|
Probably why nicknames were so popular. "I'm Little Boots, son of Julius the Guy Who Subdued Germany..."
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:48 |
|
|
Well, it wasn't popular with him...
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
Crispus must have felt so left out in that family.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Caligula: Hi, I'm Gaius Julius Caesar, my father was the adopted son of Gaius Julius Caesar, who was in turn the adopted son of Gaius Julius Caesar, whose father was Gaius Julius Caesar, and HIS father was Gaius Julius Caesar. Commodus: How do you do, I'm Lucius Aelius Aurelius Commodus Augustus Herculeus Romanus Exsuperatorius Amazonius Invictus *deep breath*...
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
Litmus Test posted:How easy did imposters have it? Cause it seems like it would be relatively simple to kill an official on their way to a new duty station and become them. Any known historical accounts of this happening? Others have already discussed these things, but I just came across a rather fun anecdote in Suetonius which seemed relevant. Apparently one of the court cases Claudius oversaw involved a man accused of faking his Roman Citizenship, but since they had to PROVE he wasn't a Roman Citizen but were fussy about protocol, there was a big argument over whether or not he would be allowed to wear the toga or would be forced to wear a Greek mantle instead. In the end, Claudius decided that he would have to wear the mantle while he was being accused in court, but when it came time for his defense he was allowed to wear the toga, which probably just left everybody more confused than before!
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 07:03
|
|
|
Seoinin posted:Commodus: How do you do, I'm Lucius Aelius Aurelius Commodus Augustus Herculeus Romanus Exsuperatorius Amazonius Invictus *deep breath*... He never added in Maximus. For shame Commodus. To the guy above, yeah, I wonder why Crispus did to piss his dad off so much!
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 10:12
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Others have already discussed these things, but I just came across a rather fun anecdote in Suetonius which seemed relevant. Apparently one of the court cases Claudius oversaw involved a man accused of faking his Roman Citizenship, but since they had to PROVE he wasn't a Roman Citizen but were fussy about protocol, there was a big argument over whether or not he would be allowed to wear the toga or would be forced to wear a Greek mantle instead. In the end, Claudius decided that he would have to wear the mantle while he was being accused in court, but when it came time for his defense he was allowed to wear the toga, which probably just left everybody more confused than before! That's actually a really fair and surprisingly subtle ruling. Since forcing him to dress entirely in one toga\mantle could really prejudice peoples opinions of the guy. Although confusing I have no idea how else it could have been done. Sort of similar is how when taking the stand, or providing testimony 99% of the time cops and soldiers etc will appear all in uniform. Unless it is a situation where it wouldn't look the best, maybe as a witness to alleged police brutality, where they will turn up in a suit. We're pretty easily influenced sometimes. Cast_No_Shadow fucked around with this message at 10:17 on Jul 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 10:15
|
|
|
So I'm currently reading "Count Belisarius" by Robert Graves. I think it would make an amazing miniseries, just like "I, Claudius", and I hope I get to see this happen in my life. I've previously read "I, Claudius" and "Claudius the God" and own copies of both those books. Has anyone who reads this thread or post in it read "Count Belisarius"? If so, what is your opinion of that book? So far it seems extremely dry but enjoyable and very much in the style of the other two.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 11:41
|
|
|
vvv I'll ask over there then. So there isn't this empty post: What were Roman laws concerning civilians building stuff? Did they need some kind of permit? Would they just be allowed to build as long as it did not obstruct? Medieval Medic fucked around with this message at 13:06 on Jul 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 12:50
|
|
|
^^^: You perhaps want the military history thread?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 12:59
|
|
|
Were there ever any known examples of the Eastern empire using cannons? I assume it would be against the Ottomans in the exceedingly late, almost not-an-Empire era of the 14th/15th centuries?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 08:35
|
|
|
The Byzantines actually had cannons before the Ottomans did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 13:59
|
|
|
I don't know really anything about the Roman army by the time cannons were around. I would assume they adopted them the same way the western European armies did, but earlier since they would've had access before. By the time cannon are getting to Europe the empire is in pretty dire condition, though, so they probably didn't have the resources to exploit them properly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 14:02
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I don't know really anything about the Roman army by the time cannons were around. I would assume they adopted them the same way the western European armies did, but earlier since they would've had access before. By the time cannon are getting to Europe the empire is in pretty dire condition, though, so they probably didn't have the resources to exploit them properly. Okay, now would their proximity to China lend itself to knowledge of gunpowder? Or was it like silk in that it was a heavily guarded secret? I highly doubt trade from China wasn't going through Constantinople prior to Ottoman control, but was it just that gunpowder primarily got exported in applied form like fireworks and not in big explodey barrels and sacks so some smartass can discover "holy poo poo we can use this to blow holes in Turks from 50 yards away or at least scare the poo poo out of them!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 14:22
|
|
|
By the mid 14th century pretty much everyone in Western Europe had access to gunpowder, so I would imagine the Byzantines saw it a bit before that. They could have gotten it via trade, or they could have found out about it through people who had to deal with the Mongols rampaging around Russia and the Middle East blowing stuff up with their own cannons. However, the Eastern Empire didn't really utilize artillery or gunpowder that much. They certainly had access too it, but the empire was in bad shape and artillery pieces at the time were extremely expensive. We know in the first Ottoman siege/blockage of Constantinople the Byzantines used some cannons against the attackers, who didn't have them yet. By the 1420s though the empire is on it's last legs and most of their artillery is stuff that was given to them as gifts by Western European monarchs. They used this artillery mostly as counter-artillery pieces, but that obviously didn't stop the city from being taken in 1453. Constantinople's walls and towers were either completely unusable or at best un-ideal as gun emplacements, so most of the time they risked damaging their own defenses by using artillery.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 14:48
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:By the 1420s though the empire is on it's last legs and most of their artillery is stuff that was given to them as gifts by Western European monarchs. They used this artillery mostly as counter-artillery pieces, but that obviously didn't stop the city from being taken in 1453. Constantinople's walls and towers were either completely unusable or at best un-ideal as gun emplacements, so most of the time they risked damaging their own defenses by using artillery. Orban, the famous Hungarian (or German) cannon engineer working for Mehmed, first offered himself to Constantine, but the Emperor couldn't afford his services so he went to the Ottomans to build gigantic siege cannons (and got killed as one blew up). Gives you an idea of how the technology spread around, from east to west as well as west to east.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
Did Constantine XI really think he could fend off the Ottomans, or was the final defense of Constantinople just a personal thing? I do recall they offered to let him surrender first, and even rule somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
I haven't had a history class in awhile but someone I know told me recently in a very pretentious tone that I should absolutely NOT call the Byzantines, "the Byzantine Empire", and instead it should be referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire. I'm just curious if something else has been developed or if he is just speaking out of his pontifical rear end.
SnoochtotheNooch fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Jul 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
SnoochtotheNooch posted:I haven't had a history class in awhile, but someone I know told me recently in a very pretentious tone that I should absolutely NOT call the Byzantines, "the Byzantine Empire". And instead it should be referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire. I'm just curious if something else has been developed or if he is just speaking out of his pontifical rear end. He's technically correct, but the term "Byzantine" is of such long standing at this point that he's being an irritating pedant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
SnoochtotheNooch posted:I haven't had a history class in awhile, but someone I know told me recently in a very pretentious tone that I should absolutely NOT call the Byzantines, "the Byzantine Empire". And instead it should be referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire. I'm just curious if something else has been developed or if he is just speaking out of his pontifical rear end. Some people take it as a misnomer. Others don't give a gently caress. It isn't as bad as calling Asians 'Orientals' or anything pejorative like that, it's just one of those nomenclature divisions that plagues most fields of study. It's referred to as Byzantium, but is also the Eastern Roman Empire, or simply the Roman Empire for a good portion of history. It isn't like someone is going to see 'Byzantine' in historical context and not know what you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
SnoochtotheNooch posted:I haven't had a history class in awhile but someone I know told me recently in a very pretentious tone that I should absolutely NOT call the Byzantines, "the Byzantine Empire", and instead it should be referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire. I'm just curious if something else has been developed or if he is just speaking out of his pontifical rear end. He shouldn't be a dick, but he is correct. My policy in the thread is to call them the Roman Empire, because Byzantine is a term invented by later historians that has no relevance to anything. It's just the Empire. But trying to get everyone to stop saying Byzantine is tilting at windmills; just mentally replace Byzantine with Eastern Roman or Medieval Roman or plain ol' Roman.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
It bothers me to a probably irrational degree that "Byzantine" will never fall out of use despite being incorrect. (same with Indian being used to refer to Native Americans, for instance)
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Here's a map of the greatest extent of the reconquests, for a more interesting thing. Also illustrates why I hate the FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE!!! 476!! poo poo since here we are in 565 and the empire is basically intact. Britain, Gaul, and Spain are gone but in the grand scheme of things, they were minor compared to places like Anatolia or Egypt. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Jul 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Did Constantine XI really think he could fend off the Ottomans, or was the final defense of Constantinople just a personal thing? I do recall they offered to let him surrender first, and even rule somewhere. Kind of a mix of both. Constantine tried to appease the Ottomans but they kept executing his messengers, but the defense of Constantinople wasn't doomed from the start as some people like to think. The Ottomans outnumbered them pretty heavily but Constantinople was easily the most defensible city in the world. Here's a kickass post from earlier in the thread overviewing them by the OP: Grand Fromage posted:Just to break down Constantinople's defenses. To tack on to that, even with the Ottomans using the biggest guns ever to break through the wall, the Eastern Empire could usually rely on the Italian States, the Pope, and Western Europe to send help when they were in trouble, but by 1453 those areas of the world were either too busy making money (Genoa), too busy fighting each other (German states), too busy fighting the Moors (Spain), too drained after fighting each other (England and France), or straight up late to the battle (Venice).
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
Is it a point of great contention (or any contention at all) whether Julius Caesar or Octavian/Augustus or even someone afterwards was considered the first Emperor? I can't really find a way to justify a consideration that Caesar was an 'Emperor' per se when he basically was just a guy who was operating somewhat within the rules, albeit the rules of an already broken system. Yes, he was a strongman, but to be honest poo poo was already going off the rails by the time he went to war with Pompey, so asserting dictatorial rule could be seen as a reverse Sulla move in which he returned power and representation to the populares but got murdered before we got to find out whether he really was going to step down. Augustus on the other hand, went full-bore with the deification and 'princeps' stuff. Hell, he took the name Augustus for gently caress's sake.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
There's no contention. It's universally accepted that Augustus was the first Roman Emperor, although he never took a title like that but rather concentrated may of the Republican magistrates' powers into his role, then made it hereditary. The term 'emperor' is actually a modern thing used to describe whoever was ruling the empire, the Romans themselves used different titles at different times.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
I've just realised that Byantium:Byzantine = Rome:Roman and now I feel really dumb  No idea where I thought the name came from. I swear I'm usually very good at figuring these things out.  I asked this earlier but I didn't get a response. How were slaves/ex-slaves considered, especially after the division of the Empire. Would an ex-slave in the West be able to travel to the East (or vice versa) without fear, and conversely could a slave travel to the "other Empire" and escape into freedom? Did they have sort of universal passport-type thing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
How did you fight fires in antiquity? Buckets full of water?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
You try to put out the fire (water, smothering, etc), but you also knock down the adjacent buildings to try and keep the fire from spreading. One of the things Crassus is famous for is buying buildings as they were on fire for low prices, then rebuilding his own stuff over it and charging more rent. A literal fire sale.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:How did you fight fires in antiquity? Buckets full of water? They had some crude water pumping systems and bucket lines, but the main way to fight a fire in the city was make a firebreak by demolishing buildings. This, by the way, is likely the source of the stories about the soldiers during the Great Fire of Rome going around breaking poo poo comes from. It wasn't Nero being evil, it was standard firefighting practice--contain the fire by controlled destruction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:They had some crude water pumping systems and bucket lines, but the main way to fight a fire in the city was make a firebreak by demolishing buildings. This, by the way, is likely the source of the stories about the soldiers during the Great Fire of Rome going around breaking poo poo comes from. It wasn't Nero being evil, it was standard firefighting practice--contain the fire by controlled destruction. The importance of creating firebreaks is illustrated quite well by the Great Fire of London, as the reason it was able to get so out-of-control is that the Lord Mayor of London refused to give permission to begin demolition until it was far too late. It was only brought under control by the King stepping in and ordering his troops to use gunpowder to create effective firebreaks, with the help of a fortuitous change in wind direction. It is both fascinating and scary how common massive fires were in pre-modern cities.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:You try to put out the fire (water, smothering, etc), but you also knock down the adjacent buildings to try and keep the fire from spreading. One of the things Crassus is famous for is buying buildings as they were on fire for low prices, then rebuilding his own stuff over it and charging more rent. A literal fire sale. One of the more famous moments in firebreak history is Charles II and James II helping build firebreaks during the Great Fire of London. There is a very interesting book on the history of fire departments whose name escapes me (most where really military regiments until the 19th century)
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
EvilHawk posted:I asked this earlier but I didn't get a response. How were slaves/ex-slaves considered, especially after the division of the Empire. Would an ex-slave in the West be able to travel to the East (or vice versa) without fear, and conversely could a slave travel to the "other Empire" and escape into freedom? Did they have sort of universal passport-type thing? Freedmen were considered Roman citizens and tended to have a client/patron relationship with their former masters, but were free to do most things that a citizen could, with a few exceptions about what offices they could hold. I don't think there was anything like a passport, but freedmen got a felt cap that signified their status. As for escaping, I suppose it was theoretically possible to sneak away, go someplace where nobody knows who you are, and become ancient Don Draper, though it would probably take a certain type of person to be able to do that successfully.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
EvilHawk posted:I've just realised that Byantium:Byzantine = Rome:Roman and now I feel really dumb I think slaves, once freed, were allowed to travel as any citizen would, though they would otherwise be considered a very low class. Escaping slaves, though, I don't know. I never read much into it, but weren't slaves treated differently from, say, black slaves in the US or Jewish slaves in Egypt? As in they weren't worked to death/beaten for getting tired, they got steady food and shelter, and under some pagan festival they even got to order their master around for the day. Still very clearly a slave, but more like an in-house laborer rather than the incredible abuse typically associated with slaves. I could be wrong, though. If I recall it was bad form to be cruel to slaves and quality rather than quantity was a status symbol.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
I am sure you could have been a pirate without much issue. They are kind of free.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I am sure you could have been a pirate without much issue. They are kind of free. Until they ran across a pair of young lads named Gaius Julius Caesar and Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, that is. That was sort of it for freely pillaging the Mediterranean.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Is it a point of great contention (or any contention at all) whether Julius Caesar or Octavian/Augustus or even someone afterwards was considered the first Emperor? I can't really find a way to justify a consideration that Caesar was an 'Emperor' per se when he basically was just a guy who was operating somewhat within the rules, albeit the rules of an already broken system. Yes, he was a strongman, but to be honest poo poo was already going off the rails by the time he went to war with Pompey, so asserting dictatorial rule could be seen as a reverse Sulla move in which he returned power and representation to the populares but got murdered before we got to find out whether he really was going to step down. Augustus on the other hand, went full-bore with the deification and 'princeps' stuff. Hell, he took the name Augustus for gently caress's sake. Convention seems to be that Augustus was the first Emperor, but I doubt there are any people who know much about the late Republic who don't acknowledge that things were pretty broken even before Gaius Julius hit the scene. Sulla had the same levels of power, and likely Marius as well before Sulla beat him down. The Entire Universe posted:Escaping slaves, though, I don't know. I never read much into it, but weren't slaves treated differently from, say, black slaves in the US or Jewish slaves in Egypt? I can't speak much about Egyptian slavery, but American Chattel slavery is really it's own thing, and sort of unique in history for how unspeakably horrible it was. Roman slavery was a different beast entirely. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Jul 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 20:14
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I wonder if most Roman slaves were not in some sort of limbo like status. That is, it isn't something I'd choose but its not so bad I'm willing to risk my life over it. Clearly this generally only applies to your average city slave, maybe to some agricultural slaves and not to the poor bastards that had to work in the mines etc. I mean, assuming most masters treated their slaves well. You got some good eats and a safe shelter. You basically have a job for life and in return you have to do everything this guy and his family says. Compare that to their other choices in life, I mean probably less stability in eats and shelter and you still have to do everything X people say, be they government people, your social superiors or you boss. Given the economic situation of pretty much everyone not in the 1% in Rome was, pretty loving poor, I can see how a lot of people would look at their lot in life and decide it could be worse. [Edit - I guess you have to add in that modern concepts of Freedom and Rights either didn't exist or were very different back then too. I also remember hearing or reading, maybe in this thread, at various points it was a thing to be over the top with your slaves. That is when you have guests you have a slave to turn the door knob, a different one to open it, a third to close it, a fourth to show you to your seat, a fifth to pull out your chair, a sixth to push you in and so on. So it might be pretty boring being seat pulling slave #15 but it doesn't seem back breaking.] Cast_No_Shadow fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Jul 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:I could be wrong, though. If I recall it was bad form to be cruel to slaves and quality rather than quantity was a status symbol.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:48 |
|
|
Certain slaves were definitely better off than others. It really depended on who you were and where you were from. You're not going to make a well-educated Greek captive break rocks all day, and you're not going to make a Gaul you captured in battle teach your children how to read. Treatment varied by master too. If you were educated or otherwise valuable, it might honestly be better to be a slave than a poor citizen in some cases. You had people volunteering to be gladiators at times because of the fame, and because the quality of life for a gladiator was actually pretty decent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 20:37
|
|