Roman/ancient history: Checkmate, Atenists

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Roman/ancient history: Checkmate, Atenists

To Chi Ka: Aug 19, 2011

I have a question related to the language discussion, not sure if it can really be answered though. Is there a comparison of the number of words in Ancient Latin/Greek compared to the number of words in the main languages that were spoken after the empire fell? Did languages get more complex after the fall of the western empire, or was it more of a case of the decline in literacy and reduced volume of trade meant that language development took steps backward?

# ? Mar 18, 2013 15:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 18:41

Barto: Dec 27, 2004

To Chi Ka posted:

I have a question related to the language discussion, not sure if it can really be answered though. Is there a comparison of the number of words in Ancient Latin/Greek compared to the number of words in the main languages that were spoken after the empire fell? Did languages get more complex after the fall of the western empire, or was it more of a case of the decline in literacy and reduced volume of trade meant that language development took steps backward?

There's no way to know because the written record is woefully incomplete- and writing doesn't equate to language.
If you mean to say, the size of the various languages' lexicons
Well, you can't really say that Egyptian or Punic or Latin or Greek were any more or less "useful" or "advanced" as a language. I mean, you can use any language to express any thought. Latin and Greek were still available as languages for science and philosophy in the post-Roman period; any village language or dialect would have been just as good as Latin for any other use.
And that's kinda missing an important point that "Latin" as we think of it (as a unified monolithic language) probably never existed in the lives of normal people outside an elite in Rome. Everyone else spoke dialects, local language, variants of Latin, etc.

So no, language didn't regress or progress. If you can speak a language you can express what you want to say. I'm sure Punic worked just as fine as Classical Latin, or Vulgar Latin in Spain as well as Coptic in Egypt.

# ? Mar 18, 2013 15:56

Ras Het: May 23, 2007; when I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child - but now I am a man.

To Chi Ka posted:

I have a question related to the language discussion, not sure if it can really be answered though. Is there a comparison of the number of words in Ancient Latin/Greek compared to the number of words in the main languages that were spoken after the empire fell? Did languages get more complex after the fall of the western empire, or was it more of a case of the decline in literacy and reduced volume of trade meant that language development took steps backward?

Uhhh, this is a pretty dodgy question. Language development doesn't "take steps backwards". It doesn't. The end. And I think it's disingenuous to speak of the size of a language's vocabulary, when a large number of that vocabulary only has relevance in certain sciences. To elaborate, note these two things: 1) English has a large vocabulary because it's the international language of science 2) "core" English has a larger vocabulary than many other languages because English has several historical layers of vocabulary - the original Germanic and a vast number of Latin & French loans. The same applies to any other language: the size of a vocabulary reflects historical coincidences and the language's standing in culture. It says absolutely nothing about the "complexity" of a language, which isn't really a thing. It doesn't mean anything. Or if it does, Latin is a very simple language too.

# ? Mar 18, 2013 17:13

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

Certainly some languages were more useful than others. Official business was conducted entirely in Greek throughout much of the Roman Republic, eventually transitioning to Latin. Knowing the official language was extremely useful, though you could hire an interpreter or scribe if you needed to. As for the comparative advancedness of languages, languages changed very quickly throughout antiquity. Every region and class would have its own dialects. Latin itself was divided into two distinctly different forms: Classical and Vulgar. Vulgar Latin was the simplified form that the people used, whereas Classical Latin became increasingly used only by the elites and mostly in writing. French actually has something similar to this with its disused "literary" tenses, though not to the same extent. While some people might not see vulgar latin or Pass� simple as being less advanced forms, I think that's just political correctness - there's greater nuance in the more complex alternatives.

Kaal fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Mar 18, 2013

# ? Mar 18, 2013 17:14

Ras Het: May 23, 2007; when I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child - but now I am a man.

Kaal posted:

While some people might not see vulgar latin or Pass� simple as being less advanced forms, I think that's just political correctness - there's a more nuance in the more complex alternatives.

This is so stupid. There's more "nuance" in them according to certain literary conventions, because these conventions favour obsolete vocabulary and grammar over contemporary ones.

# ? Mar 18, 2013 17:26

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

Ras Het posted:

This is so stupid. There's more "nuance" in them according to certain literary conventions, because these conventions favour obsolete vocabulary and grammar over contemporary ones.

Like I said, some folks will absolutely hate this idea because they think all languages are equal. In my opinion, there's more to a language than simply being capable of communicating basic ideas. There are five different alternatives to pass� simple in French, each with differences in meaning that simply don't exist in common French. If you don't see that as being a reduction in versatility and advancedness of a language, then it's just because you've made the entire concept verbotten.

Kaal fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Mar 19, 2013

# ? Mar 18, 2013 17:35

Ras Het: May 23, 2007; when I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child - but now I am a man.

Kaal posted:

Like I said, some folks will absolutely hate this idea because they think all languages all equal. In my opinion, there's more to a language than simply being capable of communicating basic ideas.

The people who think all languages are equal tend to be linguists. But do elaborate why language at X point in time was superior to X-200a and X+200a, as it always is with prestige dialects.

# ? Mar 18, 2013 17:38

Pron on VHS: Nov 14, 2005; Blood Clots
Sweat Dries
Bones Heal
Suck it Up and Keep Wrestling

What do you guys think of Tom Holland's books on Rome, specifically Rubicon: The Triumph and Tragedy of the Roman Republic and Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic?

edit: What is the difference between the two books? The latter was published about a year after the former and they share very similar names, are they different books or is one just a newer edition?

Pron on VHS fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Mar 18, 2013

# ? Mar 18, 2013 18:02

Barto: Dec 27, 2004

Ras Het posted:

The people who think all languages are equal tend to be linguists. But do elaborate why language at X point in time was superior to X-200a and X+200a, as it always is with prestige dialects.

Some things are superior in a group of dialects because everyone thinks they are.
Just the same way everyone agrees some sounds put together mean a certain word.
Language is just group consensus.

That doesn't mean languages progress or regress (as I was the first to mention),
but the impression of superiority or inferiority is as real as the impression of meaning for a certain word.

Languages aren't all created equal either, after all, especially in the details. To say so would be absurdly reductive.

# ? Mar 18, 2013 18:43

Ras Het: May 23, 2007; when I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child - but now I am a man.

Barto posted:

Some things are superior in a group of dialects because everyone thinks they are.
Just the same way everyone agrees some sounds put together mean a certain word.
Language is just group consensus.

Just like how in a racist society some ethnicities are inferior and others superior?

# ? Mar 18, 2013 18:48

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

Pron on VHS posted:

What do you guys think of Tom Holland's books on Rome, specifically Rubicon: The Triumph and Tragedy of the Roman Republic and Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic?

edit: What is the difference between the two books? The latter was published about a year after the former and they share very similar names, are they different books or is one just a newer edition?

I believe they are the same book, and he presents an extremely compelling and accessible narrative of how (as I've put it earlier in the thread) the Roman Republic had a meritocratic winner-takes-all political system which starts spiralling out of control for the 50 or so years before the end of the Republic as the natural checks and balances caused by the interests of the patrician class disappear, until you come to the moment where Caesar is standing on the Rubicon and the system has left him with the choices of Civil War and ruin and no other way out.

He manages to tell a story that's about 'great men' but at the same time gives you a sense of the system that inevitably produced these men.

# ? Mar 18, 2013 18:49

Barto: Dec 27, 2004

Ras Het posted:

Just like how in a racist society some ethnicities are inferior and others superior?

That's an absurd comparison.
Thinking that one way of expressing a concept is better than another way (and everyone agrees with you)
makes it reality.

In a certain area, you can ask for a can of coke by saying "pop" or "soda."
In that area one way is more acceptable than another. The reaction you get for saying the "wrong" or "right" thing is real. That's the only real part, the movement of your lips and tongue are nothing- nothing! You say things to get a reaction, the intention and reaction are the reality of language.

Edit:
I liked how you left out the part of my post which indicates your reply is not applicable to what I'm saying. Good job.

Barto fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Mar 18, 2013

# ? Mar 18, 2013 18:53

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Barto posted:

That's an absurd comparison.
Thinking that one way of expressing a concept is better than another way (and everyone agrees with you)
makes it reality.

In a certain area, you can ask for a can of coke by saying "pop" or "soda."
In that area one way is more acceptable than another. The reaction you get for saying the "wrong" or "right" thing is real. That's the only real part, the movement of your lips and tongue are nothing- nothing! You say things to get a reaction, the intention and reaction are the reality of language.

But... hrgh. Okay.

But, 'pop' and 'soda' being 'right' or 'wrong' are entirely subjective. The parenthetical "(and everyone agrees with you)" is a situation you're never going to find.

I don't think the racist society comparison is particularly absurd. The idea of inferiority creates the 'reality' of inferiority.

# ? Mar 18, 2013 19:00

Barto: Dec 27, 2004

the JJ posted:

But... hrgh. Okay.

But, 'pop' and 'soda' being 'right' or 'wrong' are entirely subjective. The parenthetical "(and everyone agrees with you)" is a situation you're never going to find.

I don't think the racist society comparison is particularly absurd. The idea of inferiority creates the 'reality' of inferiority.

That's right, it's entirely subjective.
Go to the Roman Senate and speak Punic. See what happens! The very real (but subjective result) is going to be unpleasant.
Or use a word which sounds like the Emperor of China's name during the Tang or Song...
Language is just a subjective way people express subjective ideas. The end results are quite real though.
gently caress or Fudge? Everyone knows the subjective difference there
...and the real results of which word you choose to use in front of a judge or a police officer...

I'm also not saying this is right or wrong-
But that it is.

# ? Mar 18, 2013 19:04

Barto: Dec 27, 2004

Also
"you can't get a situation where everyone agrees with you"
is true of all words, sentences, and etc.
Otherwise we'd all be speaking the exact same language!
The world can't agree what to call "water," let alone anything else.

# ? Mar 18, 2013 19:08

WoodrowSkillson: Feb 24, 2005; *Gestures at 60 years of Lions history*

What the gently caress are you people even arguing about?

# ? Mar 18, 2013 19:09

Ras Het: May 23, 2007; when I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child - but now I am a man.

Barto posted:

That's an absurd comparison.
Thinking that one way of expressing a concept is better than another way (and everyone agrees with you)
makes it reality.

In a certain area, you can ask for a can of coke by saying "pop" or "soda."
In that area one way is more acceptable than another. The reaction you get for saying the "wrong" or "right" thing is real. That's the only real part, the movement of your lips and tongue are nothing- nothing! You say things to get a reaction, the intention and reaction are the reality of language.

Edit:
I liked how you left out the part of my post which indicates your reply is not applicable to what I'm saying. Good job.

Is anyone denying the existence of prestige dialects? Is anyone denying that there are preferred dialects for different contexts? These blatant facts only turn into the idea of different dialects being better or worse through clumsy semantics. It's the same thing for any opinion. Just because some arrangement is approved of doesn't mean it's good and inherently better than the alternative. See: factory farming, diamonds, the Holocaust.

# ? Mar 18, 2013 19:11

Barto: Dec 27, 2004

Ras Het posted:

Is anyone denying the existence of prestige dialects? Is anyone denying that there are preferred dialects for different contexts? These blatant facts only turn into the idea of different dialects being better or worse through clumsy semantics. It's the same thing for any opinion. Just because some arrangement is approved of doesn't mean it's good and inherently better than the alternative.

I'm not saying it is good or bad,
I'm just saying that people treating that way makes it that way for a certain society.
You know? That's why on TV certain accents signal certain ideas for certain groups of people.
Sure, you say that's bad. Ok, it is, objectively. But that's the situation.
So you can try to change the situation (of subjective impressions being turned into reality), but you ARE trying to change something. Saying "it's all the same!" and moving on won't work because no one thinks that way.
I guess we can see that in the way society treats certain words that start with "n" that have been reclaimed in various contexts.
It certainly has a lot of real world weight for every group that uses it. It's not unchangeable, but the effects of its use are real based on the belief of the people who use it.
I believe it's a BAD word, I truly feel that. That is my reality- most people's reality.
But it's not objective reality.
You see what I'm saying? It's just a mumble of sounds, it's the reality of the intention and its context that is real.

Ancient religious rituals of the Romans and the Greeks seem absurd now, right? But at the time most everyone took that poo poo quite seriously. The words had reality via social consensus. It was real because everyone thought it was real. Cursing someone was a real thing because people treated it that way.

Add up enough of those differences and the end result is you get very real and differing opinions of various dialects and languages.
Right or wrong don't come into it- this inequality of perception is part of human language.
Probably it's a bad thing and it'd be nice if people weren't assholes based on how you sounded. But my impression it would be practically impossible to get people to abandon their various impressions and ideas about "how people sound" (in dialects or languages not their own)

Even linguists probably have some dialects or languages they enjoy hearing more. That doesn't make the languages or dialects "unequal," but is the linguists very human preference any less real?

# ? Mar 18, 2013 19:24

Ras Het: May 23, 2007; when I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child - but now I am a man.

Right... But this is still the same thing as "99% of klansmen agree that black people are inferior". And all you're saying is "that's how it is".

# ? Mar 18, 2013 19:34

Barto: Dec 27, 2004

Ras Het posted:

Right... But this is still the same thing as "99% of klansmen agree that black people are inferior". And all you're saying is "that's how it is".

I put a bit of thought into writing so many words. I'm pretty sure that's not exactly what I meant.

Language isn't the same as people either.
We all have impressions toward certain words that influence which words we choose and when.
All these groups of sounds are "equal" in reality. I agree!
But in practice...not so much.
Sometimes the practice is not morally good. I say change the subjective reality of that situation, don't deny the reality and say that's good enough.

Can I offer an example? Don't use a Beijing-standard accent in Taipei. People won't like you. End of story.
Sure they SHOULD both be accepted as equal tools for communication in any situation. But they're not equal in every context. Because using them in the wrong situation will get a result that isn't what you want.

Barto fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Mar 18, 2013

# ? Mar 18, 2013 19:38

Ras Het: May 23, 2007; when I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child - but now I am a man.

Barto posted:

Language isn't the same as people either.

Your dialect is worse than mine = your race/social background/wealth/family/religion is worse than mine

They're absolutely equal. You're not offering any argument but "accept the reality". And I'm not denying the reality. I'm just saying that you should realise that language privilege indicates something and isn't just, like, a harmless thing.

This is a totally tedious semantics argument, and I don't want to draw it any further if it's not changing, bruv.

# ? Mar 18, 2013 19:45

Barto: Dec 27, 2004

Ras Het posted:

Your dialect is worse than mine = your race/social background/wealth/family/religion is worse than mine

They're absolutely equal. You're not offering any argument but "accept the reality". And I'm not denying the reality. I'm just saying that you should realise that language privilege indicates something and isn't just, like, a harmless thing.

This is a totally tedious semantics argument, and I don't want to draw it any further if it's not changing, bruv.

The tedious part was where you brought racism into it.
Someone said certain ways of saying things in French sound fancier. Someone else said "nuh-uh" all equal!
I pointed out that it's not equal if everyone is under the impression it's not equal, ie that way of saying it is better, everyone thinks so!
This is not racist or offensive. Within a dialect there will always be "better ways to say certain things" (hence, we have English teachers...)

So, I guess we should leave it at that since this is a bit of a derail. But I want to be clear it's not a semantic argument: you missed the point of what I was saying.

# ? Mar 18, 2013 19:49

Ras Het: May 23, 2007; when I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child - but now I am a man.

Barto posted:

you missed the point of what I was saying.

No I didn't: I just labelled it "the racist's defence".

Barto posted:

Someone said certain ways of saying things in French sound fancier. Someone else said "nuh-uh" all equal!

And Japanese girls are cuter than Ethiopian girls! See!

Prestige dialects exist. Social classes exist. Racism exists. They all exist. You even said that "objectively it is wrong, but...", and I agreed. But then you imply it's, if not "right", then "unavoidable". Which, like, isn't a great argument.

And, like, yeah, OT, but to reverse a bit: isn't it funny how "vulgar" Latin turned into French, the most prestigious language in the world through much of the modern era?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Mar 18, 2013 19:57

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

Kaal posted:

Like I said, some folks will absolutely hate this idea because they think all languages all equal. In my opinion, there's more to a language than simply being capable of communicating basic ideas. There are five different alternatives to pass� simple in French, each with differences in meaning that simply don't exist in common French. If you don't see that as being a reduction in versatility and advancedness of a language, then it's just because you've made the entire concept verbotten.

I don't speak French, but I'd be surprised if there's anything that can be said in literary French that can't be said in common French. It might take longer to say something, but I'm not convinced that represents a reduction in versatility, and without a reduction in versatility I'm not sure you can meaningfully define "advancedness".

# ? Mar 18, 2013 20:13

Cast_No_Shadow: Jun 8, 2010; The Republic of Luna Equestria is a huge, socially progressive nation, notable for its punitive income tax rates. Its compassionate, cynical population of 714m are ruled with an iron fist by the dictatorship government, which ensures that no-one outside the party gets too rich.

Jesus loving Christ no one gives a poo poo about your wank racist soda arguement, go gently caress up some other thread that isn't awesome.

Instead why doesn't someone tell us of the most Machiavelli characters of the ancient world sans Augustus; everyone loves to hate an effective but brutal figure.

# ? Mar 18, 2013 20:49

Ras Het: May 23, 2007; when I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child - but now I am a man.

Cast_No_Shadow posted:

Jesus loving Christ no one gives a poo poo about your wank racist soda arguement, go gently caress up some other thread that isn't awesome.

Instead why doesn't someone tell us of the most Machiavelli characters of the ancient world sans Augustus; everyone loves to hate an effective but brutal figure.

Next up: which Chinese civil war is most like Fallout? Stop debating.

# ? Mar 18, 2013 20:54

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Barto posted:

The tedious part was where you brought racism into it.
Someone said certain ways of saying things in French sound fancier. Someone else said "nuh-uh" all equal!
I pointed out that it's not equal if everyone is under the impression it's not equal, ie that way of saying it is better, everyone thinks so!
This is not racist or offensive. Within a dialect there will always be "better ways to say certain things" (hence, we have English teachers...)

So, I guess we should leave it at that since this is a bit of a derail. But I want to be clear it's not a semantic argument: you missed the point of what I was saying.

But it is the original racism. Making fun of other people talking is how we got the term Barbarbarbarians. (Supposedly.) There's a big difference between talking about effective communication and talking communication being "right," and the idea that some languages/dialects/whatever being more nuanced, intelligent, better than others is a pretty ancient (aharharhar) way of discriminating. And that's the discussion you jumped into and decided to talk about, not in-dialect choices about split infinitives.

# ? Mar 18, 2013 21:28

physeter: Jan 24, 2006; high five, more dead than alive

Alchenar posted:

He manages to tell a story that's about 'great men' but at the same time gives you a sense of the system that inevitably produced these men.

Are these beginner books or more advanced? I'm increasingly interested in anyone doing any work that looks at the breeding habits of the Roman upper classes leading up to the wars. One thing that isn't usually accounted for in trying to diminish the Great Man nature of the period is the breeding. Not only do you have a tight biological sample interbreeding for centuries in a society that openly values military leadership, but the system actually allowed for successful commanders to divorce their wives and remarry the daughters of other successful Romans who might themselves have been successful military commanders. These women were societally valued not just for their family connections, but for their individual ability to bear offspring. A noble woman with children from a prior marriage was a plus, not a minus, because they knew she was fertile.

I don't know enough about biology to even speculate whether military leaderhip can be an inherited trait. But if it could be, the Roman upper classes were about 300-400 years into establishing a system that accidentally might have been emphasizing exactly those traits in breeding. Or not so accidentally, I guess.

physeter fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Mar 18, 2013

# ? Mar 18, 2013 21:33

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

physeter posted:

Are these beginner books or more advanced? I'm increasingly interested in anyone doing any work that looks at the breeding habits of the Roman upper classes leading up to the wars. One thing that isn't usually accounted for in trying to diminish the Great Man nature of the period is the breeding. Not only do you have a tight biological sample interbreeding for centuries in a society that openly values military leadership, but the system actually allowed for successful commanders to divorce their wives and remarry the daughters of other successful Romans who might themselves have been successful military commanders. These women were societally valued not just for their family connections, but for their individual ability to bear offspring. A noble woman with children from a prior marriage was a plus, not a minus, because they knew she was fertile.

I don't know enough about biology to even speculate whether military leaderhip can be an inherited trait. But if it could be, the Roman upper classes were about 300-400 years into establishing a system that accidentally might have been emphasizing exactly those traits in breeding. Or not so accidentally, I guess.

How about you start over and consider that this was a society in which military service was a requirement for any kind of political career.

# ? Mar 18, 2013 21:41

physeter: Jan 24, 2006; high five, more dead than alive

Alchenar posted:

How about you start over and consider that this was a society in which military service was a requirement for any kind of political career.

Riiiiight, they were basic books. Thanks for your answer!

# ? Mar 18, 2013 21:46

General Panic: Jan 28, 2012; AN ERORIST AGENT

Cast_No_Shadow posted:

Instead why doesn't someone tell us of the most Machiavelli characters of the ancient world sans Augustus; everyone loves to hate an effective but brutal figure.

"Effective but brutal" probably covers most of the Roman emperors who didn't fall under the heading of "short-reigning and murdered."

If you want a really Machiavellian figure from the ancient world Alcibiades would probably fit the bill, though. He was an Athenian politician of the fifth century BC, when Athens was at the peak of its power, and he was legendarily slippery. He was a leader of the Athenian military expedition to Sicily during the Peleponnesian War, which was mostly his idea. However, he was accused by enemies of desecrating various religious shrines in Athens and so had to go home to stand trial for that (he won, of course, as well as it probably saving his life because the expedition was a disaster and nearly everyone died).

Alcibiades later defected to the Spartans, and gave them some useful advice which helped them gain the upper hand against the Athenians militarily. Then he fell out with them, possibly through an affair with the wife of one of the Spartan kings which left her pregnant, and defected to the Persians, regarded as the enemy of all Greeks. Ultimately, the Athenians got desperate enough to ask him back and he won a number of battles for them against Sparta, before finally being defeated and exiled again.

He was assassinated in 404 BC in murky circumstances; no-one's quite sure who did it. Frankly, he had a lot of enemies by that stage.

# ? Mar 18, 2013 21:48

Namarrgon: Dec 23, 2008; Congratulations on not getting fit in 2011!

I can tell you right now that you won't be able to breed an innate military leadership trait into a species within 300-400 years. Give me an infinite amount of resources and 3-4 million years and I can probably get the job done though.

# ? Mar 18, 2013 21:51

DarkCrawler: Apr 6, 2009; by vyelkin

Cast_No_Shadow posted:

Instead why doesn't someone tell us of the most Machiavelli characters of the ancient world sans Augustus; everyone loves to hate an effective but brutal figure.

Sulla.

Guy just couldn't be challenged by any of his peers after Marius bit it. He rose from poverty to the number one man in Rome, marched on the city twice, became dictator and purged everything he saw as bad until the Republic was going pretty well again. Best thing about Sulla is that he stood at the top of the world and let it go, going into retirement after he thought things were fit. Of course Pompey and Caesar and such hosed it up but only after Sulla was dead and cold. Honestly, even if Caesar did stand up to Sulla he was still afraid enough that he didn't actually set foot in Rome before he was buried - which tells something about Sulla. This dude was Julius Caesar's boogeyman, and as for Pompey, who do think nicknamed him "the Great?" (as an sarcastic joke).

Sulla could have been the first Roman Emperor if he had wanted to be, but he actually believed in the Republic.

quote:

His funeral in Rome (at Roman Forum, in the presence of the whole city) was on a scale unmatched until that of Augustus in AD 14. His epitaph reads "No friend ever served me, and no enemy ever wronged me, whom I have not repaid in full".

That's badass.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 00:13

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

General Panic posted:

"Effective but brutal" probably covers most of the Roman emperors who didn't fall under the heading of "short-reigning and murdered."

If you want a really Machiavellian figure from the ancient world Alcibiades would probably fit the bill, though. He was an Athenian politician of the fifth century BC, when Athens was at the peak of its power, and he was legendarily slippery. He was a leader of the Athenian military expedition to Sicily during the Peleponnesian War, which was mostly his idea. However, he was accused by enemies of desecrating various religious shrines in Athens and so had to go home to stand trial for that (he won, of course, as well as it probably saving his life because the expedition was a disaster and nearly everyone died).

Alcibiades later defected to the Spartans, and gave them some useful advice which helped them gain the upper hand against the Athenians militarily. Then he fell out with them, possibly through an affair with the wife of one of the Spartan kings which left her pregnant, and defected to the Persians, regarded as the enemy of all Greeks. Ultimately, the Athenians got desperate enough to ask him back and he won a number of battles for them against Sparta, before finally being defeated and exiled again.

He was assassinated in 404 BC in murky circumstances; no-one's quite sure who did it. Frankly, he had a lot of enemies by that stage.

I thought he defected rather than stand trial, know that the odds were rigged against him- largely because most of his ardent supporters were on their way to Sicily- Alcibaides tried to demand that his trial be held immediately, before the soldiers left, but his opponents delayed, had him leave for Sicily, then sent out a fast trireme to bring him home. So he said gently caress it and disappeared before defecting.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 01:54

Halloween Jack: Sep 12, 2003; I WILL CUT OFF BOTH OF MY ARMS BEFORE I VOTE FOR ANYONE THAT IS MORE POPULAR THAN BERNIE!!!!!

DarkCrawler posted:

Sulla.

Guy just couldn't be challenged by any of his peers after Marius bit it. He rose from poverty to the number one man in Rome, marched on the city twice, became dictator and purged everything he saw as bad until the Republic was going pretty well again. Best thing about Sulla is that he stood at the top of the world and let it go, going into retirement after he thought things were fit. Of course Pompey and Caesar and such hosed it up but only after Sulla was dead and cold. Honestly, even if Caesar did stand up to Sulla he was still afraid enough that he didn't actually set foot in Rome before he was buried - which tells something about Sulla. This dude was Julius Caesar's boogeyman, and as for Pompey, who do think nicknamed him "the Great?" (as an sarcastic joke).

Sulla could have been the first Roman Emperor if he had wanted to be, but he actually believed in the Republic.

That's badass.

I love how Sulla conquered Rome because his political enemies said "Hey everybody! Sulla's going to conquer Rome and declare himself king!" So they declared him an outlaw, whereupon Sulla marched his army into Rome, destroyed all his enemies, and said "What the gently caress are you talking about? Here, let's set the Republic in order and then I'm going to gently caress off to my farm." I think everybody was too flabbergasted to know what the gently caress.

Sulla rules. Maybe even more than Agrippa.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 02:45

Grand Fromage: Jan 30, 2006; L-l-look at you bar-bartender, a-a pa-pathetic creature of meat and bone, un-underestimating my l-l-liver's ability to metab-meTABolize t-toxins. How can you p-poison a perfect, immortal alcohOLIC?

Pron on VHS posted:

What do you guys think of Tom Holland's books on Rome, specifically Rubicon: The Triumph and Tragedy of the Roman Republic and Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic?

edit: What is the difference between the two books? The latter was published about a year after the former and they share very similar names, are they different books or is one just a newer edition?

Different editions I think. Rubicon is the first book I'd always recommend to someone starting to read about Rome, it's great and approachable and well-written and accurate. His book on Persia is quite good too, I just read it recently.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 02:45

sullat: Jan 9, 2012

Ras Het posted:

Next up: which Chinese civil war is most like Fallout? Stop debating.

I would have to say the An Lushan rebellion during the Tang dynasty. When the dust had settled and the bureaucracy re-asserted itself, there were fewer than half as many people in the census. (Not necessarly to mean that half the population was dead, but certainly casualties were immense. Even though, strictly speaking, the Taiping Rebellion cost more lives, the population of China was far greater in 1860 than it was in 760.

# ? Mar 19, 2013 04:42

Grand Fromage: Jan 30, 2006; L-l-look at you bar-bartender, a-a pa-pathetic creature of meat and bone, un-underestimating my l-l-liver's ability to metab-meTABolize t-toxins. How can you p-poison a perfect, immortal alcohOLIC?

So I just found this: http://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/

It appears to be History of Rome for 476-1453. I haven't actually listened to any episodes yet so I hope I'm not making a terrible mistake by recommending it.

# ? Mar 21, 2013 15:52

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Grand Fromage posted:

So I just found this: http://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/

It appears to be History of Rome for 476-1453. I haven't actually listened to any episodes yet so I hope I'm not making a terrible mistake by recommending it.

I've been listening to it for a while. I think it's very good, but then I'm not an expert in the field.

# ? Mar 21, 2013 16:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 18:41

WoodrowSkillson: Feb 24, 2005; *Gestures at 60 years of Lions history*

Grand Fromage posted:

So I just found this: http://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/

It appears to be History of Rome for 476-1453. I haven't actually listened to any episodes yet so I hope I'm not making a terrible mistake by recommending it.

It's not as good as The History of Rome, but its drat close and is deliberately intended as a continuation of the story as framed by the HoR. If you like podcasts and such listen to it.

# ? Mar 21, 2013 16:58

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Roman/ancient history: Checkmate, Atenists

«‹›1316 »