|
The conversation about Byzantine mosaics reminded me of two wonderful books: Sailing to Sarantium and Lord of Emperors, by Guy Gavriel Kay. They're set in a renamed Byzantine Empire, and revolve around a mosaicist from not-Ravenna going to Sarantium to work on the not-Hagia Sophia, where he meets the emperor and becomes embroiled in political intrigue; they do diverge from history eventually, hence why they're not set in historical Byzantium. Kay is an amazing prose stylist and a decent historian, and the books are some of my favorites. If you're into Byzantine history, they're highly recommended.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 11:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
Could someone describe naval combat in late antiquity and the Byzantine empire? I was clicking around wikipedia and read that by the seventh century rams were no longer used in combat, possibly because the hulls of galleys had gotten stronger. The ram was gradually fazed out completely, but I haven't found any weapon that replaces it in the Mediterranean. So if a bunch of Vandals show up on the horizon is the only counter a grappling hook and marines? Later the Romans had Greek fire but the arabs must have come up with some strategy to counter that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
For starters, you should go google/wikipedia "Greek fire". Ramming is for the uncultured, the Romans will just burn you alive with a substance that water couldn't put out. Don't quote me on this, but I believe reading once old texts say aside from sand, people at the time found that urine also was able to put out Greek fire, further confusing modern people in trying to figure out what the hell it was exactly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
Thank you but what I'm really interested in is engagements without Greek fire. Or alternatively how you would go about countering a Roman fleet deploying it. Naval doctrine obviously changed drastically from the late Hellenistic period when everybody was racing to build the biggest polyremes you could conceive, but I'm not at all sure how. Not having any actual enemies that could field a navy for hundreds of years probably meant a lot was forgotten. For example, wikipedia says Isidore of Seville who lived in the 7th century believed rams were used to protect hulls from rocks. People literally forgot why there was a weird pointy thing on the front of warships. I want to better understand the evolution of naval warfare. How are you killing ship in the 8th century, and how did you get to that method of killing ships
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Thank you but what I'm really interested in is engagements without Greek fire. Or alternatively how you would go about countering a Roman fleet deploying it. You didn't. You would lose. Eastern Rome was the undisputed lord of the sea. I'm not sure what ended that though. The fall of Constantinople?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:You didn't. You would lose. Eastern Rome was the undisputed lord of the sea. I'm not sure what ended that though. The fall of Constantinople? The Byzantines lost their naval supremacy in the 800s. Sure, they had Greek Fire and were able to burninate a number of navies, most spectacularly, the Kievan Rus, but then again, sometimes they weren't able to do so and paid off the attackers. The Arab navies managed to conquer Sicily and Crete in the 800s and turn those islands into heavily fortified pirate bases, able to raid the Mediterranean coasts at will. At some point (nobody is really certain) the Byzantines stop using Greek Fire, and sub-contract their naval needs out to the Venetians. Say, 1100 or so. They still have a small navy which wasn't really able to stand up to anyone and the Venetian and Genoese galley fleets dominated the mediterranean. They did manage to re-take Crete at one point, removing a huge thorn in maritime commerce, but they never regained their naval prowess. The last Byzantine navy was wiped out by the Genoese in 1350.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
Forgive me if I'm somewhat skeptical that the Byzantine navy never lost a battle over the hundreds of years that they used Greek fire. I don't think the Romans had Greek Fire in this battle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Masts but it at least demonstrates Byzantine naval power was hardly uncontested.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Thank you but what I'm really interested in is engagements without Greek fire. Or alternatively how you would go about countering a Roman fleet deploying it. Naval doctrine obviously changed drastically from the late Hellenistic period when everybody was racing to build the biggest polyremes you could conceive, but I'm not at all sure how. Not having any actual enemies that could field a navy for hundreds of years probably meant a lot was forgotten. For example, wikipedia says Isidore of Seville who lived in the 7th century believed rams were used to protect hulls from rocks. People literally forgot why there was a weird pointy thing on the front of warships. In the earliest period, naval warfare in the Mediterranean was basically "hey, let's put some archers on this bitch". By the Persian War, you had tactics based on ramming - this required ships built for a specific ratio of weight to speed, since you had to be study enough to not split apart when you ram someone, but fast enough that you could actually ram a ship that was doing its best to try to avoid getting rammed. You also needed an expert crew, and being part of a first-rate trireme crew was like being an NFL star. Athens was the premier naval power at this time, largely because it had the resources and political/social structures necessary to produce a lot of veteran trireme crews. There was a discussion about this kind of stuff earlier in the thread. As Athens' power faded, however, the quality of rowing crews declined. Naval power became based around other ship designs which relied less on speed and more on being sturdy as gently caress and carrying a larger complement of marines and eventually catapults or ballistas. They also stood higher on the waterline than a trireme, giving archers more of an advantage. In Rome and Carthage, the main warship was the quinquereme, a heavy warship which could carry around 120 marines. Larger ships, up to the decireme, were often used as flagships, but not often as ships of the line. The general tactic in this period was to shoot catapults at the other ships, or alternately to close with the enemy and board them, which would force them to stop shooting catapults at you for a while. In the East, a ship design called the Dromon became popular. Dromon comes from a Greek word for a runner, and they were renowned for their speed, which made it hard for them to be hit by the enemy's weapons. The Arab ship designs were built along similar principles, revolving around speed to board.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:Note that "pretty flexible about rank and class" still means extremely oppressive in modern terms. Yes. This is all in comparison to other societies at the time. For the ancient world, Rome was incredibly open and egalitarian. gradenko_2000 posted: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. Nah, he's good. One of my favorites. Everyone should listen to Hardcore History. Here's a couple Roman drinking glasses excavated in Gyeongju, the capital of Silla and then capital of the first unified Korean kingdom.  There was basically no explanation at the museum, but if they're the same as the glasses in the Korean National Museum then they're from the Levant and manufactured in the 500s. That clear one on the left is a very common Roman design. I think of it as like the Roman dollar score glass, those are found everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
Random question since I realized tonight when it came up during the superbowl that I don't think I've ever actually heard the term spoken. Does anyone know for sure how to say Nika in regards to the Nika riots. I've always pronounced it has neye-ka, but I realized I have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 06:25
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Random question since I realized tonight when it came up during the superbowl that I don't think I've ever actually heard the term spoken. Does anyone know for sure how to say Nika in regards to the Nika riots. I've always pronounced it has neye-ka, but I realized I have no idea. It sounds like nee-ka, I think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 11:41
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Random question since I realized tonight when it came up during the superbowl that I don't think I've ever actually heard the term spoken. Does anyone know for sure how to say Nika in regards to the Nika riots. I've always pronounced it has neye-ka, but I realized I have no idea. Νίκα = Nee-kah. ί is pronounced eat, α is pronounced like tar. e: Hypatius really got screwed over 
vanity slug fucked around with this message at 13:06 on Feb 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 12:46
|
|
|
I have a general historical linguistics question. This is something that's confused me ever since I found out it existed; why are people's names different in different languages? On what basis is a name change decided? I'm not talking so much about pronunciation - I'd say it's well known by the entire thread that we pronounce Caesar's name wrong, and the reasons why, but that makes sense - but more about the fact that we render Marcus Antonius as Mark Antony, or Traianus as Trajan. An example of it actually happening in ancient times would be the traitor Arminius who lead the Romans into the Teutoburg massacre, whom the Germans know as Hermann. It just seems arbitrary to me. We still have the Roman sources, which refer to these people by their Roman names - why do we change them in English?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
My theory is that it's something along the lines of "Man all this latinum bullshit feels weird in my mouth... Marces, Marucs, M-- fuckit, I'm just gonna put down his name was Mark."
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
Yeah more or less that. I have a friend who goes by a different name in different languages because his name is awkward as gently caress to pronounce in non-hardcore Germanic languages. The general structure of the name stays the same and the first few letters usually and after that it just gets adapted to the used language. Also a lack of formal education will over generations cause a difference in spelling which will cause a difference in pronunciation which will cause a difference in spelling etc. So a mix of a long game of telephone, convenience and whatever sounds more pleasing to the local audience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
My favourite "oh for fucks sake" examples are: Mycenae (Greek Μυκῆναι Mykēnai or Μυκήνη Mykēnē) and Moloch (representing Semitic מלך m-l-k, a Semitic root meaning "king") – also rendered as Molech, Molekh, Molok, Molek, Molock, Moloc, Melech, Milcom or Molcom My poor germanic barbarian brain/tongue 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:As Athens' power faded, however, the quality of rowing crews declined. Naval power became based around other ship designs which relied less on speed and more on being sturdy as gently caress and carrying a larger complement of marines and eventually catapults or ballistas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
physeter posted:As a footnote, the Athenian focus on speed and expertise stayed alive in Rhodes. As the Romans expanded into the East, they got to know little Rhodes as a junior partner and specifically, the place to go to a find a real navy when the poo poo hit the fan over there. After overrunning Roman Asia Province, Mithridates Eupator assembled a supposedly massive invasion fleet to take the island, and got his rear end turned inside out by the Rhodians in their little galleys. Rhodes remained the undsputed ballers of naval combat for centuries. And with +1 commerce from every sea square, those guys could afford to maintain a decent navy for such a small island.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:So a mix of a long game of telephone, convenience and whatever sounds more pleasing to the local audience. Right, so there's nothing systematic about it. I just noticed a few trends - like it's common to drop the '-us' suffix (Octavianus = Octavian, Diocletianus = Diocletian), or to Anglicise most I's that are followed by a vowel into a J (Iulius = Julius, Iuppiter = Jupiter), and thought there might be some translation rulebook somewhere that provides a basis for all this. Cheers folks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 06:10
|
|
|
Sorry to make a video-gamesy post, but have you guys been seeing the hype for Total War: Rome II: Total War? How close to reality is Creative Assembly this time? I'd assume not very, but it seems like they've hewed closer to historical consensus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
At the moment there's not enough information to really tell. It looks good though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 06:26
|
|
|
It got briefly mentioned earlier in the thread, but tell me more about the Siege of Masada. I just watched the movie and having read through the thread, was curious about how the Roman soldiers would have reacted to finally getting to go over that ramp and discovering that everyone in the fortress had offed themselves. Would they just think "Sweet, we get to go home!" ? Would they have felt horrified, or disgusted? Was suicide a common reaction to being on the losing end of a siege? Also, were executions always big public spectacles? Or was that more reserved for enemies of the state or really heinous crimes? What about crucifixion? If the victim didn't die right away would everyone eventually get bored and leave? Was it common for friends and family of the victim to attend and stay with the person until they died or would that be considered treasonous?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 06:47
|
|
|
Tojai posted:It got briefly mentioned earlier in the thread, but tell me more about the Siege of Masada. I just watched the movie and having read through the thread, was curious about how the Roman soldiers would have reacted to finally getting to go over that ramp and discovering that everyone in the fortress had offed themselves. Would they just think "Sweet, we get to go home!" ? Would they have felt horrified, or disgusted? Was suicide a common reaction to being on the losing end of a siege? Can't answer the second, but if I were a Roman soldier, my first thoughts would be "Oh great, now we can skip straight to the looting!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 06:54
|
|
|
It'd be really hard to say what the reactions were, there's no record I'm aware of. That's not the kind of thing that gets recorded in general. I would imagine they were happy they didn't have to sit around building a ramp in the loving desert anymore. As for executions, they were not necessarily big public spectacles but often were. It was considered a deterrent to others and a way of showing state power. Crucifixions would be done and the victim was left there to die. I don't know of any records of family attending or anything, I'd imagine that would be a bad idea for you. Prisoner execution was a common intermission event during game days. Animal hunts in the morning, prisoner executions at lunch, then the main gladiatorial events in the afternoon. A couple of the fun prisoner execution events were having prisoners try to fight lions/tigers/whatever, or having the prisoners dressed up as some defeated people and then gladiators, fighting as the Roman army, would kill them in a mock battle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 06:59
|
|
|
Yeah, family/friends attending an execution seems like it would be bad for them. Not to bring up Jesuschat again but that's just one of the things I remember from the Gospels, that Jesus had supporters there too and there seemed to be a lot of interaction with him while he was dying on the cross. Of course there's a large chance that's all apocryphal too I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 07:47
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Can't answer the second, but if I were a Roman soldier, my first thoughts would be "Oh great, now we can skip straight to the looting!" I think they burned most of the loot, that probably made the most grizzled centurion break down and weep. As far as post-siege suicide goes, I don't know how common it was, but leaders that didn't want to die in Roman spectacles did it enough (Boedacia, Mithradetes, Brutus). Also, Xenophon mentions that in one of the fortified villages they knocked over for food, the women started throwing their children over the walls and then jumping after; and this so distressed the Greeks that they generously took in the survivors as slaves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
Anyone who knew the Romans might consider suicide. Romans tended to be very generous to their conquered foes--if they surrendered. Otherwise, as stated in De Bello Gallico, "the ram has touched the wall; no mercy". Basically, if you forced the Romans to come in and get you, everyone in the city would be killed or enslaved. If you gave up, your leaders might be executed but that's about it. In this case it was a revolt, so the Romans would have been extra brutal. But they still might've spared a city if they gave up and handed over the leaders of the revolt for execution. So, if you knew how the Romans operated and were in a city under siege, suicide was an attractive option once the Romans were through the gates. You were hosed anyway, just a matter of how.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
I've been wondering: was there a temperature difference (both generally and more specific) between the period of the Roman Empire and now? I know that, for example, Egypt was once much more green, did that happen elsewhere? Was Britain ever warm?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
Not particularly. The Sahara formed a long time ago. North Africa seems to have been a bit more wet, there are descriptions of forests and things that aren't there anymore. There were also ancient irrigation networks that no longer exist, and areas that were artificially fertile are desert now (much of Iraq, for an outside the empire example). But no big difference. There is some evidence of a climate disruption in the 200s, if I'm remembering right. Possibly an asteroid impact or giant rear end volcano explosion. I know there's evidence for one around the Bronze Age Collapse, and there's the mini ice age in the Middle Ages.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
Isn't the current running theory that the mega-barbarian invasions of ~1500 BC and ~300 AD were kicked off by mini-ice ages? The nomads start fighting over the shrinking pasturelands, pushing some tribes into the agriculturist lands, with unpleasant results.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
sullat posted:Isn't the current running theory that the mega-barbarian invasions of ~1500 BC and ~300 AD were kicked off by mini-ice ages? The nomads start fighting over the shrinking pasturelands, pushing some tribes into the agriculturist lands, with unpleasant results. I can't say as how I know the answer to your question, but I'm totally enthralled by the idea of invasions by mega-barbarians as opposed to barbarian mega-invasions. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:So, if you knew how the Romans operated and were in a city under siege, suicide was an attractive option once the Romans were through the gates. You were hosed anyway, just a matter of how. Have their been any instances of a siege failing that wasn't due to being relieved by an external army? Otherwise it just seems to be a matter of time before the besiegers assembled enough men and materiel to storm the walls or the besieged ran out of food / water.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Have their been any instances of a siege failing that wasn't due to being relieved by an external army? Otherwise it just seems to be a matter of time before the besiegers assembled enough men and materiel to storm the walls or the besieged ran out of food / water.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
The danger of a prolonged siege in hostile territory is that all of the good stuff is behind the walls. Its very possible that the besieging army can run out of supplies themselves and have to go home. Only large and powerful states could afford long supply lines, otherwise you lived off the land in enemy territory, along with whatever supplies you could get from home. On another note, phalanx combat has been getting mentioned in podcasts I listen to and this set of videos really changed my mind on the subject, not sure if it has been posted here but who cares, we all love talking about classical warfare. Essentially the point is that after trying to renact such combat, the presenter doubts that hoplites would have intended to engage in massive shoving matches while holding their spears overhand. He never says such things did nto happen, just that he doubts that they marched in intending to start shoving, since that seems like a great way to get a ton of guys killed, and also begs the question as to why you are carry in 8 foot long spears instead of just short swords. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmaYtNW_wR8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klOc9C-aPr4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-xtFXThEOc
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Have their been any instances of a siege failing that wasn't due to being relieved by an external army? Otherwise it just seems to be a matter of time before the besiegers assembled enough men and materiel to storm the walls or the besieged ran out of food / water. Sure, lots. I can't think of any where the Romans were defeated off-hand, but besieging armies would sometimes just leave because objectives changed, or they wouldn't have the supplies to maintain the siege, or disease ravaged the camps and they retreated. Besieging armies could also be defeated by forces in the place being besieged, either because they tried an attack or the defenders came out and defeated them in open battle. Siege often worked but not always. Supply lines were the weak link. Some cities/fortresses could hold out for years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Have their been any instances of a siege failing that wasn't due to being relieved by an external army? Otherwise it just seems to be a matter of time before the besiegers assembled enough men and materiel to storm the walls or the besieged ran out of food / water. From the Epic of Gilgamesh: quote:40-47. Then Gilgameš, the lord of Kulaba, rejoiced at the advice of his city's able-bodied men and his spirit brightened. He addressed his servant Enkidu: "On this account let the weaponry and arms of battle be made ready. Let the battle mace return to your side. May they create a great terror and radiance. When he comes, my great fearsomeness will overwhelm him. His reasoning will become confused and his judgment disarrayed." TLDR: The armies of King Aga besiege Uruk, but Gilgamesh kicks their asses all the way back to Kish.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
Also the single champion duels to decide battles did happen. Rarely, but it was a real thing. The Romans never did it but I think the Greeks did occasionally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Also the single champion duels to decide battles did happen. Rarely, but it was a real thing. The Romans never did it but I think the Greeks did occasionally. What kind of situations would this be in? Just to resolve a mutual dispute, surely; say two forces were arguing over who got to ravage a certain town or something. I can't imagine anybody would risk their own life or family or even significant possessions really based on their side's champion. Am I wrong? fake edit: this is what I imagine the outcome to those duels would be if anything serious was at stake: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EQWcB1vXXg
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
Many Greek cities couldn't field much of an army, considering the population. And those men were needed for other tasks, so it was devastating to lose a battle. So they'd resolve it on a small scale rather than risking everyone's life. I'm hoping someone who knows more about Greece than me can fill in an example. I've read about it but I got nothing specific. I don't think "oh we lost a duel, have our city" happened. It was more meeting in an open battle but having a duel instead of fighting, then everyone goes home with the issue resolved. Sometimes they'd just meet and go home, honor satisfied by the fact that they showed up. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Feb 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Many Greek cities couldn't field much of an army, considering the population. And those men were needed for other tasks, so it was devastating to lose a battle. So they'd resolve it on a small scale rather than risking everyone's life. I think there's an anecdote from Herodotus where Sparta and Corinth each send five dudes to fight in lieu of the army. The Spartans claim they won because they had two survivors, while the Corinithians claim they won because their guy stayed behind to loot the dead. So they had to fight a battle to resolve the issue anyway. sullat fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Feb 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 05:33
|
|