|
ScottP posted:This is just an idle curiosity, but what's the leading theory on why Ovid was exiled? My classics professor was fairly certain that he slept with the emperor's daughter but the Wikipedia article doesn't seem confident about that hypothesis, or any of them for that matter. Given Julia's supposed proclivities, it's probably not an awful guess to say that the popular, randy poet around at her time could get in trouble by sleeping with her. Definitely that was the hypothesis I was always told. Could possibly be something in the Pontus works or maybe even the Ars Am. which hints at it, but I don't know of a reference off-hand.
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 06:37 |
|
|
I see that there. posted:Jesus christ is this guy insufferable. Holy poo poo. Quite possibly. Despite knowing it exists, I've never actually read said blog. I never noticed anything like that in Barbarian Migrations though; it's style is really academic.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 19:26
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Grand Fromage posted:Above all else, at least ideologically. My question is, was this kind of charity was distributed via patronage networks instead of any sort of formal bureaucracy? Because I'd be even more suspicious of any kind of welfare coming with political strings.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
Yeah, it was distributed through patronage. It's in this gray area that we don't really have anymore. As a rich person with political ambition, it was simply expected that you would use your wealth to provide for the state and the people. There was no question about it. Whether or not you got anything in return, it was your duty to as a Roman citizen of means. However, as someone with political ambition, you expected to get somewhere. You cultivated networks of people who owed you favors and you expected that demonstrating your generosity, wealth, and sense of duty to people would gain you support. And with that support came advancement. So it's this weird nebulous thing that doesn't really map directly to anything in our modern culture, it has elements of both charity and building patronage and a network of supporters for future use. You had to do your civic duty, but also by doing your civic duty you could expect to be rewarded in the long term.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
What if you weren't rewarded in the long term, or by some turn of fate you lost all your wealth? Were you pretty much screwed?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
Yeah you were hosed. Or you had options. People often went into gigantic debt providing this stuff, like Julius Caesar, and to get out of debt he conquered Gaul. If in some scenario you spent all your family's wealth providing for the people and were never able to get anything for it, welp. You might be canonized as a heroic example of a fine Roman. I can't think of any examples, though, I don't know if it ever happened.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:My question is, was this kind of charity was distributed via patronage networks instead of any sort of formal bureaucracy? Because I'd be even more suspicious of any kind of welfare coming with political strings. Yes. As has been said a lot in this thread about patrician culture, the closest thing to it now is the Mafia - a non-state entity that performs state functions on a local scale, such as protection and welfare. In return, the wealthy man got votes and a network of professionals/trade experts to draw upon. You can see the resemblance particularly in the violent political clashes of the late republic between Clodius and Milo - it's all very Capone. The incentives which maintained this dedication to civic duty from the wealthy became progressively less compelling throughout the life of the empire, as did the number of wealthy men who weren't the emperor who could provide the money necessary; the breakdown of the patronage of civic maintenance and so forth was one of the contributing factors to the Crisis of the Third Century for example.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 03:02
|
|
|
Do we have any records of the text of Cicero's speeches/oratory? His reputation for being such a great orator is making me curious.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 06:37
|
|
|
Libluini posted:OK, the Romans obviously ignored steam power, like the Greek before them, but I always assumed they had the knowledge to build steam engines. They never build them in an industrialized fashion, however. But I remember tales about several Greek/Roman philosophers having steam-engine toys and there was even an temple using steam-powered temple doors to awe the masses. Together with the sophistication shown by the Greek Antikythera-mechanism it looks to me as if they could have build large-scale steam engines if they had wanted to. Steam engines trains would have been a nice logistical advantage for Romans. The image of Roman infantry stepping off trains in Gaul is funny.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 06:42
|
|
|
I have an image in my head of Caesar driving a Model T across the Rubicon and it's funny to me.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 07:08
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Do we have any records of the text of Cicero's speeches/oratory? His reputation for being such a great orator is making me curious. Yes, you silly person. Cicero usually published his speeches before the fact. "Pro Milone" is probably the most cited of his orations, not the least reason for which is the fact that he is matched only by Johnnie Cochran in the level of bullshit in his defense. He still lost, though. QCIC fucked around with this message at 07:49 on May 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 07:44
|
|
|
Of course, the other risk of being super charitable, especially before the republican system begins to show its cracks, is that the nobility were terrified of being overthrown by popular support. So you get people who handed out too much bread in a drought year or whatever being executed or accused of demagoguery. They might not always have been wrong, either. I don't have the reference right now but one guy at least was found stockpiling weapons in his villa, or so they said after the fact.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 09:55
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Do we have any records of the text of Cicero's speeches/oratory? His reputation for being such a great orator is making me curious. Yes. The main reason he still has that reputation is that the texts survived and were read afterwards by anyone who had to learn Latin (which was anyone who mattered) as part of their education.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
I'm going to leave this here: http://www.takeonecff.com/2012/stringcaesar. Frequently obtuse, it’s often hard to follow as it covers the fallout between Lucius Cornelius Sulla and Gaius Marius in the Social War (91–88 BC) and other incidents in the early life of Julius Caesar including his mission to Bithynia and his abduction by pirates.
|
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
Were there any atheists during the classical era? I'm sure they must have existed, but did any of them leave behind writings explaining their views?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Were there any atheists during the classical era? I'm sure they must have existed, but did any of them leave behind writings explaining their views?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 03:47
|
|
|
I'm about halfway through Tom Holland's Rubicon, and there was a couple of chapters on how fish and other seafood were super-prized luxury foods. I don't get it. Rome would have had access to ports for centuries by the post-Sulla era.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 10:24
|
|
|
But no way to store fresh fish and seafood.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 10:44
|
|
|
Protagoras looks to have been an agnostic, having said 'Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life'. Then Xenophanes was very challenging of the traditional views of the gods, poking at the anthropomorphising of them by calling out that everyone thought of gods as looking like they did, and that animals would do the same. Cicero in the de natura deorum also cites one Theodorus as denying the existence of the gods.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 12:49
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Were there any atheists during the classical era? I'm sure they must have existed, but did any of them leave behind writings explaining their views? Epicureans weren't exactly atheists, but they believed that the gods had no desires, no powers, and no influence over events. They were just beings comprised of a single atom, in a state of complete physical and mental invincibility -- and therefore, complete serenity/happiness. Writing on their behalf, Lucretius is pretty explicit that religion is an evil influence that needs to be smashed. It promotes anxiety among men through belief in gods that cannot be satisfied and in an afterlife of eternal misery. One of the benefits of Epicurean philosophy is that it gives the adherent the ability to see through those lies. gradenko_2000 posted:I'm about halfway through Tom Holland's Rubicon, and there was a couple of chapters on how fish and other seafood were super-prized luxury foods. I don't get it. Rome would have had access to ports for centuries by the post-Sulla era. Food's fashion, like anything else, and I don't think it's particularly rational. In American colonial times, lobster was so looked down upon that forcing a prisoner to eat one was considered cruel, like making them eat a rat. Now, people pay a lot of money for the privilege and imagine it to be a delicacy. fantastic in plastic fucked around with this message at 17:27 on May 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
I'd rather eat a rat myself. At least rats are vertebrates. Did classical culture ever produce illuminated scrolls? Apparently medieval Europe was full of painted books, but did the Romans or Greeks produce anything similar?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:Food's fashion, like anything else, and I don't think it's particularly rational. In American colonial times, lobster was so looked down upon that forcing a prisoner to eat one was considered cruel, like making them eat a rat. Now, people pay a lot of money for the privilege and imagine it to be a delicacy. Yep. And the storage thing. If you were on the coast you ate a lot of fish, but if you're 30 miles inland? Fish goes bad real fast without any form of refrigeration.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yep. And the storage thing. If you were on the coast you ate a lot of fish, but if you're 30 miles inland? Fish goes bad real fast without any form of refrigeration. That reminds me of a story about Imperial China's tribute system. There was a particular kind of fish that was considered a delicacy, but it was fished in the south and the Empire lived in the north of China. So there was a system of fast river boats designed to get it to the emperor in a week or two. Of course, it still stunk hellishly by the time the specially appointed fish procurer official got to the capital. So there was a huge process that involved mixing the half decomposed fish with other ingredients to make a palatable dish for the emperor. This was a dish that only the very favored of the emperor could get hold of. Once, a newly appointed procurer arrived in the locality that produced the fish and went to a local eatery. He was eating some fish and started chatting with the host. He asked, where can I get some of that Imperial Tribute Fish (normally only obtainable via the emperor's favor). The shopkeeper looked really confused and said: "You're eating it!" The moral of the story is: the taste of a fish can change a lot in two weeks.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
Barto posted:Imperial Tribute Fish DNA analysis shows that 70% of the fish you order at a restaurant is not the same species as listed on the menu. How hard would it have been for an enterprising court chef to pass off regular fish in that dish? Of course, dicking around with the Emperor's dinner does carry the risk of coming away shorter by a head, so who knows. INTJ Mastermind fucked around with this message at 08:25 on May 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 08:20
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Amazing that the government would go through that much expense for some fish. Even today, DNA analysis shows that 70% of the fish you order at a restaurant is not the same species as listed on the menu. How hard would it have been for an enterprising court chef to pass off regular fish in that dish? Of course, dicking around with the Emperor's dinner does carry the risk of coming away shorter by a head, so who knows. Of course it's China. Shenanigans are implicit! I'm sure the stuff wasn't always as advertised. Who could tell after a few weeks... Starting from the Qin/Han, the imperial philosophy of rule centered on the idea of the Emperor's centrality: he rules and all things come to him. That's why exotic plants, animals, and people coming to pay tribute were important. It showed the Emperor's dominion over the civilized world- even the parts not under military control. So every area in China usually had to send -something- as tribute. It was more symbolic than practical sometimes. In fact for a long time up through...Late Ming or Early Qing? All outside trade was conducted through the tribute system. It wasn't trade- it was barbarians giving tribute to the emperor who then gave gifts back. It was just symbolic and unwieldy but it's really amazing that for so long trade was so strictly controlled (and entirely under the auspices of a tribute system...)
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 08:26
|
|
|
And often the gifts from the emperor were worth way more than the tribute, just to demonstrate his largess, his role as a good father figure, and the immense wealth of China relative to its inferiors.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 08:30
|
|
|
It always cracks me up that one of the big tribute items that Han Wudi was excited to get back from the attack on what was probably a Greek colony was alfalfa.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 09:03
|
|
|
Barto posted:It always cracks me up that one of the big tribute items that Han Wudi was excited to get back from the attack on what was probably a Greek colony was alfalfa. Ok, I'll bite and sound dumb. Source for this reference? It's probably mundane, but beyond my sphere 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
I see that there. posted:Ok, I'll bite and sound dumb. Source for this reference? It's probably mundane, but beyond my sphere It's recorded in the Dayuan Liezhuan- Dayuan was the name of the Chinese for (many guess) the farthest colony of Greeks ever established: Alexandria Eschate. Dayuan is supposed sound like Great (Da) Ionians (yuan). The Chinese who came in contact with them noted their wine, their horses and what the horses ate, alfalfa grass. The Greeks wouldn't trade away their horses, so Han Wudi sent a huge gently caress-off army to get them. He got them. The army also brought back alfalfa and the fields around the capital were soon filled with the special grass that the horses loved so much. lol.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 14:02
|
|
|
Why were the Romans never able to beat Persia? Were they just not interested, or was there a strategic reason for not doing so? I just saw this gem on Wikipedia: quote:Both sides attempted to justify their respective military goals in both active and reactive ways. The Roman quest for world domination was accompanied by a sense of mission and pride in Western civilization and by ambitions to become a guarantor of peace and order. Roman sources reveal long-standing prejudices with regard to the Eastern powers' customs, religious structures, languages, and forms of government. Well, doesn't that sound familiar? karl fungus fucked around with this message at 18:52 on May 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Why were the Romans never able to beat Persia? Were they just not interested, or was there a strategic reason for not doing so? Did the Romans ever get passed Parthia? If not; horse archers.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:Did the Romans ever get passed Parthia? If not; horse archers. Horse archers really weren't everything they are cracked up to be now due to video games, especially since they usually have a finite supply of arrows anyway. Roman armies beat them plenty of times.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Horse archers really weren't everything they are cracked up to be now due to video games, especially since they usually have a finite supply of arrows anyway. Roman armies beat them plenty of times. Of course, but they are also the only type of army if memory serves me that beat the Roman army plenty of times.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
e: wrong thread.
Big Willy Style fucked around with this message at 20:01 on May 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
The fighting between Eastern Rome and Parthia/Sassanids mostly went back and forth for centuries without either side being able to win a complete victory, then the Muslims showed up when both of them were exhausted and changed everything.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Big Willy Style posted:My house mate is trying to convince me that he can put Wolf Guard terminators into a Rhino or Razorback. I'm struggling to find the rules that will prove him wrong. Can any goons help me out? I am sick or arguing this poo poo with him. I've checked Justinian's code, and the only relevant part was "Praise the Emperor"
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:The fighting between Eastern Rome and Parthia/Sassanids mostly went back and forth for centuries without either side being able to win a complete victory, then the Muslims showed up when both of them were exhausted and changed everything. Yeah this was kind of my point; Rome an Parthia went back and forth. That was pretty unusual of itself.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
my dad posted:I've checked Justinian's code, and the only relevant part was "Praise the Emperor" If Rome had Space Marines could they have possibly beaten the super warriors that are horse archers?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Why were the Romans never able to beat Persia? Were they just not interested, or was there a strategic reason for not doing so? The Romans beat the Parthians (not exactly Persians, but a Persianized Iranian-speaking people) quite a few times, and Trajan was able to take a huge swathe of their richest area http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Roman_Empire_Trajan_117AD.png (Osrhoene and the areas to the east of that) which were only given back because Hadrian thought that the Empire would be too overextended - the Parthians didn't reconquer them. In addition, the city of Ctesiphon, the capitol of the Parthians, was sacked quite a few times by the Romans. Carrhae may have been a pretty bad defeat for the Romans, but on the whole, they beat the Parthians much more often than the reverse. The Sasanians/Sassanids that overthrew the Parthians were a more powerful foe, largely because they were more centralized than the clan-based Parthians were. They had clearer military hierarchies, were better able to organize large armies, including a standing army, rather than the levy-based army of the Parthians, (and including a competent engineering corps, for instance, to help build fortifications, dikes and canals along the Euphrates for ease of troop movement or besiege cities in a way the Parthians were not as adept at), and greater combined arms tactics. (Incidentally, reading a book on the Sasanian military, its author suggests that its infantry was comparable to Roman infantry - not as good, but not a mere afterthought, and that comments made by, for instance, Belisarius about the inferior quality of Persian infantry was simply intended to bolster morale) The Romans were still able to defeat the Sasanians just as often as they were defeated, just not as conclusively or as often as they did the Parthians.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 06:37 |
|
|
Namarrgon posted:Of course, but they are also the only type of army if memory serves me that beat the Roman army plenty of times. I suppose, but like AdjectiveNoun said, the Sassanians were pretty much the only large, established, centralized polity the Romans ever had to fight against by late antiquity.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 21:23
|
|