|
Before one of the battles in Gaul, Caesar grabbed a shield and ran towards the enemy shouting "will you let your general die with all the honor?!" or something badass like that to inspire his semi-mutinous men. Someone might be able to look-up the actual text and quote but thats the idea anyway. So I would say it was uncommon since it was so noteworthy and shocking.
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
It was at the Battle of Munda in Spain while Caesar was fighting the sons of Pompey in the last battles of the civil war. Caesar was outnumbered yet again and the battle was not going well. At one point his favorite legion, the 10th Mounted (named after a time in Gaul where Caesar put some troops on horse to come to peace confrence instead of his Gallic mercenary cavalry) was in trouble and would have had to charge uphill. He inspired them as you said. He took a soldiers shield and charged the enemy legion himself, only stopping when he had to dodge supposedly thousands of pilum tossed at him. He took a bunch on the shield, and dodged the rest. Seeing him in so much trouble forced the 10th to charge, and they forced a correction of troops by Gnaeus Pompeius that was seen as a retreat, and led to a full retreat and rout. After the battle Caesar remarked that he had often fought for victory, but at Munda he fought for his life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
Julius Caesar - not the nicest dude in history, but at least one of the most entertaining. Wasn't there some battle in N. Africa where the pre-fight speech was just him eating and telling dick jokes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
What did the Byzantines think of Charlemagne and all these other rulers that sprung up in the west claiming to restore the Roman Empire?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
So how about the Roman emperor's homes? Was their anything like an imperial palace or did the emperors have the tendency to barricade themselves in their patrician mansions?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:In fact, the Mongols had a blood taboo-- they believed your spirit was in your blood, so if you got an enemy's blood on you his spirit could curse you or infest you. That's one of the prime reasons they were a missile-based military. Stuff like taboos arise out of cultural reality rather than the other way around. Any steppe culture that focused on ground-melee combat would have been obliterated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Stuff like taboos arise out of cultural reality rather than the other way around. Any steppe culture that focused on ground-melee combat would have been obliterated. This is one of those things (the directionality of change in terms of culture) I've always assumed, but only read evidence for within my subset of interest. Has there ever been any good (non-race theory) books on "culture as a product" as a general historic concept?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Stuff like taboos arise out of cultural reality rather than the other way around. Any steppe culture that focused on ground-melee combat would have been obliterated. That doesn't explain why they focused on archery vs lancing. It's entirely possibly that the blood-taboo is a meme that happens to be successful in the environment in an evolved way, sure, but that's not that the blood taboo isn't important; it's how the successful strategy is propagated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:That doesn't explain why they focused on archery vs lancing. It's entirely possibly that the blood-taboo is a meme that happens to be successful in the environment in an evolved way, sure, but that's not that the blood taboo isn't important; it's how the successful strategy is propagated. The Mongols had plenty of lancers. Also, many (all?) other steppe cultures were primarily archers. Did they all have the same blood taboo?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
Alekanderu posted:The Mongols had plenty of lancers. Also, many (all?) other steppe cultures were primarily archers. Did they all have the same blood taboo? Er, sorry since this is my derail, but this probably/definitely belongs over in the Medieval thread. I'm sorry for starting it, I'm also happy to respond via PM. Again, apologies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
Seoinin posted:Julius Caesar - not the nicest dude in history, but at least one of the most entertaining. I dunno about that but when he got off the boat in Africa he tripped, which was a bad omen, but he saved the day by yelling "behold I've siezed Africa with both hands!" Or maybe that was Scipio? I do know that the Romans had a legend that no Scipii (is that the plural?) could be defeated in Africa and there was a descendent fighting against JC's army. So Caesar dug up some no-name great-great-great whatever descendent of Scipio Africanus just to hang out in his tent and make the men feel better. So, like a human mascot. I like to imagine him walking down the parade lines, handing out jello shots and saying "Hello I am a Scipio" to every soldier. Again this is all memory so someone come correct me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
I thought that story was from William the Conqueror?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Xguard86 posted:Or maybe that was Scipio? I do know that the Romans had a legend that no Scipii (is that the plural?) could be defeated in Africa and there was a descendent fighting against JC's army. So Caesar dug up some no-name great-great-great whatever descendent of Scipio Africanus just to hang out in his tent and make the men feel better. So, like a human mascot. I like to imagine him walking down the parade lines, handing out jello shots and saying "Hello I am a Scipio" to every soldier. I misread this and thought you said something about Caesar walking down the parade lines handing out Scipios like jello shots. Which is actually even better. Oh the republicans have a Scipio? Pfft, I'm up to my rear end in Scipios. I'm giving these Scipios away for free, I got so many. You get a Scipio, and you get a Scipio, and you get one. Everyone gets a Scipio!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
If the western empire didn't collapse would it have ended up resembling the Byzantine empire?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
In what sense? They probably wouldn't have switch to Greek at the very least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:31
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Seoinin posted:I misread this and thought you said something about Caesar walking down the parade lines handing out Scipios like jello shots. Which is actually even better. Oh the republicans have a Scipio? Pfft, I'm up to my rear end in Scipios. I'm giving these Scipios away for free, I got so many. You get a Scipio, and you get a Scipio, and you get one. Everyone gets a Scipio! I love the idea of this so much  It wasn't a battle (well at least not the traditional kind) but I think my favorite Julius Caesar story is the time that Cato the Younger was on one of his rants in the Senate about possible treachery/treason when Caesar received a letter. Cato spotted it and declared publicly that Caesar was receiving a letter from the conspirators and this proved that Caesar was treasonous, and demanded that Caesar read the letter aloud to everybody in the Senate. A visibly delighted Caesar asked if he was REALLY sure he wanted that, and since Cato wasn't the type to back down he insisted, so Caesar proceeded to read out what turned out to be a swooning love letter to himself.... from Cato's sister 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:I thought that story was from William the Conqueror? William said the line Xguard quoted, Caesar said a similar one according Suetonius: quote:Even when he had a fall as he disembarked, he gave the omen a favourable turn by crying: "I hold thee fast, Africa."
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:So how about the Roman emperor's homes? Was their anything like an imperial palace or did the emperors have the tendency to barricade themselves in their patrician mansions? Depends on the emperor. Augustus' house was a political statement of the calibre you expect: modest in size, appointed sufficiently for receptions but no more, and adjoining a temple of Apollo. Nero on the other hand had the whole Domus Aurea going on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
Tiberius was solid, basically the entire island of Capri was his personal residence and he had multiple palaces there that he'd move between.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
Was there a point that the Romans themselves shifted to openly calling the Emperor "Emperor" as opposed to Princeps or Augustus? Or is Emperor just a term that WE use as a handy descriptor in much the same way we refer to Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus as Caligula?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 06:16
|
|
|
I believe emperor is English derived from imperator. I don't think the term emperor was used at all. Princeps, Dominus, and Augustus were used. Basileus was also used in the east later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
That said, I understand the imperator title became more important as the principate progressed. In the beginning, it was essentially another showy feather in your cap, alongside tribune of the people and princeps senatus and so forth. You were acclaimed by the army, fantastic, well done. But as the support of the military becomes more (overtly) important in the selection of the emperor, that title begins to really be the linchpin of your claim to power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 07:03
|
|
|
Sleep of Bronze posted:That said, I understand the imperator title became more important as the principate progressed. In the beginning, it was essentially another showy feather in your cap, alongside tribune of the people and princeps senatus and so forth. You were acclaimed by the army, fantastic, well done. But as the support of the military becomes more (overtly) important in the selection of the emperor, that title begins to really be the linchpin of your claim to power. But it was never the Imperial title. The same way we call Obama the President of the United States and never the supreme commander of the military or whatever you call it in the US in daily conversation. Maybe in a thousand years they will have a word like Supcom which basically means 'biggest boss' in their future language and all their history books will talk about the ancient wars between the Supcoms of the US and Nazi germany and all those things. I like titles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 10:47
|
|
|
And a thousand years from now, their equivalent of the History Channel will be full of accounts of how Stalin lead the charge through the breach in the plasma walls of Germania, slaying Adolf Mussohitler in single combat with a mighty thrust of his gunblade.
Alekanderu fucked around with this message at 12:25 on Jun 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 12:21
|
|
|
Alekanderu posted:And a thousand years from now, their equivalent of the History Channel will be full of accounts of how Stalin lead the charge through the breach in the plasma walls of Germania, slaying Adolf Mussohitler in single combat with a mighty thrust of his gunblade. A thousand years from now you say? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 12:56
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:But it was never the Imperial title. The same way we call Obama the President of the United States and never the supreme commander of the military or whatever you call it in the US in daily conversation. Maybe in a thousand years they will have a word like Supcom which basically means 'biggest boss' in their future language and all their history books will talk about the ancient wars between the Supcoms of the US and Nazi germany and all those things. This is true. There wasn't really just a single title for the emperor, the position was the collection of a lot of titles. If you were using a single title, it was probably going to be Princeps, Dominus, Augustus, or Basileus. But his list was extensive and depending on the circumstances, different titles were used.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:In what sense? They probably wouldn't have switch to Greek at the very least. What I meant was like, would the western half have resembled the eastern half culturally and religiously? Would there even have been a schism if the empire hadn't split into half, or did the schism begin prior to that? If the western empire survived, would we have seen caesaropapism there as well, with the western emperor holding great religious power? Or, is that solely an eastern thing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:But it was never the Imperial title. The same way we call Obama the President of the United States and never the supreme commander of the military or whatever you call it in the US in daily conversation. Maybe in a thousand years they will have a word like Supcom which basically means 'biggest boss' in their future language and all their history books will talk about the ancient wars between the Supcoms of the US and Nazi germany and all those things. While civilians might not refer to the Obama as such, American military folks routinely refer to him as the Commander-in-Chief.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
Kaal posted:While civilians might not refer to the Obama as such, American military folks routinely refer to him as the Commander-in-Chief. Civilians do it enough that I've seen people grouse about it on Twitter a few times. (Civilians calling Obama CiC implies that they've forgotten that the US has a civilian-controlled military; the President is CiC of the US armed forces, but not of US civilians: "civilian" is not a rank below CiC. Military folks have some sort of obligation to be loyal to the CiC, but civilians absolutely do not have those same obligations.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:What I meant was like, would the western half have resembled the eastern half culturally and religiously? Would there even have been a schism if the empire hadn't split into half, or did the schism begin prior to that? If the western empire survived, would we have seen caesaropapism there as well, with the western emperor holding great religious power? Or, is that solely an eastern thing? The western half didn't resemble the eastern half culturally or religiously at any point in their histories; they had always been distinct from each other. A schism would have been pretty inevitable with two distinct power centres, but it probably wouldn't have happened for the same reasons. And with a strong Rome in the west The Papacy would never have been able to take power like it did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
Alekanderu posted:And a thousand years from now, their equivalent of the History Channel will be full of accounts of how Stalin lead the charge through the breach in the plasma walls of Germania, slaying Adolf Mussohitler in single combat with a mighty thrust of his gunblade.  And then the UN un-Nazi'd the world forever! karl fungus posted:What I meant was like, would the western half have resembled the eastern half culturally and religiously? Would there even have been a schism if the empire hadn't split into half, or did the schism begin prior to that? If the western empire survived, would we have seen caesaropapism there as well, with the western emperor holding great religious power? Or, is that solely an eastern thing? I imagine they would have remained fairly similar to one another. Almost certainly Caesaropapism would have been the norm for Christianity everywhere, and I can't see a whole lot of reason for them to divide culturally. The two halves were always pretty similar, and there was lots of cross-pollination in all spheres of life really. The reason we think of them as two very different things is medieval historians who loved to play (what we now call) the Byzantine Empire up as different and generally worse, on account of their Greek-ness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
Speaking of medieval historians, what were the initial reactions to the fall of Constantinople? Did anyone even care that the Roman empire was dead?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
Finally caught up to this thread after a few months of reading off and on and I've enjoyed the whole ride. I remember waaaaaaaay back, I think  went on about how there's no period of history that has the amount of well known/interesting/great figures as late Republic era Rome. The first thing I thought of though when I saw that was Three Kingdoms China (especially if you're using the generally used time period of the Yellow Turban Rebellion through to Jin's conquest of Wu). So as a question what would generally be considered similar time periods for other ancient cultures, having a good amount of legendary or interesting people, a bit romanticized, etc.?Pimpmust posted:How much of a show would be enough back in the day though? Like, were the generals expected to charge into the fray at some point during a battle (...cavalry charge? I remember Anthony doing that in the Rome series but that's about it) or was just "showing up" at the rear enough? "Sup', yeah your general is here. Go at it. Good lads." Actually what are some good tales of personal bravery in battle in ancient history/antiquity? Not whole campaigns like Caesar's conquest of Gaul but more instances of sheer, unparalleled badassery during a single battle? To bring up the Three Kingdoms again, something like Zhang Liao at Hefei is what I have in mind. Suben fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Jun 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
Suben posted:Actually what are some good tales of personal bravery in battle in ancient history/antiquity? Not whole campaigns like Caesar's conquest of Gaul but more instances of sheer, unparalleled badassery during a single battle? To bring up the Three Kingdoms again, something like Zhang Liao at Hefei is what I have in mind. I think it was Gold? Crowns Romans gave out for "unparalleled badassery during a single battle". Another specific crown/laurel was for a general that fought his way to the enemy general and defeated him in single combat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Speaking of medieval historians, what were the initial reactions to the fall of Constantinople? Did anyone even care that the Roman empire was dead? Yes, of course. It was a tremendous shock to all of Christian Europe, and the Pope declared a crusade to recapture it, but the age of crusades was far past so no actual effort was made. The conquest was a huge blow to both Christianity and the idea of continuity of classic civilization, "Plato and Homer died a second death" etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Speaking of medieval historians, what were the initial reactions to the fall of Constantinople? Did anyone even care that the Roman empire was dead? It also helped to kickstart the Renaissance, as there was a large influx of classical Greek and Roman texts, arts, etc. that flooded out with refugees from the Eastern Roman Empire.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:I think it was Gold? Crowns Romans gave out for "unparalleled badassery during a single battle". Another specific crown/laurel was for a general that fought his way to the enemy general and defeated him in single combat. Well I mean actual deeds, not rewards. Here's the bit about Hefei from Zhang Liao's Sanguozhi biography which is about the closest source you're going to get for how anything in that era went down: quote:[Zhang] Liao said: “Our honourable lord is out on a faraway expedition, and by the time help comes, they would certainly have defeated us. That's why he instructed us to attack them before their forces are centralized, and if we can crush their morale and calm our men's hearts, we can then take up defense. Success or failure depends on this battle, why should you generals be doubting? ” Li Dian agreed with Zhang Liao. Thus that night Zhang Liao recruited men that dared to follow him, and got 800 altogether. An ox was slaughtered and prepared for a feast for the generals and warriors; the next day the big battle began. Early next morning, [Zhang] Liao fastened his armour and readied his halberd. He charged first into the enemy formation, slaughtered scores of men, beheaded two generals, and then he shouted his name and dashed forward when he saw Sun Quan’s banner. I think that "officially", Sun Quan's army was said to be 100,000 strong though that's almost definitely an exaggeration. Still, dude single handedly wrecked their poo poo there and was basically to Wu what Hannibal was to Rome from that point in terms of being a bogeyman. Actually now that I said his name up I can't believe I forgot about Hannibal at Cannae. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
huh I never knew william the conqueror said that. People need to be more careful getting out of boats.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
Suben posted:Actually what are some good tales of personal bravery in battle in ancient history/antiquity? Not whole campaigns like Caesar's conquest of Gaul but more instances of sheer, unparalleled badassery during a single battle? To bring up the Three Kingdoms again, something like Zhang Liao at Hefei is what I have in mind. There's a story of a guy named Publius Horatius Cocles and two other officers holding back an entire army while Roman forces retreated across a bridge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
karl fungus posted:Speaking of medieval historians, what were the initial reactions to the fall of Constantinople? Did anyone even care that the Roman empire was dead? In addition to what was said, it was collectively loving terrifying to Europe. The end of the Roman Empire was a milestone in and of itself, but also they were seen as the last guardians keeping the Turkish hordes from overrunning all of Europe. And the Ottomans did invade west, so it wasn't just a made up thing either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 02:32
|
|