|
Jack B Nimble posted:How does ancient armor compare to medieval armor, comparing them both in design and material. As two specific examples take roman chain mail (hamata?) vs medieval chainmail and roman plate mail (segmentata?) vs European plate mail. Roman iron was of lower quality then later medieval iron, but it was pretty good. It was not as good as stell made in India or Damascus, but it was better then anything the nearby civilizations were making. The issue was consistency of the carbon content, but the Romans were more consistent then anyone else at the time. The chainmails would have performed similarly, though the Roman one would need to be patched up more often, and would be more subject to damage. One thing we do not really know is how much padding the Romans wore under the armor. The padding used by knights was so good that combined with chain mail it woudl stop msot arrows completely, as well as stabs or slashes. Arab accounts of the Crusades mention knights that looked like pincushions with tens of arrows stuck in them, but still fighting. The Romans certainly wore some, as it is mentioned offhand in the sources, but we have no idea how much exactly. Odds are it was some leathe rand some old tunics. Jack B Nimble posted:Regarding the chainmail my On the Hamata vs Segmentata, the hamata never went out of use, but the segmentata was a cheaper, lighter, and easier to mass produce option. It still protected the soldier very well though, especially when you factor in his large sheild. The hamata covered more of the soldier, and possibly would have been more effective. Where they did not wear as muc has later troops is the sleeves. The romans almost never armored their arms except for a time in the 100's where they wore a segmented arm armor called a Manica. Greaves were also used infrequently. Jack B Nimble posted:Look I'll be honest with you. I watch Game of Thrones and start fantasizing about the Roman Legion showing up and I know tactics and discipline are what's most important, but how does the armor compare. A well equipped late medieval army would beat even Trajan's army in an even strength match. By this time the quality of armor was significantly better, and full fledged knights were something the Romans never fought. Cataphracts are not knights, though they are very similar. Even the discipline of the Romans will only go so far when they can't stab through the men at arms' armor, or shoot them with arrows. Meanwhile the medievals are using bows and arrows good enough to hurt the Romans, and their swords and maces would eventually find the chinks in the Roman armor. Anything up until about 1000-1100 or so though would probably lose to the Romans. Well made armor was still very expensive and not given out to just anyone. The Romans would be armored enough to get by, especially since the entire legion was armoroed. Their tactics and discipline would have been superior. Charles "The Hammer" Martel (best name ever) would have maybe beaten them though, as he is noted for making an extremely disciplined army. Keep in mind we know exactly how the Romans would have handled the Middle Ages, because they were around until 1453.
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 14:37
|
|
opinion is that the designs don't look very different but perhaps the quality of metal differs? This is getting more into the medieval side of things but was there more variety of metal quality in the fractured European feudal period compared to the "factories" of ancient Rome? And what about areas of coverage? Did Legions wear as much chainmail as a European soldier or did they wear less? The armor at least from the HBO show ROME seems a little scantier compared to some footman head to toe in mail. 
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
Smart Car posted:The rod with a serpent entwined around it is the symbol of Asclepius, and that's still used as a symbol a lot of hospitals.  That's not a serpent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:"Something which has never occurred since time immemorial; a young woman did not fart in her husband's lap." Sorry to dig this back up from a few pages ago, but how do archaeologists figure out the Sumerian word for "fart?" I get how you can puzzle out the words for "king" and "grain" and whatnot, but where do you even work from to figure out the more colloquial stuff?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
benem posted:Sorry to dig this back up from a few pages ago, but how do archaeologists figure out the Sumerian word for "fart?" I get how you can puzzle out the words for "king" and "grain" and whatnot, but where do you even work from to figure out the more colloquial stuff? I imagine it's a little bit of creative substitution on both ends.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
benem posted:Sorry to dig this back up from a few pages ago, but how do archaeologists figure out the Sumerian word for "fart?" I get how you can puzzle out the words for "king" and "grain" and whatnot, but where do you even work from to figure out the more colloquial stuff? There's only so many things a young wife can do on her husband's lap.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
benem posted:Sorry to dig this back up from a few pages ago, but how do archaeologists figure out the Sumerian word for "fart?" I get how you can puzzle out the words for "king" and "grain" and whatnot, but where do you even work from to figure out the more colloquial stuff? Bodily functions aren't that hard to decipher. Deciphering the cuneiform script was the hard work, the reast was (comparatively) easy, since there were lots of languages in cuneiform to compare to. Funnily enough, after translating the semitic Akkadian, the Elamic language and Old Persian, some guy named Julius Oppert noticed a forth language left over amidst all the over writing in cuneiform. In the end Sumerian turned out to be the oldest of these languages and maybe even the point of origin for the others. We know the old Sumerians already had a sophisticated culture around 3500 BCE and the first traces of cuneiform use turn up at about 3200 BCE. There is a real chance Sumerian maybe even older then Old Egyptian, but no one is sure what came first: Hieroglyphs or cuneiform. Maybe they were even related, who knows?  By the way, since Sumerian was only used as an academic language (like Latin during the Middle Ages and today) after 1700 BCE I got suspicious of the authenticity of this "joke" and googled it: Turns out the joke comes from around 1900 BCE, when Sumerian was still in use as a common language. It's even older then I thought! The second oldest joke is the one actually from 1600 BCE: "How do you entertain a bored pharaoh? You sail a boatload of young women dressed only in fishing nets down the Nile and urge the pharaoh to go catch a fish." The butt of the joke is supposed to be King Snofru.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
How integrated into Roman society would freed-slaves become? I'm aware that significant amounts would name themselves after their masters gens, but would they keep Roman cultures / customs, or return home and revert to their original customs, religion, etc.?Libluini posted:Bodily functions aren't that hard to decipher. Deciphering the cuneiform script was the hard work, the reast was (comparatively) easy, since there were lots of languages in cuneiform to compare to. Funnily enough, after translating the semitic Akkadian, the Elamic language and Old Persian, some guy named Julius Oppert noticed a forth language left over amidst all the over writing in cuneiform. In the end Sumerian turned out to be the oldest of these languages and maybe even the point of origin for the others. We know the old Sumerians already had a sophisticated culture around 3500 BCE and the first traces of cuneiform use turn up at about 3200 BCE. There is a real chance Sumerian maybe even older then Old Egyptian, but no one is sure what came first: Hieroglyphs or cuneiform. Maybe they were even related, who knows? King Snoo Snoo! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
Libluini posted:The second oldest joke is the one actually from 1600 BCE: One of the list of old jokes is apparently credited to Augustus himself, and goes something like this: One day Augustus was walking in the countryside when he encountered a young man who bore a striking similarity to himself. "Did your mother ever work in the Imperial Palace?" asked Augustus. "No," said the young man,"But my father did." I have to admit I don't get the near 2000 year old joke, I assume the joke is that Augustus has a reputation for sleeping with other men's wives? I recall that he tried to push stricter morality laws during his reign but had a tendency to sleep around a fair bit himself, and gather that this joke is him poking some fun at his own reputation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:One of the list of old jokes is apparently credited to Augustus himself, and goes something like this: It's a gay joke, that's for sure. Grand Fromage posted:The joke is that the dude's dad hosed Augustus' mom. It's not as far down the rabbit hole as you're exploring. Fair enough, sounds even better. Libluini fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Jul 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
Libluini posted:It's a gay joke, that's for sure. That was my immediate reaction to it, but then that makes absolutely no sense to me. Then again, we're talking about a 2000 year old joke made by an Emperor from an ancient and foreign culture so maybe I shouldn't be too surprised that I don't understand it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:One of the list of old jokes is apparently credited to Augustus himself, and goes something like this: The joke is that the dude's dad hosed Augustus' mom. It's not as far down the rabbit hole as you're exploring.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The joke is that the dude's dad hosed Augustus' mom. It's not as far down the rabbit hole as you're exploring. ....  Goddamn do I feel stupid now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
In some of these ancient cultures we've been discussing, what were your options if you didn't fit into the cultural gender norms? Have there been any studies done on transgender people in ancient history?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:In some of these ancient cultures we've been discussing, what were your options if you didn't fit into the cultural gender norms? Have there been any studies done on transgender people in ancient history? Primarily from a sociological/anthropological stance. Wasn't there a Native American culture that basically had a specific (non-pejorative) word for a biological male who stayed around camp and did traditionally feminine duties?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 06:10
|
|
|
Libluini posted:The second oldest joke is the one actually from 1600 BCE: Why would they bother to make jokes about a pharaoh who had been dead for 1000 years at the time? Although I guess it's safer than making jokes about a pharaoh who isn't dead
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 07:48
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The joke is that the dude's dad hosed Augustus' mom. It's not as far down the rabbit hole as you're exploring. If there's one thing I've learned from HBO's Rome, it's that this is not an unlikely event  I wouldn't be surprised if this joke was an inspiration for her highly ahistorical personality in Rome actually. There's so little to go on about the real Atia that it's possible something so seemingly obscure could color the entire character's portrayal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Primarily from a sociological/anthropological stance. Wasn't there a Native American culture that basically had a specific (non-pejorative) word for a biological male who stayed around camp and did traditionally feminine duties? Yeah - I vaguely remember that from reading Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee, but I can't remember the term. There's also the "third Sex" in Ancient India - the Hijra.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
What did Romans think of prehistoric sites or fossils that they accidentally came across?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:What did Romans think of prehistoric sites or fossils that they accidentally came across? I recall the Greeks coming up with an elaborate theory of a fish that swims through rocks to explain a fossil they had come across. Edit: Also, there's this: http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/fossil-ancient-greeks-mammal-110331.htm Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Jul 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I had nightmares like that. Captain Postal posted:Why would they bother to make jokes about a pharaoh who had been dead for 1000 years at the time? It was part of a series of puns and subtle hints to the characters of the kings Nebka, Sneferu (or Snofru) and Khufu. Also Djoser but his part apparently got lost somehow. It was found in the oldest known papyrus, the Westcar papyrus. You could say in a way it was a humoruous depiction of Egyptian history for Egyptians. In an interesting contrast, the rest of the papyrus is a collection of fairy tales.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:What did Romans think of prehistoric sites or fossils that they accidentally came across? Or you can genuinely believe it. But I prefer my classical civilisations to be full of nascent Machiavellis.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Primarily from a sociological/anthropological stance. Wasn't there a Native American culture that basically had a specific (non-pejorative) word for a biological male who stayed around camp and did traditionally feminine duties? Many of them. And they're not the only cultures who had/have similar social constructs, although that's getting a little far from the stated topic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:What did Romans think of prehistoric sites or fossils that they accidentally came across? This is a really interesting topic and if you want a very, very full explanation you should read Travelling Heroes: In the Epic Age of Homer by Robin Lane Fox. It starts by asking what exactly we know about the Greeks in the 8th century (not much) and then traces their tracks (starting in Euboea) all around the Mediterranean. Once it's firmly established its thesis of Euboeans being the thread that ties together the early Greek "Dark Age" travel network (via extended pottery analysis which is strangely...fascinating), the author uses this as a basis to examine the origin of a number of early Greek myths. Hittites, Assyrians, Phoenicians, etc. all come into the story. Towards the end, he also talks about : what did Greeks think about fossils they found? Well, for the Greeks they were almost always evidence of myths, usually titans or giants or something like that. It's really interesting and a lot of evidence from the way Alexander the Great and his army as they marched across the world and the way they interpreted the things they came across point to a Greek world view which is much different from how we typically see them. Highly recommended, it will also answer your question in exquisite detail. The author also mentioned in a footnote someone had made a map of all classical age fossil finds, but I haven't located that yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
There is a really cool book about this by Adrienne Mayor called _The First Fossil Hunters: Dinosaurs, Mammoths and Myth in Greek and Roman Times_. She wrote a similar one about the ancient Americas. Basically her thesis is "They believed all these weird animals existed because every so often, you'd find the bones of one. And if you've got the bones, then it must exist somewhere." Also, the Holy Grail is totally in the Cloisters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 05:21
|
|
|
Is there any records of ancient folks hanging on to fossilized bones to show off or venerate? I'm thinking along the lines of the various Christian relics, among which Pieces of the True Cross and the Shroud of Turin are likely the most famous today. Would probably be a big draw to say "come check out the bone of this giant that Hercules killed" or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 06:00
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Is there any records of ancient folks hanging on to fossilized bones to show off or venerate? I'm thinking along the lines of the various Christian relics, among which Pieces of the True Cross and the Shroud of Turin are likely the most famous today. Would probably be a big draw to say "come check out the bone of this giant that Hercules killed" or something. Body pieces, and even possessions, of Saints were (are?) a big deal for Christians. I believe most Cathedrals were built around some similar relic to bring tourism to the area and help offset the cost of building the Cathedral. As for ancient peoples / pagans, bodies were typically burned so I assume they wouldn't have much to show off or venerate. e: Not to steal your question, but if someone could answer it for ancient Egyptians, that'd be cool Iseeyouseemeseeyou fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Jul 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 06:17
|
|
|
Oh I know how big of a deal it is for Christians. But I'm not really sure if folks from antiquity had the same culture of pilgrimage to holy sites that Christianity had and continues to have.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
Yeah, that is one of the things Mayor talks about-there were all of these temples where you could go and see a Cyclops (mammoth) skull or you could visit the grave of a hero, or see the spot where a monster got killed or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
Did the Roman Empire have ancient world equivalents of modern suburbs with sprawl and all of that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 06:56
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Oh I know how big of a deal it is for Christians. But I'm not really sure if folks from antiquity had the same culture of pilgrimage to holy sites that Christianity had and continues to have. The problem with hero-pilgrimages is that heroes tend to be local, or certainly more important to locals than those of other city states. So Plutarch can go on and on about all the festivals centred around the tomb of Theseus created by the Athenians when they found his bones, but you don't imagine that's so important to non-Athenians and they certainly aren't mentioned. Likewise I don't think there's anything regarding pilgrimages to the bones of Orestes that the Spartans dug up. However your initial question about showing off and venerating gets a resounding yes, because the locals cared a hell of a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 10:28
|
|
|
Suben posted:Did the Roman Empire have ancient world equivalents of modern suburbs with sprawl and all of that? I'm no scholar but one issue that you have to pay attention to in the ancient world is people coming over the nearby hill and taking all your stuff. At certain points in time across the Roman empire this is a very real threat. This obviously is a rather large disincentive to build outside the walls and away from the city defenses and works as a very harsh cap in sprawl. Rome itself was sacked early in its independent life, I want to say 240BC? but I'm probably wrong on the date. This had a big psychological effect on the romans and a healthy fear of the Gauls to the north which lasted until Julius Caesar kicked their rear end. Towards the end of the empire, Germanic tribes were going mental and walking in and out of the empire almost at will at several points in time. An emperor a few before Diocletian, I forget his name, he died early but was otherwise awesome, basically built city walls around rome and got every other town and city to do the same. Again a hard cap on sprawl. This was about ~250AD. However in the period from around the time of Augustus to the crisis of the 3rd century when Rome was basically the boss and the interior was extremely safe a lot of cities expanded massively. Although probably not in any way representative of American Suburbs. Rich Villas would have lots of room and gardens, if you're poor and living in a time where building codes don't exist then why build 4 walls when you can just use the wall of next door for one of them. Go look at a satellite map of the middle of Rome its very higgledy piggledy. I'm sure someone will come along with a better answer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 10:58
|
|
|
My thought on urban sprawl re: Rome is to look at the Campus Martius. It's initially this military mustering field and training ground. But as the city expands, it gets surrounded, and everyone starts going "uh, our sacred line around the city, which the soldiers shouldn't cross while mustered, now lies outside the mustering field. Um." And so it starts turning into just a common/park which retains only a few of its original purposes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 11:10
|
|
|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:Towards the end of the empire, Germanic tribes were going mental and walking in and out of the empire almost at will at several points in time. An emperor a few before Diocletian, I forget his name, he died early but was otherwise awesome, basically built city walls around rome and got every other town and city to do the same. That was Aurelian, who basically kicked the poo poo out of the barbarians, reunified the empire which had been divided into three parts, and secured the borders by pretending Dacia existed in a different geographic location than it actually did!
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 11:35
|
|
|
Urban sprawl requires motorized transportation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 12:09
|
|
|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:I'm no scholar but one issue that you have to pay attention to in the ancient world is people coming over the nearby hill and taking all your stuff. At certain points in time across the Roman empire this is a very real threat. This obviously is a rather large disincentive to build outside the walls and away from the city defenses and works as a very harsh cap in sprawl. You're right in general, but wrong on the dates. The Servian Walls were built in the 4th century B.C., while the Aurelian Walls were built in the 270s, before Diocletian. Not to nitpick. Just being  in an academic thread!Edit: and beaten by a post from 3 hours ago. I should read more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
Alekanderu posted:Urban sprawl requires motorized transportation. How much was there in the way of public transportation in a big ancient city like Rome? Or Athens or Alexandria or Constantinople, for that matter. Given the volume of traffic in such cities, surely at least some sort of makeshift jump-on-a-cart system has to've been in place, if not necessarily stuff like the Red Cart taking a defined route through the east side of the city, while the Blue Cart goes around the hills of Rome, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
Besesoth posted:Many of them. And they're not the only cultures who had/have similar social constructs, although that's getting a little far from the stated topic. This is probably the weirdest example at first blush, given the whole 'theology with a death penalty for homosexuality' thing. Then you these guys have been halal to many since at least the 13th Century- at least so long as they really feel feminine, and are not acting so to a. sell their bodies, or b. hook up with women. There are also these So... short version, yeah, Western views on strictly bipolar gendered stuff is actually a weird exception to a lot of the world's normal standards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
Alekanderu posted:Urban sprawl requires motorized transportation. No, only modern urban sprawl does. In older times it would go slower and start at closer distances, but it was still sprawl. Just for example, this was considered "sprawl" on Manhattan in the 1860s, when there was no motorized transportation:  It was a full 1.5 miles away from the built up area of New York City, a "long commute" in modern terms, functioning the same way your leafy suburb with a 45 minute commute to the city would in the modern world. Such distances worked out roughly the same for the Romans, because walking speeds remained roughly the same, and horses weren't really that much faster in 1860 AD then they were in 60 AD. And a horse drawn trolley car or city stagecoach of 1860s New York moved the same speed as a horse hauling a heavy load back in Ancient Rome. In an Ancient Roman town, in that era, being a mile outside the main built up area would generally put you in a "sprawl zone". And gradually over time earlier "sprawl zones" would become just another part of the city. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Jul 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
Cities spilling outside their walls was a constant problem throughout the entire history of cities having walls. There were always fights with people who built right up along the outside of the walls, since that hosed up the defense but people needed to go somewhere, so who is more important here? Rome sprawled all over, especially since for quite a while there was no credible threat to the city, so there weren't any walls. Keep in mind that at the peak of Rome's population, the city had over a million people. It was dense as poo poo, with apartment blocks at least ten stories high, but even so a million+ people take up a lot of space.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
the JJ posted:This is probably the weirdest example at first blush, given the whole 'theology with a death penalty for homosexuality' thing. Wow. If someone had told me before today that Iran does the second-most male-to-female surgeries in the world, I would have thought they were just trolling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 16:34
|
|