|
My girlfriend is picking me up in 10 minutes, so I have to be quick. We know some things about the rules of pankration, notable champions and anecdotes, etc. although modern pankration is reconstructed using karate and catch wrestling. So as with every other martial art on the face of the earth, my advice on studying pankration is that no one who teaches it can write an actual academic work on it for poo poo.
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 08:09 |
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Obviously coins got lost or thrown into lakes/wells/seas but long story short I imagine there was some circulatory system by which coins were taken out of circulation, melted down, separated/combined if needed, and minted again. Rome had problems but they loved their standardization and systems. Well with metal currency there's a kind of natural debasement as each coin shrinks over time. Copper coins are going to corrode simply due to oxygen exposure and soft metals like god will rub away on your hands. You know that metallic smell your fingers get when handling coins? That's actually small particles of metal rubbing off on your hands. You can get a sense of this with modern currency, older cons have fainter reliefs scratches, etc. Even without actively decirculating currency money could stay roughly standardized just through replacement of regular losses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
I always hear in thread about how Sulla both saved the republic and doomed it by being the first governor to march on Rome with his army, but apart from that I'm not sure what he actually did. Can someone do a long post on what Sulla did and why he was important?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:I always hear in thread about how Sulla both saved the republic and doomed it by being the first governor to march on Rome with his army, but apart from that I'm not sure what he actually did. Can someone do a long post on what Sulla did and why he was important? Sulla was considered the preeminent General of his day (Marius would violently, angrily disagree) and the one guy who could be relied on to save Rome from foreign enemies/put them in their place. He had a long history of successful military operations and was given command during the Social War between Rome and its Italian Allies (who wanted Roman Citizenship) and covered himself in glory, including winning the Grass Crown. When King Mithridates began causing trouble overseas Sulla was given the command to go and put him in his place, but after he left Rome Marius was able to force the decision to be overturned and the command granted to him instead (by this point Marius was an old, possibly senile, man). When envoys informed Sulla of this decision, he loudly told his men (all loyal to him) what had happened and they stoned the envoys to death before Sulla lead them on a march on Rome, an unprecedented event. He entered the city with his army (a HUGE no-no) and wiped out Marius' hastily assembled "army" of gladiators, and Marius was forced to flee. Sulla declared that he'd only "invaded" because of Marius' illegal actions, set things back the way they were and then headed off with his army again to to take on Mithridates. Marius returned with the aid of a man called Cinna and took control of Rome by force, butchering anybody who got in their way, declared Sulla an exile... and then Marius promptly died after becoming Consul for a then record 7th time. Cinna was left in charge of Rome, but everybody knew that this could only last until Sulla returned, because nobody but Marius had ever been anything remotely close to his equal - except maybe Quintus Sertorius, perhaps. Sulla for his part just ignored what was happening in Rome and continued on his mission to defeat Mithridates as if he wasn't an exile, though this was complicated by Cinna sending another army to "take over", though most of the men of that army ended up becoming buddies with Sulla's men and joining up with Sulla instead. After completely defeating Mithridates (but letting him off relatively easily), Sulla secured his position in Asia and took control of most of the other Roman army that was still there, who refused to fight for their commander. Cinna was then murdered while force-marching his army towards what was supposed to be an uprising in Illyria but was probably just an excuse to get into position to attack Sulla. With nobody in control of Rome, Sulla returned to Italy with his armies, hooked up with a young Pompey (who Sulla jokingly called Pompey the Great) and marched on Rome for a second time. After a few engagements with the Roman forces put together to stop him - most of these men quickly flocked to his side, a large chunk of those who didn't were killed quickly in battle - other generals in the foreign provinces began to openly support him, and all that Rome could throw at him was Gaius Marius' son and Cinna's former colleague Carbo. Gaius Marius Junior was popular with the Italian allies pretty much based on name alone and they supported him, but he was no general and his army was routed (and many deserted to Sulla) and he himself held up in a siege, completely negating his part in the war. Sulla arrived at Rome and fought a massive battle at the Colline Gates against Carbo's men, and actually came close to losing if it hadn't been for the support of Crassus (who would go on to form the first Triumvate with Caesar and Pompey) who shored up one of his flanks when it was in danger of disintegrating. Once Sulla was back in charge, he re-instituted the century-dead office of Dictator, which had always been an office with a set limit of six months. Demanding that the Senate ratify a decision to make him Dictator for as long as he felt necessary, he effectively became the King of Rome. After a fairly lengthy process where he seemed to do nothing but enjoy the quiet, he then set about a HUGE overhaul of Rome's entire legal system, took almost all power away from the people's assemblies and restored a great deal to the Senate. His most notorious act were his proscriptions, in which names of people guilty of "crimes against Rome" would be posted up for all to see, and they could be killed with impunity with a bounty paid out for the deed. Informers began seeking out people to accuse of treason, and their names would go up on the list often without any due diligence on whether they were actually guilty or not. This allowed Sulla to seize control of enormous amounts of money, property and land from the "guilty" which he used to pay for all of his various projects and reforms. Rome basically lived in terror, at least in the upper classes, where any day you could find your name up on a list without warning and anybody was free to come at you with a knife. A young Julius Caesar - a relative of Marius - actually found himself on this list and it was only because of a concerted appeal by his family and friends (many of whom were politically VERY important) that Sulla agreed to let him live, though he did prophetically warn,"However, I see many a Marius in this Caesar." What makes Sulla mostly stand out though is that after gaining and exercising complete and total authority over Rome in every way, after basically two years of ultimate power he.... gave it up. To everybody's great shock, after instituting all his reforms and projects and setting Rome back on what he considered the right track, he gave up all his powers as dictator and retired from public life. To say this was unexpected is the understatement of the millennium, nobody could comprehend of him giving up what had been so hard gained, even if it did fit in perfectly with his own claims to only being interested in the greater good of Rome's traditional values. Once Dictator for Life himself, Caesar would later mock (the now safely dead) Sulla for having given up those powers. So in short, he was a complicated man. A brilliant General, traditional and conservative but willing to break all the laws he held dear if it would allow him to later strengthen and reset those laws. He murdered hundreds if not thousands in cold blood purely to get the money to pay for the things he wanted, but then nobly gave up ultimate power to become just another citizen. Jerusalem fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Aug 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:I always hear in thread about how Sulla both saved the republic and doomed it by being the first governor to march on Rome with his army, but apart from that I'm not sure what he actually did. Can someone do a long post on what Sulla did and why he was important? Sure - though I'm going to bring up another Roman too, Gaius Marius, because he's kinda integral to story of Sulla. A lot of what Sulla did was as a direct response to actions of Marius. At the time that Sulla comes into prominence, there's one other big dog in Roman politics - Gaius Marius, a self-made man and military hero (partly due to propaganda, he doesn't appear to have been any sort of military prodigy, but he sure got the lion's share of recognition from fighting the Numidians, Teutones and Cimbri) who had won an unprecedented six consecutive Consulships. Sulla was a former protege of Marius but the two really began to despise each other, and fought bitterly over political positions. In particular, they each followed one of the two different political philosophies in Rome - Marius was one of the Populares (Populists), Sulla was one of the Optimates (Elitist Roman Exceptionalists). One of the major issues in Rome at the time was the question of Italian citizenship - non-Roman Italians had served in the Roman military and been merchants abroad etc. but weren't allowed to vote or have the rights of Roman citizens. The Populares wanted to extend citizenship rights to the Italians; the Optimates (quite accurately, to be fair) feared that the Populares were doing this to ensure they would have a hugely expanded voter base. Eventually the tensions burst, and a large number of the Italians rose up in rebellion against Rome, in what was called the 'Social War' (because Socii is the Latin term for Ally, and the Romans referred to the Italians as their Allies). Marius was not trusted by the Senate because of the whole "Too much power goes to someone's head" sentiment, and so the major military command in the Social War was given to Sulla instead of Marius. This really bothered Marius, who took it as a personal slight. The Romans eventually beat the Italians, and soon after, Marius and Sulla clashed again - both seeking the same military command - command of a war against Mithridates - a ruler of a country in Northern Turkey that was attacking Roman possessions and vassals in Western Turkey. This was expected to be a pretty easy war to win, and one that promised a lot of plunder and prestige. Sulla got the command, but Marius had a Populares Tribune veto that (once Sulla was out of Rome) and give command to him instead - however, Sulla simply marched on Rome with his veteran legions from the Social War (the first time a Roman general had marched on the city with his troops), forcing the senate to declare Marius and his supporters to be enemies of the state, strengthening the power of the Senate relative to the Tribunes+General Assembly (traditional ways for the Populares to retain power) and confirming that Sulla would lead the war against Mithridates. However, once Sulla and his armies had left Italy, Marius returned with his supporters, had Sulla declared an enemy of the state, reversed his reforms and had himself elected Consul for a seventh time. However he died of old age shortly after. Once Sulla was done with Mithridates (giving him easier terms than Roman enemies usually got so that he could return to Rome and deal with the situation there) he brought his legions back and marched on Rome again, this time with the intent to make sure Marius or people like him couldn't mess things up for him again. There was a very brief civil war as Sulla's army fought the army of Marius' son and supporters - who knew that Sulla would have bloody revenge on them if he was able to take control of Rome again - but Sulla's army won fairly easily, and Sulla forced the Senate to appoint him Dictator. He then set out to make sure that there couldn't be any more instances of politicians in Rome hamstringing political opponents while they were away from Rome... by, using the justification of punishing 'enemies of the state' proscribing and executing an estimated 1500 men of Senatorial or Equestrian rank and some estimates say 9000 people (including nobles and non-nobles). Proscription also meant the state confiscated the wealth of these individuals, which helped to make Sulla and his friends very rich. He also re-introduced his earlier reforms to strengthen the Senate and weaken the Tribunes and General Assembly. He resigned his dictatorship a year later, and his changes didn't stick, but the big legacy of Sulla was the idea that a man could, through military force, suspend, overrule and rewrite the politics of Rome - which quite obviously was seen with Caesar and Augustus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
AdjectiveNoun posted:Sure - though I'm going to bring up another Roman too, Gaius Marius, because he's kinda integral to story of Sulla. A lot of what Sulla did was as a direct response to actions of Marius. The funniest thing about it is that the Marian reforms of the military allowed for a general to tie the fates of his soldiers to his own - it became the norm for soldiers to have much of their rewards for service (land, wealth, etc) guaranteed by the general once back in Rome, which meant that those soldiers had an interest in making sure their general got everything he wanted and more. If the army told the general to gently caress off and enter the pomerium all by his lonesome (legally a general was required to disband the army before entering the walls) the general would be likely punished and the army would get jack poo poo. You would see this seesaw back and forth, much like the immunity privilege of the Consul. Consul/General does something illegal, but can't disband the army/step down lest he be brought to account.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
Speaking of Mithridates (came up during Sulla/Marius chat)...what a interesting person. The guy reminds me of a James Bond villain. After his father was assassinated he allegedly lived in the wilderness on his own for seven years, took small doses of every known kind of poison until he had built up an immunity to all of them, Pliny the Elder claims he could speak the language of every land he ruled (something like 20 languages), and he fought three wars against the Romans and was actually fairly successful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
What did the Romans and Persians think of each other's respective religions? Was there an exchange of ideas or did they just mock each other?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:Speaking of Mithridates (came up during Sulla/Marius chat)...what a interesting person. The guy reminds me of a James Bond villain. After his father was assassinated he allegedly lived in the wilderness on his own for seven years, took small doses of every known kind of poison until he had built up an immunity to all of them, Pliny the Elder claims he could speak the language of every land he ruled (something like 20 languages), and he fought three wars against the Romans and was actually fairly successful. I would take the bolded with a grain of salt, though. It was hardly unusual for rulers at that time to make elaborate personal mythologies about themselves. I mean, it's possible - but it's far more likely that some or all of that was exaggerated by Mithridates - the man definitely had a talent for propaganda. I'd also say he wasn't particularly successful against Rome. In the first war, he was beaten conclusively in battle, but given really lenient terms because Sulla wanted to go back to sort poo poo out in Rome. The second war was more like a border skirmish by Rome's standards - he inflicted a minor defeat on a local governor (who had overstepped his boundaries and invaded Pontus without the permission of Sulla or the Senate) and his two legions, and the powers-that-were in Rome didn't want to bother with a foreign war at that point - Mithridates still didn't get any territorial or economic rewards as a result of the war, he just managed to keep sovereignty in his own lands. In the third war, he got beaten badly and his kingdom was annexed despite Roman political infighting interfering with their military efforts. Not to say he was useless against Rome, I just think his doing well was lucky due to circumstances - if Marius had died before Sulla got the command, for instance, I think Mithridates would, for all his skill, not fared any better against Rome than, say, Jugurtha did.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
AdjectiveNoun posted:if Marius had died before Sulla got the command, for instance, I think Mithridates would, for all his skill, not fared any better against Rome than, say, Jugurtha did. And just bouncing back to Marius and Sulla, Marius (perhaps rightly, he was the guy in charge of the army) took the credit for the capture of Jugurtha that ended that war, but it was Sulla who actually took the big risk in traveling to collect the betrayed Jugurtha and then bringing him back to Roman authority. I have to imagine that rankled Sulla a fair bit, since it was his rear end on the line but Jugurtha ended up walking in Marius' triumph. The Marius/Sulla period is really fascinating to me, even moreso than Octavian and Mark Antony. It would have been interesting to see Marius and Sulla go against each other when both were in their prime, as opposed to a young Sulla being under a middle-aged Marius' command, and then a middle-aged Sulla going up against an old, possibly senile Marius later on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
I remember seeing a map of the roads in the Roman Empire, and I think it was an actual map used by the Romans of the period. Are there any examples of period maps of other cultures that existed in the same time frame as the Greek City States and the Roman Republic/Empire? Like, say, did the Gauls have any maps that we have examples of?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 10:41
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:I remember seeing a map of the roads in the Roman Empire, and I think it was an actual map used by the Romans of the period. Are there any examples of period maps of other cultures that existed in the same time frame as the Greek City States and the Roman Republic/Empire? Like, say, did the Gauls have any maps that we have examples of? I doubt it - 2000 years of decay will ruin pretty much any material you'd write on except in special conditions like Egypt where it's extremely dry. Most of the ancient texts we have today from Europe are copies of copies of copies (Etc into infinity). France is just too wet. That's not to say it's not possible that they had maps, but to me its seems a lot more likely that directions where of the "As I remember you turn west at Lugdunum and then-" variety for 99% of the population
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 11:48
|
|
|
AdjectiveNoun posted:I would take the bolded with a grain of salt, though. It was hardly unusual for rulers at that time to make elaborate personal mythologies about themselves. I mean, it's possible - but it's far more likely that some or all of that was exaggerated by Mithridates - the man definitely had a talent for propaganda. Well of course it's probably not true. That's part of the fun! I think there's probably some kernel of truth to his persona though. Maybe the guy spoke three or four languages, which seems reasonable, and maybe he did try to build up an immunity to poison but got really sick and decided to just tell people that he was immune. Either way, interesting guy, borderline super-villain.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 14:20
|
|
|
Paxicon posted:I doubt it - 2000 years of decay will ruin pretty much any material you'd write on except in special conditions like Egypt where it's extremely dry. Most of the ancient texts we have today from Europe are copies of copies of copies (Etc into infinity). France is just too wet. That's not to say it's not possible that they had maps, but to me its seems a lot more likely that directions where of the "As I remember you turn west at Lugdunum and then-" variety for 99% of the population You have to remember Roman maps and roads are fairly one off as far as the ancient world goes. There are a couple of examples on monuments from Egypt and Persia but that's about it as far as Maps go from the period.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 15:23
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:You have to remember Roman maps and roads are fairly one off as far as the ancient world goes. There are a couple of examples on monuments from Egypt and Persia but that's about it as far as Maps go from the period. The Assyrians had a pretty good road system. Like, Roman good, if I remember correctly. But most of their civ was put to the torch for excessive assholishness, so if there were any road maps they haven't been found.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:How did the Roman Republic last for so many centuries without someone making himself sole ruler? How were the circumstances special for Octavian? Loss of senatorial power was something that was a long time coming honestly. The lower class had been trying for a very long time to elect strong populares-aligned tribunes of the plebs. This was an incredibly powerful executive position meant originally as a fig leaf rubber stamp sort of position that would lobby for the poor while having no real power because it was a dead end career that no ambitious Roman would want, but somewhere along the way guys like the Gracchus brothers discovered that if you were an upper class politically connected pleb and willing to dead end your career, it was actually the strongest office in Rome other than consul. It held veto power over the Senate, could convene them essentially at will, and had the direct backing of the poor, who might riot if you hosed with a tribune. Moreover, tribunes were considered sacred and unharmable (though this was not really true in practice). If this list of powers and protections sounds familiar, it's because the office of tribune is the most important office held by the princeps emperors. Octavian basically just (illegally) assumed the powers of the tribunate as a super powerful consul that could back up those powers with force. The poor had been trying to cut the Senate out of the loop as much as possible on lower class issues with powerful tribunes for the last century or two anyway, so most non-senators were entirely willing to see the Senate get hosed. The emperors and the widespread acceptance of them were sort of a culmination and combination of two trends in Roman government that had been stewing for a long time - Sulla-esque strong men and Tiberius Gracchus-esque tribunes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
I'm only 3 episodes away from ending the excellent History of Rome Podcast, is there a similar quality podcast that follows the next 1000 years or so of the Eastern Empire? If not, can anybody recommend another similar quality history podcast? I've taken to listening to these to and from work or while at the gym and I'm going to miss them 
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2013 02:07
|
|
|
There is a History of Byzantium podcast that's trying to follow in his footsteps, I actually haven't gotten around to starting it yet but google and you'll find it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:There is a History of Byzantium podcast that's trying to follow in his footsteps, I actually haven't gotten around to starting it yet but google and you'll find it. Its a little different since obviously it is not the same guy. The new guy is pretty decent though, and if nothing else is giving the same amount of information per podcast, and is not screwing it up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:There is a History of Byzantium podcast that's trying to follow in his footsteps, I actually haven't gotten around to starting it yet but google and you'll find it. WoodrowSkillson posted:Its a little different since obviously it is not the same guy. The new guy is pretty decent though, and if nothing else is giving the same amount of information per podcast, and is not screwing it up. Okay that sounds good enough for me to check out, thanks a bunch! I'm assuming it's this place, yeah?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
There's also 12 Byzantine Rulers for a ruler-centric much less comprehensive and considerably more biased take on Byzantine history. And go to page 111 when you finish, a few people (including me  ) listed a whole bunch there
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
Koramei posted:There's also 12 Byzantine Rulers for a ruler-centric much less comprehensive and considerably more biased take on Byzantine history. And go to page 111 when you finish, a few people (including me Thanks very much, the History of China one sounds daunting but very interesting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
Somebody in the MilHist thread's doing an occasional Korean history podcast, too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2013 08:32
|
|
|
So here's a general question: is pagan the official term for polytheist religions? I seem to have this weird negative association with the term. Is it used as a catchall term when comparing monotheist religions to polytheist practices or is it really this Christian term for heathens?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 14:24
|
|
|
It's a Christian disparagement word, but we also don't really have another one that works well as a general word so we use it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
Who counted as 'Latins' at late Roman era/early middle age? Did Franks count yet? What did the 'Latins' call the easterners? When did the nomenclatural distinction between 'Roman Catholic' and 'Orthodox Catholic' churches emerge?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
Did any senatorial families survive the collapse and become some of the noble families of feudal Europe? Where did those families come from, anyway?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Did any senatorial families survive the collapse and become some of the noble families of feudal Europe? Where did those families come from, anyway? Yes, almost certainly - the manorial system predates the collapse and many wealthy families probably just kept going and integrated pretty easily into the semi-romanized Germanic nobility. I don't know of any noble families that have a specifically credible claim to such a lineage nor did any of them retain identifiably Roman names rather than local ones to my knowledge. The records have big enough gaps and claiming ancient descent was common enough that it's hard to find the facts of this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Did any senatorial families survive the collapse and become some of the noble families of feudal Europe? Where did those families come from, anyway? It's almost certain that some of the Roman landowners (I'm not sure if they would have been Senatorial, but definitely the upper-class) went on to become noble families in Europe later on. Those families were pretty much whoever could ensure their inclusion in local politics, through land ownership and the ability to provide military service. The same way the Roman upper classes emerged really.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 06:34
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I know already that this question is complex and kind of hard to answer, but what exactly determined Roman citizenship and what rights did they have? Were you only truly Roman if you lived in the city of Rome, or did nearby cities count etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 09:08
|
|
|
It changed a lot over time. Without getting in to specifics, because I don't know them off the top of my head, originally citizenship was only given to the population of Rome itself. Not sure if it was universal, in the sense that it included women and poors. Later on (late Republic?) it becomes everyone in certain Allied cities in Italy. I believe this followed on relatively shortly after the Social War, which was basically what the whole war was about in the first place. I think later this gets extended to all of Italy. Finally, at some point in the early Empire (third century I think) it gets extended to everyone in the Empire, full stop. As for what exactly citizenship gave you, or how it gets conferred on people born to high status Romans temporarily outside the current areas, I basically have no idea, so I'll let someone else cover it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 09:21
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:What did the Romans and Persians think of each other's respective religions? Was there an exchange of ideas or did they just mock each other? I think it was Gibbons that pointed out that one of the the nice thing about polytheism is that polytheists were generally pretty chill with foreign gods. You call him Thor, we call him him Jupiter, those other folks call him Zeus, Tomato, Tomahto. Once people start talking about the one true god, that's when religious wars start up. loving Euclidians, ruining things for everybody. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 10:53 on Aug 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 10:12
|
|
|
Hipster Occultist posted:I know already that this question is complex and kind of hard to answer, but what exactly determined Roman citizenship and what rights did they have? Were you only truly Roman if you lived in the city of Rome, or did nearby cities count etc. During the Kingdom and early Republic, when Rome was just one (large) town among many, Rome was part of a larger Latin religious and legal community in which all the inhabitants of th various Latin towns shared certain mutual rights. These rights were later codified as: - commercium, the right to conduct business in another Latin town as if he were a citizen of that town - conubium, the right to enter into a legally binding marriage with a Latin from another town - ius migrandi, the right to move to another Latin town, and automatically becoming a citizen of his new home town So basically you were a Roman citizen if you lived on Roman soil and spoke Latin, and eing a Roman citizen meant that you could take full part in Roman economic life and had access to the Roman legal system. As a Roman citizen you also had the right to vote: in elections of new magistrates, whether to go to war, whether to pass a new law, etc. Since the Roman people were sovereign, in theory at least, most decisions of importance had formally to be approved in a vote. And of course only Roman citizens could hold any kind of Roman office. All votes took place at Rome in one of the assemblies there, so to exercise your political rights, you had to be able to travel to Rome and cast your vote In the beginning this was not much of a problem since no Roman lived very far from Rome, and the elections took place during winter anyway Also in the Plebeian Assembly, the primary vehicle for passing new laws during the Republic, voting was by tribes, basically a kind of electoral college. For voting purposes in this assembly, Roman territory was divided into a number of (small) regions called tribes. All Roman citizens were members of a tribe. During a vote, individuals would first cast their votes to determine the majority opinion within each tribes. The tribes would then cast one vote each to determine the final outcome. In this way the more rural Romans, who couldn't just go to Rome on a whim, could be reasonably well represented. The primary obligation of a Roman citizen was that duty to serve in the army in times of war Slaves were not citizens, but property. However any slave freed by a Roman citizen would also become a Roman citizen. Later, when Roman citizenship became a sought after privilege some, there were those exploited this mechanism, by "selling" themselves into slavery to some Roman friend of theirs, who would then "free" them. In the great Latin War of 340 - 338 BC Rome ended all Latin hopes of any kind of political independence, and the peace settlement that followed became a sort of blueprint for how Rome came to organize its relationship to other states during their conquest of Italy. Basically there were four grades: - Full Roman citizenship: Rome annexed most of the smaller Latin towns and their citizens became Romans. In later wars Rome would confiscate additional territory and settle Romans there, so that Romans ended up living quite a bit further away from Rome than had originally been the case - Roman citizenship without the vote: This gave the duty to serve in Roman armies, but not the right to vote or hold office (obviously these limitations were more of an issue if you were a proud aristocrat than some poor farmer). This seems to have started as a punishment imposed on annoying, rebellious cities and peoples. Over time all of them appear to have been upgraded to full citizens. The most prominent city to have hold the citizenship without the vote was Capua, after Rome the second biggest city in Italy. The Capuans got their revenge for this slight by opening their gates to Hannibal, a decision they came to regret - Latin citizenship: The two biggest Latin cities, together the Latin colonies founded in the course of the two centuries before the Latin war, avoided annexation and retained their Latin rights as outlined above. Over the next centuries Rome planted Latin colonies all over Italy to cement their control. These also had full Latin rights. Thus under the ius migrandi, any Roman or other Latin moving to the new colony would give up their existing citizenship and become a citizen of the new colony - Allies: Basically everyone else under Roman control. These states would remain notionally independent, but were tied to Rome by bilateral treaties. The specific terms of these treaties would vary, but would at least include the duty to have the same friends and enemies as Rome (in other words they could have no independent foreign policy) and aid Rome in war. These treaties were not necessarily all that oppressive, the city state of Naples always remained staunchly pro-Roman and when Naples was eventually offered Roman citizenship after the Social war, some Neapolitans thought their existing treaty was a better deal. This system served Rome well during the era of Italian conquest, but started to crack when Rome started to acquire an empire outside Italy. I'll leave to others to go into that though
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Finally, at some point in the early Empire (third century I think) it gets extended to everyone in the Empire, full stop. Like so many other bad ideas, it was Caracalla
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:What did the Romans and Persians think of each other's respective religions? Was there an exchange of ideas or did they just mock each other? Can't speak much for the interaction between Zoroastrianism and the Roman pantheon - the Romans probably said something to the effect of "Ahura Mazda? Uh, okay I think that's a paternal deity? Throw him on the Jupiter pile I guess?" After Christianity took over, Zoroastrianism became another bunch of pagans to convert. The Persians considered Christians as potential Roman sleeper agents and occasionally persecuted them. They also kept Mani of Manicheanism fame alive largely to gently caress with Rome. Which in a way gave us St. Augustine and, as a result, part of the reason that modern Christianity is so neurotic about the human body. Thanks, Persia!
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:So here's a general question: is pagan the official term for polytheist religions? I seem to have this weird negative association with the term. Is it used as a catchall term when comparing monotheist religions to polytheist practices or is it really this Christian term for heathens? "Pagan" is a relatively new word and only came about as a derisive word for non-Christians somewhere around the Renaissance. It derives from paganus, which means something like "of the countryside" or "rustic" and became insulting slang, like "hick" or "redneck". In modern times, it can be used either as a term of abuse for non-Christians or as a description for pantheistic religions/cults without a necessarily negative connotation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
Slantedfloors posted:Like so many other bad ideas, it was Caracalla How is it a bad idea? Extends the manpower pool and simplifies the legal framework of the empire. Sure, Caracalla was a dick, but as far as reforms go that's not bad. (and at least caracalla's no elglabus)
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
sullat posted:How is it a bad idea? Extends the manpower pool and simplifies the legal framework of the empire. Sure, Caracalla was a dick, but as far as reforms go that's not bad. (and at least caracalla's no elglabus) It also vastly increased the use of foederati and increased the number of barbarian-born soldiers in the army, which obviously didn't end too well. Slantedfloors fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Aug 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
sullat posted:How is it a bad idea? Extends the manpower pool and simplifies the legal framework of the empire. Sure, Caracalla was a dick, but as far as reforms go that's not bad. (and at least caracalla's no elglabus) Caracalla was a lot worse than Elagabalus. Elagabalus was a young, probably terribly religion/sexuality-confused kid who was not culturally Roman, raised to be a priest in a totally different eastern religion, who was thrust into emperorship at the worst time possible for his grip on reality. Do you know many 14 year olds who wouldn't ask for all the booze and women/men if they were suddenly ruler of a huge empire? I can't really blame him for acting like a hedonistic lunatic in the eyes of the Romans, he had a totally different value and belief system and was a teenager besides. Caracalla on the other hand murdered his brother in front of their mother, extended the citizenship to everyone just to expand the tax base (which led to a lot of tax evasion, so it didn't really improve the empire's finances and encouraged the lawlessness of the soon-to-come Crisis of the Third Century), pillaged Alexandria because they called him a brother-killing rear end in a top hat, and was such a murderous douche to his guards that they killed him. I'd rate Caracalla not far above Maximinus Thrax or Caligula, which is not good company to have in the emperor rankings. Elagabalus is more of a Nero. Not good, not really awful, just immature and mostly incapable of decent leadership. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Aug 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 08:09 |
|
|
Jazerus posted:Caracalla on the other hand murdered his brother in front of their mother, extended the citizenship to everyone just to expand the tax base (which led to a lot of tax evasion, so it didn't really improve the empire's finances and encouraged the lawlessness of the soon-to-come Crisis of the Third Century), pillaged Alexandria because they called him a brother-killing rear end in a top hat, and was such a murderous douche to his guards that they killed him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 22:21
|
|