|
I see that there. posted:That's a ... really weird thing to say for someone happy with genocide. Don't conflate Caesar's bringing about the Empire with a good thing. Ever. I don't think there's any need to be careful about it. Caesar was one of the greatest men that ever lived and he's influenced great men in history ever since. -Influence- People don't give up core values of their own culture because they admire someone from an older culture with different core values. What Caesar did wasn't genocide, it was conquest as the people he conquered understood and practiced it, how the entire world practiced it. Now of course, it's genocide. The world has changed. Military and political leaders since have been inspired by him: who wouldn't be inspired by such a man? (Unless they were being contradictory to make a point). But Napoleon didn't commit genocide because he was inspired by Caesar, did he? Of course, he did other things which we current history-in-progress folks would consider bad. But others at the time didn't see it so, and if some political leader is inspired by Napoleon's genius it doesn't mean they are going to give up what they believe in and go commit atrocities. I'm sure Napoleon inspires a great many French people and Caesar a great many Italians (and of course they both inspire all of us). I mean, Hitler was inspired by Napoleon but is Napoleon responsible for Hitler's core values of hate and genocide? No, of course not. People of the past are what we make of them, and if we choose to lionize their good traits and minimize their bad ones, I think to an extent that's a good thing. And the opposite is also true. And certainly it's entertaining to appreciate these wonderful characters. History this old: it's primarily for appreciation of it that we're here! I appreciate these men, they and their values can't hurt anyone any longer so I appreciate the good in them- and even like them. So maybe we should be careful not to be sanctimonious first of all.
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 11:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
A few months ago I asked for some books on Roman military stuff but didn't get any response, later I found some myself that I've enjoyed so I thought I'd share them. http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Roman-Army/dp/0500288992 The Complete Roman Army is really good. It's great for any sort of details and where the sources of those details come from and how reliable they are. The prose is pretty enjoyable too. http://www.amazon.com/Rome-Sword-Warriors-Weapons-History/dp/0500251827 This one I'm just starting in on, but it's more academic in tone and provides a lot of diagrams and suggestions on weapons might have been used (besides explaining how weapons changed Roman history as the title mentions)
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 12:07
|
|
|
Barto posted:I don't think there's any need to be careful about it. Barto posted:A few months ago I asked for some books on Roman military stuff but didn't get any response, later I found some myself that I've enjoyed so I thought I'd share them. CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Apr 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
Dr Scoofles posted:Oh, and thanks for your advice GF! I am totally making space to do these ancient sites properly. Grand Fromage posted:No problem. I would say your minimum is two days Pompeii, one for Herculaneum. You could go to the museum on Herculaneum day if you get a good early start. There is a ton around Naples so you can easily fill more time if you have it. Cumae, Paestum, Capua are all neat. Oplontis is a nice preserved villa in Naples, for a little extra time to fill if you have it. I loved me some Pompeii but I might contest this a bit. There's definitely enough to see to occupy yourself for days and days if you want to, but I think that length of time is pushing it for most people. One for Pompeii, one for Herculaneum + museums is probably plenty if you're not literally a Roman historian  . Especially if you're dragging along family. At least tell them to keep a look out for all the penises or something.Then again my experience may be tainted because when I was there my sister got lost and we had to spend like a whole day in the middle of an Italian summer searching for her in the ancient Roman city without any roofs. Also I have a question about the connection between Mycenaean, Classical and Minoan Greece but I'm not entirely sure what it is so I'll come back with it later.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
Pompeii is fairly large, I had two days there and didn't see the entire city. If you're really pressed for time one day would be worth it, but why rush unless you have to? Pompeii and Herculaneum are as close as you're ever going to get to walking around the Roman world, they're two of the best preserved ancient sites on Earth, Roman or otherwise. I say take your time. If reality forces you, a day in Pompeii and a day at Herculaneum + the Naples museum is certainly better than not going so still do it. One day would be completely impossible, two is your absolute minimum. If you're stuck with one day, do Pompeii. Herculaneum is better preserved but there's just a lot more stuff to see in Pompeii. The excavated part of Herculaneum is like six by six blocks. It is way cool and 100% worth your time but it's not as spectacular as Pompeii. The Naples archaeology museum is one of the best in Italy and a whole lot of stuff from Pompeii and Herculaneum was moved there to protect it (often there are reproductions in the original spots to give you a better idea what it was like). To get the full experience you have to hit it up too. Also like half the art in the intro to the HBO Rome series is in that museum, which is neat. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Apr 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
What kind of games did Roman children play?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Pompeii is fairly large, I had two days there and didn't see the entire city. If you're really pressed for time one day would be worth it, but why rush unless you have to? Pompeii and Herculaneum are as close as you're ever going to get to walking around the Roman world, they're two of the best preserved ancient sites on Earth, Roman or otherwise. I say take your time. Oh there is so much to see and I'd love to go back there, I'm just sayin' that two days back to back is probably Rome enough for most people that don't have a specialist interest. There's enough to hold an average person's attention for over a week, but I was there for two and a half hectic days and wouldn't say I felt short changed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
Thanks so much guys! Since Im gong with my mum I've decided to do a day in Herculanium and a day in Pompeii, on top of that we're having 2 days in Rome and 2 days in Florence so all in all it's going to be a very hectic but awesome trip. The nice thing for me is Italy is only a hour or two away on easy jet so I have the option of scooting back to Pompeii easy enough, which I strongly think I will be. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 07:05
|
|
|
Dr Scoofles posted:Thanks so much guys! Since Im gong with my mum I've decided to do a day in Herculanium and a day in Pompeii, on top of that we're having 2 days in Rome and 2 days in Florence so all in all it's going to be a very hectic but awesome trip. The nice thing for me is Italy is only a hour or two away on easy jet so I have the option of scooting back to Pompeii easy enough, which I strongly think I will be. I was in Pompeii and Herculaneum in January, and found it all pretty underwhelming, but I also had a perfect storm of lovely circumstances. Be sure to buy a guidebook before you enter the park, since they've closed down the bookshop inside and at Herculaneum (there was a nice little sign that said 'closed due to Italian bureaucracy' on the door). Without the guide, you'll have a hard time figuring out what you're looking at (I certainly did), and they don't label a lot. Also, don't expect everything to be open; when I was there most of the big highlight buildings were closed (the Villa of the Vetti, the Villa of the Mysteries, so on and so forth). If you want to see some body casts, look for the Garden of the Innocents. The Naples museum is pretty great - be sure to go find the Farnese Bull sculpture group - but they may have closed off parts of it. When I was there the entire Pompeii section was closed except for the Cabinet of the Mysteries, which has terracotta penises and a statue of Pan loving a very happy goat. If you ever get the chance, I'd check out Ostia Antica. You can get a train there from Rome and walk to the park from the train station, and it's got a lot of really well-preserved Roman insulae and an underground mithraeum.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 11:53
|
|
|
That sucks. Definitely get a guide of some sort, there isn't labeling. I was there with my professor so it was different. Without a guidebook or being a Roman history professor you'll miss a lot. You can also bribe your way into closed places in Pompeii. The House of the Vettii was closed when we were there, but ten Euro later we were inside. Italy has some advantages.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 12:21
|
|
|
How did the 'adoption' process work in Rome? I.e. Julius Caesar adopting Octavian. And how did Romans selling themselves/being sold into slavery work? I'm thinking of Varro/Aurelia from Spartacus. Free Roman Husband/Wife, Varro sells himself to Batiatus as a gladiator and Aurelia later sells herself to Batiatus as a house slave. And then Laeta, a roman noblewoman sold into slavery by Marcus Crassus. I realize these are (most likely) not historical figures, but they're decent examples of Roman Freed(wo)man -> Slave. Iseeyouseemeseeyou fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Apr 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 15:06
|
|
|
As a followup to that, I'd like to know how slaves could earn their freedom. If you're a slave, can't your master just confiscate anything you possess?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 15:10
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:As a followup to that, I'd like to know how slaves could earn their freedom. If you're a slave, can't your master just confiscate anything you possess? This is an easier question that I don't have to look up. The answer is no, they couldn't. Slaves had property rights. The wages they earned were theirs and the owner couldn't take them. Slaves had rights, and these rights got more expansive over time--it wasn't American style chattel slavery. You weren't allowed to sell a slave's children or break up families either, unless I'm remembering wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
"Selling yourself into slavery" likely meant entering debt bondage, which was a punishment for defaulting on a debt. In the early Republic, there was a special class of debt slaves called nexum, which were citizens who had defaulted or agreed to a temporary period of slavery as part of the terms of a loan. These slaves had special legal protections, but the practice was abolished rather quickly. I haven't seen the show, so I can't comment specifically on the characters. Slaves definitely did have legal protections as to property. In fact, because freed slaves were theoretically Roman citizens, there are stories of crafty Greeks taking out loans for the purposes of defaulting, investing the money that they got at a higher rate of return than interest, and then after a year using their proceeds to pay off the loan, for the purpose of then becoming Roman citizens as freedmen. Of course, there was some risk, since a master could kill his slave. But generally this didn't happen without reason -- wantonly mistreating your slaves was a gauche thing to do, something only a barbarian would do. As for adoption, it was a business transaction between two families. (The paterfamilias had the power to give his children for adoption, as well as pretty much whatever else he wanted to do with them.) The kid usually knew who his real parents were and kept ties with them, but as far as the law was concerned, he was of his adopted family. It could be a very favorable position for an aristocrat, as an adoptee could have access to the resources of his biological parents as well as his adoptive parents. Adoption was commonly used for political alliances, as well as families resolving a situation of being heirless. There was no particular shame associated with it - it was a very respectable thing to do on both sides of the transaction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:"Selling yourself into slavery" likely meant entering debt bondage, which was a punishment for defaulting on a debt. In the early Republic, there was a special class of debt slaves called nexum, which were citizens who had defaulted or agreed to a temporary period of slavery as part of the terms of a loan. These slaves had special legal protections, but the practice was abolished rather quickly. I haven't seen the show, so I can't comment specifically on the characters. This is perfect, thanks! Varro sold himself into slavery (as a gladiator) to pay off his gambling debts and his wife did the same to help pay her husband's debts as well. Tao Jones posted:Slaves definitely did have legal protections as to property. In fact, because freed slaves were theoretically Roman citizens, there are stories of crafty Greeks taking out loans for the purposes of defaulting, investing the money that they got at a higher rate of return than interest, and then after a year using their proceeds to pay off the loan, for the purpose of then becoming Roman citizens as freedmen. Of course, there was some risk, since a master could kill his slave. But generally this didn't happen without reason -- wantonly mistreating your slaves was a gauche thing to do, something only a barbarian would do. Does this play into why most Roman physicians were Greek slaves who were eventually received their freedom? Tao Jones posted:As for adoption, it was a business transaction between two families. (The paterfamilias had the power to give his children for adoption, as well as pretty much whatever else he wanted to do with them.) The kid usually knew who his real parents were and kept ties with them, but as far as the law was concerned, he was of his adopted family. It could be a very favorable position for an aristocrat, as an adoptee could have access to the resources of his biological parents as well as his adoptive parents. Adoption was commonly used for political alliances, as well as families resolving a situation of being heirless. There was no particular shame associated with it - it was a very respectable thing to do on both sides of the transaction. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Does this play into why most Roman physicians were Greek slaves who were eventually received their freedom? Probably. Most of the fancy book learnin' of the time was written in Greek, so Greeks had an advantage in getting an education once they got past the initial hurdle of becoming literate. Educated slaves likely had a survival advantage, since even the masters who erred on the side of being cruel and capricious might hesitate to antagonize or execute their doctor or accountant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
I have a question about Theodosius and Bishop Ambrose of Milan. The Thessalonians get out of line, riot, and kill the garrison commander that Theodosius left in charge. Theodosius loses his mind and order his troops to wait for the next race, bar the doors to the circus, and kill everyone inside. At the end some 7000 people are dead. Ambrose sees this as a political opportunity, and denies Theodosius participation at mass until he properly atones for his sin and proper atonement just happens to include adopting religious policies that Ambrose favors. All of that makes sense, but what I don't really understand is why Theodosius went along with it. Ambrose was popular and influential in Milan and the western empire, but he wasn't a Pope with control over the entire church, and Theodosius wasn't a western emperor. If Theodosius wanted forgiveness and to be allowed participation in the church, why didn't he simply return to Constantinople and receive everything he wanted from the Bishop of Constantinople? I know that Theodosius was a serious Christian, and that he probably truly believed his soul to be in jeopardy, but even taking that as a given, Ambrose held no more power over his soul that any other Bishop. Why not just go home and leave Ambrose out of it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
For some reason the western bishops were more powerful. I'm not sure anyone knows for sure why, but the bishop of Constantinople was a weaker figure who didn't do very well when dealing with the imperial authorities. The west does dominate the church until the split, and logically you'd expect the east to dominate since it started there and the east is more powerful and has Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem, but for whatever reason, it doesn't. Maybe someone who studied early Christianity specifically knows but I've never read anything explaining why Milan and then Rome dominated the church so much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
Theodosius had plans to reunite the empire under his own dynasty, it wouldn't do to piss off one of the major figures in the West in the run-up. Alternatively, he may just have respected Ambrose (Theodosius was pretty thoroughly Christian) enough to be humbled by his criticisms.
Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Apr 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
Theodosius was a legitimately devout man who knew he was eternally hosed for what he had one, according to all the sources. I think Ambrose was the one who said so, which was likely one reason why he went to Ambrose. If he had sought forgiveness from the bishop of Constantinople instead it could start a church power struggle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Theodosius was a legitimately devout man who knew he was eternally hosed for what he had one, according to all the sources. I think Ambrose was the one who said so, which was likely one reason why he went to Ambrose. If he had sought forgiveness from the bishop of Constantinople instead it could start a church power struggle. I like how temper tantrum in ancient Rome can equal Oh, I locked up 7,000 people and killed them. But I'm really sorry about that now >.<
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
I just finished Tom Holland's In the Shadow of the Sword and while I found it an engaging and fascinating read, I really think that, while he did an excellent job of describing the sort of religious milieu in the Middle East and Arabia at the time of Muhammad's revelation, I think the details of his thesis on the origin of Islam is on fairly shaky ground at best. I wish I could find my copy of Kaegi's Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests, but I think I either lost it or left it at my parents' house the last time I visited them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
Barto posted:I like how temper tantrum in ancient Rome can equal The look shared between the envoys of the Quadi and the Sarmatians when the Roman Emperor blew a mortal gasket and dropped dead right goddamn in front of them must've been one of history's great looks. I hope Valens remembered to feed his brother's bears. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
I always wondered what looks passed when Theodoric cut Odoacer in half at a dinner party. Murmured "check, please"'s all around. Maybe a servant doing an about face - "So no coffee then."
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 03:02
|
|
|
Were there any systems of slavery as brutal as American-style chattel slavery?Grand Fromage posted:You can also bribe your way into closed places in Pompeii. The House of the Vettii was closed when we were there, but ten Euro later we were inside. Italy has some advantages. Sounds like Roman-style systems of informal personal relationships instead of rigid formal bureaucratic ones are alive and well!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 11:44
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Were there any systems of slavery as brutal as American-style chattel slavery? Caribbean chattel slavery? e: More seriously, it could vary from job to job even with a 'system' of slavery. A Greek doctor slave and an American house slave might have more in common than to an silver miner and the cotton field slaves, respectively. That's as far a conditions of living, health, life expectancy etc. etc. Obviously, being property and the accompanying degradation of the human soul etc. etc. Caribbean sugar plantations were notoriously bad. At least cotton slaves generally lived long enough to have kids as chattel, most islands had to constantly import slaves just to maintain stable populations. double e: that was terribly worded. Fixed the JJ fucked around with this message at 12:08 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 11:47
|
|
|
I see that there. posted:I always wondered what looks passed when Theodoric cut Odoacer in half at a dinner party. My history professor loved telling that story. And he sounded like Brad Neely, so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 13:42
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:My history professor loved telling that story. And he sounded like Brad Neely, so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Were there any systems of slavery as brutal as American-style chattel slavery? Some of the deep mining operations were pretty tough, but that really had more to do with the danger of the work than anything else. They mined in the best and safest way they knew how (mining techniques did not notably improve until the 1600s), but slavery in the mines was still considered the worst fate for a slave. That said, it still wasn't as bad as chattel slavery - the Roman overseers couldn't kill or abuse them on a whim, they weren't manacled to their picks, and their children weren't doomed to replace them. The only real competition for American-style slavery would be death camps a la the Caribbean sugar plantations, or Hitler's Jewish work camps, and I say that without self-aggrandizement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Some of the slavery in the Ancient Near East has got to be worse I'd have thought? Wasn't having your nose and ears and so on sliced off sort of par for the course? I'm not sure how much to blur the line between war captive and slave though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Some of the deep mining operations were pretty tough, but that really had more to do with the danger of the work than anything else. They mined in the best and safest way they knew how (mining techniques did not notably improve until the 1600s), but slavery in the mines was still considered the worst fate for a slave. That said, it still wasn't as bad as chattel slavery - the Roman overseers couldn't kill or abuse them on a whim, they weren't manacled to their picks, and their children weren't doomed to replace them. The only real competition for American-style slavery would be death camps a la the Caribbean sugar plantations, or Hitler's Jewish work camps, and I say that without self-aggrandizement. The Congo Free State should probably be added to this list.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
I see that there. posted:I always wondered what looks passed when Theodoric cut Odoacer in half at a dinner party. I like that Theodoric might have been the first one to make a joke; standing over his foe and announcing "not a bone in him!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 18:00
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Koramei posted:Some of the slavery in the Ancient Near East has got to be worse I'd have thought? Wasn't having your nose and ears and so on sliced off sort of par for the course? I'm not sure how much to blur the line between war captive and slave though. Hedera Helix posted:The Congo Free State should probably be added to this list. Oh yeah, that definitely wasn't an exhaustive list of death camps. It's more that American-style chattel slavery really brought the concept right up to the edge of sustainability. There's plenty of historical events that were worse in one way or the other, but they inevitably ended with the quick injury or death of the victims. In those cases where people are simply worked to death, or subject to unrelenting brutality, "slavery" would appear to be an insufficient term.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
I don't think US slavery was ever quite self sufficient. They resisted attempts to ban importing slaves because they knew it would kill slavery in a generation or two.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
Xguard86 posted:I don't think US slavery was ever quite self sufficient. They resisted attempts to ban importing slaves because they knew it would kill slavery in a generation or two. The US actually didn't import very many slaves. We imported 645,000 of the 10 million slaves that crossed the Atlantic during the slave trade, and by the 1860 census there were four million slaves living in the Southern United States alone. Indeed slave importation had ceased some 50 years prior to the Civil War. It was quite sustainable. But often history books confusingly write about the slave shipments to the "Americas", which overwhelmingly means the Caribbean and South America. Places like Jamaica and St. Dominigue (Haiti) saw brutal slave ownership with high mortality rates (upwards of 50% per annum in some places), making slavery there quite unsustainable. Kaal fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Apr 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
When the importation of slaves was outlawed in 1808, there were roughly 1.1 million slaves in the US. When the 14th amendment was passed, there were just short of 4 million slaves in the US. Unless there's something that I'm overlooking, I think you would have to conclude that American slavery was indeed quite self-sustaining. http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/wahl.slavery.us e: beaten
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
Oops guess I was confused by the aggregate "Americas" number.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
I am interested in pre-Christian religions and if there was a same cycle with a new generation of citizens converting to new beliefs (Zeus, Hera, et al), and folding in the some of the older (now considered) pagan beliefs/traditions (Chronos, Rhea, Titans) and even from older non Olympian-connected deities (Orcus) in much the same way that Halloween traditions were accepted into the new Christian mainstream to bond with those that still support the "old ways" and allow them to continue to celebrate/observe and still be a part of the "new wave".
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
Xguard86 posted:Oops guess I was confused by the aggregate "Americas" number. Totally understandable - history books make a big deal out of the American role in the slave industry, and don't really mention that only 5% of slaves were traded to the US. In fact, slavery in the US was such a booming market that the architects of the American Confederacy had hoped to settle a peace with the North and then expand down into Central and South America. If the Union had lost the war, it is likely that the Confederacy would have become a slave empire, the US would not have entered WWI, and Germany would have succeeded during the Spring Offensive. The entire geopolitical face of the world would be changed. But that's going a bit off topic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
Kaal posted:In fact, slavery in the US was such a booming market that the architects of the American Confederacy had hoped to settle a peace with the North and then expand down into Central and South America. If the Union had lost the war, it is likely that the Confederacy would have become a slave empire, the US would not have entered WWI, and Germany would have succeeded during the Spring Offensive. The entire geopolitical face of the world would be changed. But that's going a bit off topic. Now we're getting into some Harry Turtledove poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 19:07
|
|
