|
brozozo posted:I'm not very familiar with the details of either plague, but why would east-west contact make them likely to occur? Are the kinds of bacteria relating to those plagues only native to east Asia? I'm not entirely sure of the biology behind it, all I know was that in both cases, the plagues started in Eastern Eurasia and spread to Western Eurasia. @Deteriorata, sorry for being unclear - what I meant was what unified the Macedonians+Thessalians, before they moved south to unify the Greeks? What part of pre-Philip/pre-Alexander Macedonian culture/politics made the Macedonian peoples able to unify themselves, instead of being divided between warring city-states like the Classical Greeks to the south?
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
AdjectiveNoun posted:I'm not entirely sure of the biology behind it, all I know was that in both cases, the plagues started in Eastern Eurasia and spread to Western Eurasia. Macedon was as fractious as the rest until Philip took over. What united them was Philip's military prowess and his vision of Macedonian greatness, and little more. It wasn't a matter of "cultural superiority" or anything. It was due to an exceptional personality. Philip was an expansionist and outstanding military commander in his own right. Philip of Macedon would be hailed as one of the great conquerors of history had he not been assassinated and then eclipsed by his even more remarkable son.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
brozozo posted:I'm not very familiar with the details of either plague, but why would east-west contact make them likely to occur? Are the kinds of bacteria relating to those plagues only native to east Asia? No, but the plague began in Asia and spread west. Europe was more heavily affected for whatever reason. It was probably a different strain that Europeans didn't have as much immunity to. The plague of Justinian was also probably bubonic plague and that started in Egypt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:No, but the plague began in Asia and spread west. Europe was more heavily affected for whatever reason. It was probably a different strain that Europeans didn't have as much immunity to. The plague of Justinian was also probably bubonic plague and that started in Egypt. 40-50 years before the plague hit, the Medieval Warm Period ended. This was a 200-300 year trend of higher than normal temperatures throughout Europe and it allowed land in Europe that was marginal to farm both before and after to be cultivated. When the period ended, a portion of the European population was tied by serfdom to land that couldn't support them. The price of staple goods went up and consequently the worst off in the population entered into a vicious cycle of malnutrition causing low-level debility, which meant that they were progressively less able to farm the land that they had. Put simply, the population was too high for the land to support. There are some parts of France whose population did not recover to pre-Black Death levels until the 19th century. While I don't subscribe to the concept of a Mathusian reckoning, this situation definitely created a situation where the population was significantly less able to fight off disease than would have been possible not more than a few decades before. The first outward sign of something horrible to come came in 1315 when a cold, wet summer led to crop failures in many parts of Europe. However, while this was difficult to endure, it was not uncommon. What made this situation so much worse is that the following two summers repeated the same pattern. By the time 1318 came and the weather returned to normal, a significant portion of the European population had been on starvation diets. In desperation, people had eaten their seed stock and, coupled with recurrent disease helped on by weakened immune systems, it wasn't until 1325 that the food situation stabilized. The population had been weakened and when the Genoese trading ships fleeing Caffa brought a new and particularly virulent strain of the plague with them, the worst-case scenario was basically playing out. However, despite the horrific nature of this particular outbreak, I think it's important to view the Black Death within the larger context of plague outbreaks in Europe. From the Plague of Justinian, outbreaks that killed 10-30% of an area's inhabitants occurred every 20-30 years. What made this outbreak so deadly was how widespread it was. So, the question becomes why this is. I think the effect of the Hundred Years' War on the spread of the plague is generally understated. The massive human migration that would already be associated with an event like the Black Death was only amplified by the population displacement that the war was causing. While no one is going to argue that the Hundred Years' War caused the plague, it was definitely part of a perfect storm of events in Europe that contributed to make it one of the deadliest disease outbreaks in human history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
Is there any evidence to suggest that Nero was an architect or was a dilettante in it? The History of Rome podcast mentioned that he probably didn't intentionally burn down (parts of) Rome, but I'm wondering if he had any personal hand in designing his new Golden Palace.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 07:47
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Macedon was as fractious as the rest until Philip took over. What united them was Philip's military prowess and his vision of Macedonian greatness, and little more. It wasn't a matter of "cultural superiority" or anything. It was due to an exceptional personality. To build on this, a central theme in Greek history revolved around the concept of hubris. Men (and women) who overreached themselves were constantly struck down by the gods from Homer ---> Aristophanes ----> into the late classical era. Literally countless examples of this. Thus many of the tools that Philip, and later Alexander, used to solidify their cult of personality would have been treated bordering on desecration (off the top of my head, an example is the construction of the Philippeion) by the Greek population. Additionally, Phillip came around at the perfect time. Sparta's power was waning, it had been dealing with a costly helot revolt and it had just been defeated in pitched battle for the first time ever by the Thebans (who took heavy losses doing so). The man responsible for both of these, Epaminondas (who is awesome, everyone should go learn about him), had conveniently died right after--leaving Thebes weak. Athens had already lost much of its power from the decades of infighting, and to top it off Philip's campaign took two of the most strategic resources on the Aegean mainland early on -- Amphipolis and thus the gold mines at Pangaion. Philip really was a remarkable guy, but he was just as lucky as Alexander. A few decades earlier and he likely would have been soundly routed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 09:14
|
|
|
This is a pretty good read about how Philip made Macedon the hegemon of Greece http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_Macedon , he was truly a remarkable man and it's hardly surprising that Alexander's armies were so efficient when they had fought almost continuously for 25 years before he took over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 13:39
|
|
|
Though "Philip the Great" just doesn't have the same ring to it, you know?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:The first outward sign of something horrible to come came in 1315 when a cold, wet summer led to crop failures in many parts of Europe. However, while this was difficult to endure, it was not uncommon. What made this situation so much worse is that the following two summers repeated the same pattern. By the time 1318 came and the weather returned to normal, a significant portion of the European population had been on starvation diets. In desperation, people had eaten their seed stock and, coupled with recurrent disease helped on by weakened immune systems, it wasn't until 1325 that the food situation stabilized. The population had been weakened and when the Genoese trading ships fleeing Caffa brought a new and particularly virulent strain of the plague with them, the worst-case scenario was basically playing out. After three cold, wet summers, and cold, snowy winters, in (Northern) Europe, this is mildly disturbing reading.  Bluff posted:Epaminondas. He contributed to the careers of Philip and Alexander more directly than just by weakening the Greek states so they could take over. A lot of his tactical innovations were adopted by the Macedonians, such as the oblique attack (where you deliberately leave one part of your army weak and let it retreat, to draw the opposite part of the enemy army on, whilst hitting the part opposite you with a very strong force). Philip spent time as a hostage in Thebes when young and may have even discussed this stuff with Epaminondas in person. Unfortunately, the biography of Epaminondas that Plutarch wrote is missing, so there aren't great sources for his life. If it weren't for that, he'd probably be better remembered.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
physeter posted:...where I live there's a middle class housing development called Tamerlane. Holy poo poo, where is that? I would love to know how that managed to happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 20:35
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I was a few weeks behind in the thread so I'm sorry for bring this up but this really bothered me. Alexander did not fight a war of ethnic annihilation in the way anyone from the 19th century on would have. No one from before then would have understood that kind of warf, the closest historical war that was fought for that reason (I do not consider the Bible a historical source)was the Fall of Assyria. War is a brutal, brutal thing but do not let the facts of conflict be hidden by ideological concerns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:I was a few weeks behind in the thread so I'm sorry for bring this up but this really bothered me. Alexander did not fight a war of ethnic annihilation in the way anyone from the 19th century on would have. No one from before then would have understood that kind of warf, the closest historical war that was fought for that reason (I do not consider the Bible a historical source)was the Fall of Assyria. Caesar bragged in his book about murdering or enslaving 200k Helvetii, destroying the entire nation as a revenge for warring against him. That's not an ideologically motivated ethnic cleansing perhaps, but it is an ethnic cleansing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 15:27
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:Caesar bragged in his book about murdering or enslaving 200k Helvetii, destroying the entire nation as a revenge for warring against him. That's not an ideologically motivated ethnic cleansing perhaps, but it is an ethnic cleansing. Caesar's campaign books are highly suspect as real sources. However, the Roman's are more then likely the closest state to out and out ethnically cleanse a people simply for existing. It however was not ideologically motivated beyond wealth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
It was ideologically motivated in the name of Roman (both the state and personal) glory. There was certainly an ideology of superiority of Roman culture and civilization above the barbarians that surrounded them which justified, for example, murdering all of the Lusitanian male children to try to eliminate them as a people. Just because it's not something of the 19th century doesn't mean there wasn't an ideological motive behind it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
Even trying to apply the concept of ethnic cleansing in Antiquity is hugely problematic because it's hard to find civilizations advanced enough (or well-documented enough) to have ethnic mixing in the first place. Who else are you going to fight in the tribal lands of the Blah Blahs? No one, just the Blah Blahs, because that's who lives there. Win or lose, you've attempted ethnic cleansing by default.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
I'm rereading the Odyssey and I just want to know if Penelope is as smoking hot as I am thinking she is.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
Twat McTwatterson posted:I'm rereading the Odyssey and I just want to know if Penelope is as smoking hot as I am thinking she is. Sure why not:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Primaticcio physeter posted:Even trying to apply the concept of ethnic cleansing in Antiquity is hugely problematic because it's hard to find civilizations advanced enough (or well-documented enough) to have ethnic mixing in the first place. Who else are you going to fight in the tribal lands of the Blah Blahs? No one, just the Blah Blahs, because that's who lives there. Win or lose, you've attempted ethnic cleansing by default. Applying 21st century morality politics to anything prior to the 19th century is a fool's errand in the first place. Kaal fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Apr 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 02:07
|
|
|
Kaal posted:
Well as Aristotle said, a certain kind of people have to say something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
I got a question not greece/rome related, but ancient enough to qualify for this thread. How did Sumerians wage war? I figured they would use simple spears, but did they use phalanxes or chariots? And were there professional soldiers or did the local king just press gang a bunch a people with low quality weapons?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:I got a question not greece/rome related, but ancient enough to qualify for this thread. If I'm remembering my Ancient History Podcast information correctly, they used slings, spears, and large shields. One later Mesopotamian inscription recounted how a conquering king's sling bullets came down 'like rain' from his army. They also used battle wagons drawn by oxen or asses: four-wheeled bronze age AFVs. I think generally they fought in skirmisher/phalanx formations. You have to remember that when you're talking about ancient Sumer, you're talking about one of if not the oldest civilizations that existed. Their way of war was organized and effective but not very far developed, because hey, they're kind of breaking into new territory here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
I.W.W. ATTITUDE posted:If I'm remembering my Ancient History Podcast information correctly, they used slings, spears, and large shields. One later Mesopotamian inscription recounted how a conquering king's sling bullets came down 'like rain' from his army. They also used battle wagons drawn by oxen or asses: four-wheeled bronze age AFVs. I think generally they fought in skirmisher/phalanx formations. You have to remember that when you're talking about ancient Sumer, you're talking about one of if not the oldest civilizations that existed. Their way of war was organized and effective but not very far developed, because hey, they're kind of breaking into new territory here. No phalanxes, I'd think. Just groups of dudes. Groups of dudes is already hard enough, ya know?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
Ok, groups of dudes, not phalanxes. As to how they were organized, it seems that Sargon The Great started out his career as an overseer of irrigation canal construction teams, and it's likely that his first army was composed of the people who worked for him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
It's so weird to think about people inventing the concept of armies and organized warfare.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:It's so weird to think about people inventing the concept of armies and organized warfare. It starts with armies and evolves to 15 minute lunch breaks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:It's so weird to think about people inventing the concept of armies and organized warfare. It could have developed organically, as a sort of arms race between settlements. The concept of someone coming along and inventing militaries is pretty  .
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
The Sumerians are credited by many with having invented the chariot. Theirs were 4-wheeled and pulled by donkeys, manned by a driver and a javelin thrower: Depictions of their soldiers show them wearing bronze helmets and holding big shields while armed with bronze short swords or spears. Their military tactics are not well understood. They seem to have engaged in a lot of siege warfare.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:It's so weird to think about people inventing the concept of armies and organized warfare. Maybe far into the future when historians are looking at our ancient societies, someone on the SomethingAwful forums version 4,204 will say "It's so weird to think these people actually spent a lot of money on having some portion of their nation get weapons and go off and kill people from other nations" 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:It could have developed organically, as a sort of arms race between settlements. The concept of someone coming along and inventing militaries is pretty Well, the idea of an empire was invented by the Akkadians. Some form of warfare probably evolved naturally but an organized military had to be an intentional invention.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
I believe one of my professors said that the norm for the first Mesopotamian armies essentially boiled down to phalanx-like formations of men armed with spears/big shields, wicker was common I think, in the front, with archers/slingers behind them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:I know the Romans thought he was a swell dude, but does anybody know about what the Parthians thought of him? Or maybe even the tribes in Europe? Conquering the Seleucids would definitely have brought them into contact with all those towns and monuments dedicated to him, did they destroy them? The Parthian Arsacids are the odd dynasty out in the pre-islamic history of Persia, unfortunately. They're kind of to Persia proper what the Macedonians were to Greece - a bunch of loving bumpkins out there in the hills who don't even drink decent wine and whoa holy poo poo they are suddenly kicking rear end in every direction what the hell. Writings from Persian sources are hard enough to find, but the Parthians really didn't go in for record keeping even by the area's standards. As if that wasn't bad enough, the dynasty that followed them, the Sassanids, hated them like rats and expunged a bunch of stuff from the written histories that did exist. The long and the short of it is that the Parthians are a little obscure on the matter of Alexander, as well as most things. The Sassanids definitely didn't like the guy at all though. There's some writings from the period that refer to him as Alexander the Accursed. Which is completely fair. The flip side of the whole "greatest general ever" thing is that he did sort of destroy the government of the entire near east and replace it with three idiot dynasties more interested in having prolonged slap-fights over the Levant and marrying their sisters than actually, y'know, governing. On the other hand, christ guys that was 600 years ago. Lighten the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 11:09
|
|
|
Barto posted:No phalanxes, I'd think.  
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
Koramei posted:
Okay guys, I got this. When we talk about 'Greek' culture we're most often talking about Athenian culture. They wrote about their own habits the most, and their hegemony (trading and culturally if not always military) led them to become somewhat looked up to and so a good standard starting place. Further, we're usually talking about aristocratic Athenian culture, because rich guys had the time to sit down and write things down, and everyone wanted to be like them sooo... Women, basically hardly exist as independent entities, they belong first to their fathers and then their husbands. They are supposed to stay home and order the house (including servants and slave, because, again, rich people). Women were often expected to literally never leave the house. That was their place, men got to go outside. Women were expected to be faithful in marriages (on pain of death etc.) while men could sleep around all they wanted. A lot of ancient sources on women are men complaining that their wife is getting pissed at them an making them gently caress the slaves in, like, the other side of the house. On male playwright has his idealized female character explain that a women's role is to accept this, and sup her husbands bastards on her breast without complaint because... well, yeah. Oh, and it was her fault her husband was unfaithful. If she'd been nicer he would've hosed around. Worst were the philosophers. Plato thought that women should be treated as men or, rather, that everyone should be treated purely on virtue. However, he felt that women were categorically worse than men, it's just that he recognized variation in peoples character. Therefore, logically, no matter how skewed the bell curve, you'd find some women more capable than men. He also thought that women should be trained for war, because more manpower would be a good thing. Xenophon was a bit of a separate-but-equal, and probably the most generous towards women. But traditionalist conservative blowhard that he was, he really bought into the 1950's-esque separate spheres and such. But he basically says that, soldiering aside, women are as smart/virtuous/whatever as men. He's even quite supportive of female rulers, and illustrates cases in which they can lead military affairs with honor. (Basically, pay your goddamn soldiers, an issue near and dear to his once-mercenary heart.) I can effort post on Xenophon and women later, crib from an undergrad paper I wrote. Aristotle though, was kinda king-dick-of-the-universe in this particular regard. Worse, he became very influential as the 'father of science' and rational, evidence based ways of looking at the universe. Plato was cool, but a mystical egghead for disconnected intellectuals. Xenophon was a superstitious meathead. But Aristotle, he talked about the truth man. Up until the Enlightenment, and even then he was a bit of a model for everyone. And he hated women. They were, inherently, dumb, weak, and immoral, with few redeeming qualities. Effort post on Sparta and Xenophon in a bit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
What do we know of the attitudes of wine/booze culture in the empire? Was it only for the bourgeois and soldiers?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 02:45
|
|
bobthedinosaur posted:What do we know of the attitudes of wine/booze culture in the empire? Was it only for the bourgeois and soldiers? Distillation didn't exist until the medieval era, I think. Wine for Romans, beer for barbarians. Wine was always/usually cut with water.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
Twat McTwatterson posted:Distillation didn't exist until the medieval era, I think. Wine for Romans, beer for barbarians. Wine was always/usually cut with water. Roman wine was much more potent than our contemporary wines, and cutting it with water was a mark of urbanity. They'd consider our contemporary tastes for unleavened wine to be crude and provincial. As far as I know, everyone drank wine that could afford it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome_and_wine
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
I'm a little late for Macedon chat, but I'm taking a class on this very subject right now so I want to clarify a couple of things. It was mentioned earlier that the Greeks in Hellas considered the Macedonians to be barbarians; part of this is because Macedonian culture was fundamentally different from that of the other Greeks. The Greek world, from Sicily, to Magna Graecia, to Hellas, to the islands, to Anatolia, was all centered around the polis, or city state. Kings (Basileus) were rare, oligarchies, tyrranies, or democracies were far more common than monarchies as we would think of them. Macedonia was the complete opposite; there weren't any poleis in Macedon, hell even large towns were rare. The situation is a lot more similar to a medieval feudal system, with local lords owing nominal fealty to the king of Macedon, murdering each other over petty poo poo, and mostly just trying to keep the drat Thracians and Celts away from their farms. Philip changes all of that, and almost single-handedly creates a centralized state and powerhouse. Philip rises to power after a bajillion of his ancestors are killed in dynastic struggles. He quickly and decisively establishes a stable power base and then proceeds to make some serious reforms. Macedonia wasn't very centralized, with those aforementioned lords/tribal leaders ruling their own little fiefs. To eliminate squabbling amongst his nobles, he takes nearly all of them of fighting age and makes them his Hetairoi, the Companion cavalry, giving them a fancy title and the promise of glory. He increases the size of the military exponentially, by conscripting and training nearly his entire free male population. He rotates them in and out of service so that farms are still tended, etc. To maintain loyalty to him as opposed to his Macedonian subject's tribal leaders, he splits them up and even gives the peasant phalanx a fancy title; the pezhetairoi, foot companions. This is pretty revolutionary, as in Greece at the time citizen levies of hoplites are formed only by the middle and upper classes, which were very, very small. Because everyone has to supply their own equipment, the poor can only serve as peltasts, super lightly armed troops (but admittedly effective). From what I can tell, peltasts functioned exclusively as mercenaries. I've never heard of any cities conscripting them, they're usually just paid to fight. Even Iphicrates had to hire his Spartan-murdering peltasts in 390 (Iphicrates is super cool, by the way.) These troops don't give a poo poo about the polis, they just want money to eat. As the class divide increases in the 4th century, the poleis have to rely more and more on these mercenaries as the population rich enough to afford hoplite gear dwindles. So, after he creates this professional force, Philip has to test it. He does this by beating the poo poo out of the Thracians and other surrounding barbarians a few times. It's all a resounding success. This gives his troops valuable experience, and the easy victories increase their loyalty to him even more. By the time he has to knock heads in Greece, Philip has a professional army (which is still rare at this point in antiquity) with huge numbers of good infantry that are fanatically loyal to him and the strongest cavalry in the Eastern Mediterranean. Anyways, that's my effortpost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Roman wine was much more potent than our contemporary wines, and cutting it with water was a mark of urbanity. They'd consider our contemporary tastes for unleavened wine to be crude and provincial. As far as I know, everyone drank wine that could afford it. There has been long debate about whether Romans were just pussies or there was something different about ancient wine. The issue is still unresolved. And yeah if you could afford it, you drank wine. Even if you were some tribesman living in Denmark or whatever, you had it imported.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:It's so weird to think about people inventing the concept of armies and organized warfare.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 03:02
|
|
|
Twat McTwatterson posted:Distillation didn't exist until the medieval era, I think. Wine for Romans, beer for barbarians. Wine was always/usually cut with water. Kaal posted:Roman wine was much more potent than our contemporary wines, and cutting it with water was a mark of urbanity. They'd consider our contemporary tastes for unleavened wine to be crude and provincial. As far as I know, everyone drank wine that could afford it. Allow me to rephrase my question-I'm not so concerned about what they drank but how they drank. What do we know of drinking culture in the Empire? Did they make toasts? Did they play drinking games? What do we know about that? Was it just in the evenings? A little bit all day long?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
bobthedinosaur posted:Allow me to rephrase my question-I'm not so concerned about what they drank but how they drank. Not sure about the Romans, but the Greeks played drinking games. One popular game, and possibly the oldest drinking game was called Kottabos and it was kind of like modern beer pong (not really, but vaguely). The basic goal of the game was to fling the backwash/last portion of wine out of your drinking cup in such a way that the glob of liquid 1) didn't break up in the air and 2) knocked a small saucer off a stand, which would then fall down and hit a slightly larger saucer and make a chiming noise. This stand was usually placed somewhere across the room. Also, you had to stay in a reclined position on your couch/cushions while you shot. Sometimes the winner even got a prize! Since it was brought up earlier, the Greeks almost always watered down their wines. They believed wine that wasn't watered down slightly would drive someone insane, and was for barbarians. It was common to tell guests in advance what the water/wine ration would be at a symposia (party).
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 04:17
|
|