreign, usually so many chunks are lost (I read a translation of the epic before that basically has Gilgamesh and Enkidu go into the forest to kill that monster, then next page they're back and everything is done... Whole plot arc just missing) and I guess the authors and people who lived then are relatively unknown. We have enough trouble getting good translations of things written in Chinese, and theres plenty of them still around. As significant as the stories are sometimes it's just strange for me as a modern reader and I have to stop and think "wait... Why is he throwing a huge chunk of meat around? What does this have to do with anything?" But I found the story of Gilgamesh trying and failing to find immortality, along with him trying to cope with the death of Enkidu incredibly deep and relatable. One of those universal human things I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 10:43
|
|
|
In case people are interested in some of the current research being done in classics (and also other subjects), Cambridge Journals offers free access to all articles published in 2012 until early march: http://blog.journals.cambridge.org/2013/01/free-access-to-all-2012-content-on-cambridge-journals-online/
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 12:28
|
|
|
What are some good books on the languages/histories of all those Sumerian/Akkadian era nations?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 15:14
|
|
|
How much of a Roman individual's wealth depended on owning land?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
We also have the world's oldest recorded joke from the Sumerians: "Something which has never occurred since time immemorial; a young woman did not fart in her husband's lap"
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:How much of a Roman individual's wealth depended on owning land? I am not an expert but from what I understand: the richest of the rich had a ton of land and usually financial interests in trade so a lot of everything. The really old families had a lot of land but were often cash poor so they were "rich" but with not much in liquid assets. Then you go down the ladder and get the rich guys who may be freed slaves or from less spectacular lineages but are personally talented. They have more cash but less land and therefore were socially inferior but could buy and bribe their way up the ladder. Rome was pretty flexible about class and rank so the son of a rich man could hold higher offices than his father, especially with enough $ behind him. Part of your class was how much land you owned so you have to remember that it wasn't just buying and owning to produce but sometimes more to show your wealth and meet that next level quota. Or keeping otherwise unprofitable holdings to cling to a higher rank. From primary sources, it looks like it was fairly difficult to turn anything but a modest profit from an estate but it wasn't cut and dry because it could produce a lot of what it required internally and being "upper class" meant you could borrow from other rich guys and hold it together.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
Tsaedje posted:We also have the world's oldest recorded joke from the Sumerians: "Something which has never occurred since time immemorial; a young woman did not fart in her husband's lap" ...I don't get it 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
Note that "pretty flexible about rank and class" still means extremely oppressive in modern terms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
The notes of the online copy of De Agri Cultura I read said that by Cato's time, grain farming had become unprofitable. I'm curious as to why Rome gradually became more and more dependent on Egypt for grain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
meatbag posted:...I don't get it Want to know something that never happened? A new wife NOT farting on her husband [during sex] In other words, its a 'it all goes to hell once you're married'/fart joke.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
meatbag posted:...I don't get it Well, you see, a Maradian, a Nippuran, and a Borsippan walk into a bar... edit: Halloween Jack posted:The notes of the online copy of De Agri Cultura I read said that by Cato's time, grain farming had become unprofitable. I'm curious as to why Rome gradually became more and more dependent on Egypt for grain. Because Egyptian grain was hella cheap.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
Why was that? Lower labor costs? A longer productive season? Better-bred crops?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
The Nile river overflows its banks yearly and, when it does, it deposits a large amount of fertile silt in the nearby river valley. This made it one of the most agriculturally productive regions in antiquity. Even before the Romans, it was pretty much the go-to place to buy wheat if your city was suffering from famine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:The notes of the online copy of De Agri Cultura I read said that by Cato's time, grain farming had become unprofitable. I'm curious as to why Rome gradually became more and more dependent on Egypt for grain. Not just Egyptian mind you. Western North Africa (Carthage and environs) were also big grain suppliers for Rome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 20:51
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Namarrgon posted:Note that "pretty flexible about rank and class" still means extremely oppressive in modern terms. ya sorry I should have said that. To us they would be petrified wood but compared to other cultures it was extremely open. One interesting point in the wealth thing is Crassus. He was the richest man in Rome and one of the richest men ever (as compared to his time/place). However, he was always viewed as kind of an also ran because he wasn't from an ancient family and he hadn't won any battles for the state. Today, especially in the US, we value wealth above pedigree and generally above glory/fame so its hard to understand but being rich then was different from now especially if you were "just" rich.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
Xguard86 posted:ya sorry I should have said that. To us they would be petrified wood but compared to other cultures it was extremely open. Crassus is viewed as an also ran because he was up against Caesar and Pompey not because he wasn't talented person. When Crassus died Caesar was more then likely richer then he was and Pompey was better at PR then he was. Sometimes things don 't break your way with who you are compete ting again in history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Not just Egyptian mind you. Western North Africa (Carthage and environs) were also big grain suppliers for Rome. Rome's conquests follow wheat production rather well. First Veii's land, then the rich Italian land in Campagnia, then the breadbasket of Sicily, following that the massive wheat production of Carthage, and then the Nile Valley. In between were the conquests of Spain, Greece/Asia Minor, and Gaul.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
How much did the conquest of Gaul net Caesar anyway?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
Enough that he paid off debts so massive even Crassus would not wipe his slate clean. Its hard to know exactly how much, but Caesar owed an astronomical amount of money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
Xguard86 posted:ya sorry I should have said that. To us they would be petrified wood but compared to other cultures it was extremely open. Oh don't worry I know you know. Was just putting that there for the lurkers. It is always good to keep the bad parts in mind when talking about ancient 'cool' civilizations. Hopefully that way we get less people like that one nutbag in this thread who practically worshipped ancient Greece.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Haha yeah, I don't blame them our view is so obscure and it's natural to think you're Cicero and not the pauper we'd all probably actually be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
Xguard86 posted:Haha yeah, I don't blame them our view is so obscure and it's natural to think you're Cicero and not the pauper we'd all probably actually be. And slavery was working pretty well for humankind until modernity hosed it up. We should be able to undo their mistakes, and make slavery work for us again.  edit: my dad posted:
I need a link to this. Suenteus Po fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Feb 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:Oh don't worry I know you know. Was just putting that there for the lurkers. It is always good to keep the bad parts in mind when talking about ancient 'cool' civilizations. Hopefully that way we get less people like that one nutbag in this thread who practically worshipped ancient Greece. worships more than just Ancient Greece. He showed up in the WW2 thread too, with some rather interesting ideas.Where did the Romans get all the iron they needed to manufacture such massive amounts of armor? Are there any particularly large sources of it in Italy, did they trade for it, or did they mine it somewhere else?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
Suenteus Po posted:I need a link to this. Here ya go. "Enjoy." Have we addressed ancient Theatre before? I think there's been a post or two about Roman and Greek stuff, but what about... say, ancient China or India? Did the Persians (in any of their governmental iterations) have a theatrical tradition? Grand Prize Winner fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Feb 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
my dad posted:
Iberia, Britannia, Dacia and Noricum (mostly modern day Austria) were all major sources of ores in general and iron in particular.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
Xguard86 posted:ya sorry I should have said that. To us they would be petrified wood but compared to other cultures it was extremely open. Crassus was vital in the battle of the Colline Gate were he held the right wing, it was also he who defeated Spartacus even though Pompey took all the credit for it. He was pretty drat respected since otherwise he would never have been elected Consul and he was also from a respected family that had produced several Consuls. Speaking about moving up in the hierarchy, Vespasian is quite interesting his grandfather had been a Centurion for Pompey who married wealthy, his father was an Equestrian and Vespasian himself managed to become Emperor. Pump it up! Do it! fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Feb 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
drat I forgot about that. Well there you go shits complicated
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
I've been following Dan Carlin's multi-part podcast on the Fall of the Roman Republic, and so far I've found it absolutely fascinating. So far he's covered the problems suffered by the Republic after becoming a massive empire, the Gracchus brothers as the first of the radical reformers, Drussus the Elder, Drussus the Younger, Caius Marius and Sulla. I still have several episodes to go, but I'm fairly sure that it's going to go through the Triumvirates and Crassus and Carrhae as well. Is there anything I should know about this Dan Carlin guy as far as taking his word for it on the history? Wikipedia says he's a political commentator, so I'm wondering if his views are leaking into his narration. What other sources should I look to next to pick up after the fall of the Republic and towards the time of the Roman Empire? Which era of Roman history is covered by the HBO mini-series? I read earlier in the thread that it's supposedly very accurate and worth watching. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Feb 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Which era of Roman history is covered by the HBO mini-series? I read earlier in the thread that it's supposedly very accurate and worth watching. It covers the fall of the republic. The sets, costumes, etc are all pretty much as accurate as is possible, the story though has dramatic changes. it still follows the real story, but they add or take away minor parts and change the ages of people to get them all in the same place and such.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 14:58
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Which era of Roman history is covered by the HBO mini-series? I read earlier in the thread that it's supposedly very accurate and worth watching. They cover roughly the end of the Gallic Wars to the ascent of Caesar Augustus. It's got alot of interesting things cut out (Where are you Clodius Pulcher?!), but it gives you a narrative for the collapse of the republic and the rise of the early principate (Princeps being one of a billion titles the emperors held at that point) EDIT: Rubicon, Rise and Fall of the Roman Repubic by Tom Holland is great, accessible and very enjoyable but it covers the period you've already read about IE: the 120s-20s B.C. But if you want to read more intensively about it, then Rubicon is definitely for you. Paxicon fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Feb 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
It really makes you feel for Augustus, I mean, imagine if 17 years of time passed and you were the only one who visibly aged. (I kid, I kid, it's an amazing show. I keep missing opportunities to watch other good new shows because I've watched it about 5 times through.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I've been following Dan Carlin's multi-part podcast on the Fall of the Roman Republic, and so far I've found it absolutely fascinating. So far he's covered the problems suffered by the Republic after becoming a massive empire, the Gracchus brothers as the first of the radical reformers, Drussus the Elder, Drussus the Younger, Caius Marius and Sulla. I still have several episodes to go, but I'm fairly sure that it's going to go through the Triumvirates and Crassus and Carrhae as well. But really it's a self described 'amateur historian' talking, and who knows how accurate he is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
Fo3 posted:I'd be interested in other's opinion on him as well. I know he categorizes himself only as an amateur historian, but I've listened to his Rome, Mongols and WW2 podcasts with interest for entertainment purposes, and they have been mentioned here as well before. He is pretty serious about his factuality. Often his shows will spark an interest for me and I'll go looking for additional information; I can't say that I've ever found anything much to contradict the narrative he constructs in the shows, nor did my fairly extensive pre-existing knowledge of the Fall of the Republic before I listened to his podcast. Sometimes he approaches events with a somewhat controversial interpretation, but he's not factually incorrect in those cases - just not in agreement with the vanilla version you'll get in a textbook or a class, and usually with an actual historian backing that view up. The most serious problem with his podcast is inherent in the format - loss of some detail, which can lead to inaccuracy by omission if the wrong detail is accidentally forgotten. Most of the time this isn't really an issue, but I felt, for example, that the recent Mongol series suffered from this somewhat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
I like how he really focuses on the mindset of the people and their culture at the time as opposed to "this happened, then that happened, then that". The latter can be fun and informative too but I find the first far more interesting (though I'm sure many people would consider that the boring parts).
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:10 |
|
|
For anyone like me into Sumerian stuff I stumbled across this http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/ It's a whole bunch of translated Sumerian writing. Lots of cool random poo poo like a debate between a hoe and a plough. "the Hoe, the Hoe, the Hoe, tied together with thongs"
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 07:04
|
|