|
Slantedfloors posted:Don't forget organizing a union between Rome and Parthia with a royal wedding to the Parthian King's daughter, then having her and all the guests in the wedding party butchered. How could I have forgotten the stupidest diplomatic mistake in Roman history to that point? Jesus. Caracalla was just really bad. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Aug 5, 2013 |
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
Jazerus posted: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. Yeah, a little while back when I first found out about Caracalla I asked if there could have possibly been a worse Emperor and people said just wait till I got to Elagabalus, but when I did I have to admit he didn't seem anywhere near as bad. Sure he was a terrible Emperor, but he was pretty much doomed from the start by his age and background. Caracalla was just a huge loving rear end in a top hat who should have known better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Yeah, a little while back when I first found out about Caracalla I asked if there could have possibly been a worse Emperor and people said just wait till I got to Elagabalus, but when I did I have to admit he didn't seem anywhere near as bad. Sure he was a terrible Emperor, but he was pretty much doomed from the start by his age and background. Caracalla was just a huge loving rear end in a top hat who should have known better. This is always what gets me about Caracalla. Unlike most really bad emperors, he had previous imperial experience and had watched Septimius Severus, his dad, work his mojo for over a decade as a pretty decent emperor trying to restabilize the empire. He knew what he was supposed to do and how he was supposed to do it very well, and he should have known that even if Geta was still alive it wouldn't really be any impediment to his power if they split the empire between them for administration. He was just a giant bloodthirsty dick who couldn't keep a lid on his murderous impulses for any reason. I would not be surprised at all, if we ever found his corpse and could examine it in super-high tech detail, to find evidence of an adrenal tumor or something along those lines. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Aug 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
Caracalla was such a dick he even looks like an angry rear end in a top hat in his statues.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
And Google image search says... yea, that's a guy you don't want to get pissed off at you. Except he woke up pissed off and you happen to be in front of him right now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
I just watched The Last Legion. Would you guys say that it was mostly accurate or would you say it was close enough to essentially be a documentary? I found the links between Rome and Camelot very intriguing.
Jota fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Aug 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
Things you shouldn't forget: 1. Quote is not Edit. Sorry for the double post. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Aug 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
/\ What's funny is that what is called Colchester today was called Camelodunum back in Roman times. It has been conclusively proven not to have been any sort of inspiration for Camelot as nobody knew it was called Camelodunum in the past since it had been called Colchester for hundreds of years prior to any possible Arthurian era and wasn't even in the right place to begin with. Assuming Arthurian legend isn't just some mish-mash of known place names and culturally significant lore from all over Britain of course. The Entire Universe posted:Things you shouldn't name your spa after:
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
Jota posted:I just watched The Last Legion. Would you guys say that it was mostly accurate or would you say it was close enough to essentially be a documentary? I found the links between Rome and Camelot very intriguing. Short version: no. Long version: Oh gently caress no.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
After 476, did the Eastern Roman Empire retain the concept of citizenship?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 08:00
|
|
|
Slantedfloors posted:It actually does not extend the manpower pool in the way you think. It basically traded a cash grab and the possibility that the huge pool of newly-made citizens might join the Legion in exchange for a getting rid of about half the reason people joined the military in the first place (i.e, citizenship through service in the auxiliaries) Jazerus posted:...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) Could you guys elaborate on the bad effects of the extension of citizenship throughout the Empire? I'd always assumed that extending the citizenship throughout the Empire was definitely A Good Thing (TM), but hadn't really looked into it deeply due to that assumption.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
One of the main draws of service in the military was that a non-citizen could join, do his 25 years, and was granted citizenship for himself and his family upon an honorable discharge. Once everyone in the empire became citizens, this huge incentive disappeared. Conditions gradually worsened for the soldiers as well, so by late antiquity it's nearly impossible to get anyone to serve. Being a soldier becomes hereditary simply to keep the legions intact.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:One of the main draws of service in the military was that a non-citizen could join, do his 25 years, and was granted citizenship for himself and his family upon an honorable discharge. Once everyone in the empire became citizens, this huge incentive disappeared. Conditions gradually worsened for the soldiers as well, so by late antiquity it's nearly impossible to get anyone to serve. Being a soldier becomes hereditary simply to keep the legions intact. But that only refers to Auxilia, doesn't it? The legions were already recruited exclusively from citizens - were recruitment levels for the legions low/on the decline before Caracalla's extension of citizenship? (I get your argument for the non-bolded part, and that makes a lot of sense, but I'm not sure how it relates to the extension of citizenship)
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
AdjectiveNoun posted:Could you guys elaborate on the bad effects of the extension of citizenship throughout the Empire? I'd always assumed that extending the citizenship throughout the Empire was definitely A Good Thing (TM), but hadn't really looked into it deeply due to that assumption. Besides the military implications, citizens had to pay a lot more tax than non-citizens. Many non-citizens just simply could not afford the extra tax, and since citizenship was now universal, it gave absolutely no income/opportunity advantage to make up for the tax any more. Combined with the really horrible economy of the early third century, this eventually sent the empire and the new citizens into a massive debt spiral, resulting in the colonii and ultimately proto-serfdom for most people. Among those who couldn't pay the tax there was also a lot of tax evasion, which is never good for maintaining order and led to ultimately less tax from these people since they would have paid the non-citizen rate with minimal grumbling. Edit: A decent analogy is a modern bachelor's degree and the devaluation it has undergone. If it's not that common of a commodity, having it is quite valuable because it elevates your social status even if you also incurred a lot of debt getting it. If everyone has one then it's not nearly as valuable and the debt is still an albatross around your neck. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Aug 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
I think what gets lost to modern readers is that citizenship back then was not the same as it is now. It carried a bunch of perks and costs, but it was also a unique concept to a lot of the rest of the world. The life a commoner was not really different in Gaul or Germania, with the obvious difference of living in a land protected by the legions. Lacking citzenship was not a status that was actively discriminating against the person, so Caracalla granting citizenship to everyone did nothing to really help them, and just added a bunch of taxes to their life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
AdjectiveNoun posted:But that only refers to Auxilia, doesn't it? The legions were already recruited exclusively from citizens - were recruitment levels for the legions low/on the decline before Caracalla's extension of citizenship? It wasn't so much that recruitment was low for the legions, but that it completely removed the incentive for non-citizens to join the military. You have to remember that many legions were recruited from the provinces. There wasn't much stopping a provincial from joining a legion and getting a sort of unofficial citizenship by extension. I believe in some cases they were actually given citizenship upon enlisting in certain legions. Caracalla handing out blanket citizenship removed the incentive to join the auxiliaries or enlist in a legion, and by this point in time most of the army was made up of non-Italians.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:One of the main draws of service in the military was that a non-citizen could join, do his 25 years, and was granted citizenship for himself and his family upon an honorable discharge. Once everyone in the empire became citizens, this huge incentive disappeared. Conditions gradually worsened for the soldiers as well, so by late antiquity it's nearly impossible to get anyone to serve. Being a soldier becomes hereditary simply to keep the legions intact. Was it common for soldiers near the end of their service to be dishonorably discharged, or something similar, in order to prevent them from gaining citizenship? Who tracked how many years had been served & could you lose years of service?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Gravedancing posted:Was it common for soldiers near the end of their service to be dishonorably discharged, or something similar, in order to prevent them from gaining citizenship? Who tracked how many years had been served & could you lose years of service? No, the Romans weren't really dicks about that. They had a strong sense of civic duty and if someone voluntarily chose to fight for Rome for a quarter of a century in order to become a citizen, they were happy to give it to them, although naturally many auxilia did not last a full 25 years. We know that they had some kind of archive/bureau that was in charge of keeping track of veterans and who was nearing the point where they could get citizenship. After you served your 25 years you would get a bronze certificate from them that detailed your service and you could use it as a way to prove your citizenship. I'm not sure if you could "lose years" of service. Also, just as an aside, I've found one common misconception is that auxilia were a lot different than the legions. This isn't the case. While there were specialized units such as archers, heavy cavalry, horse archers, slingers, and allegedly even some camelry, in general most auxilia were either cavalry or infantry armed very similarly to Roman legions. An auxiliary would be almost indistinguishable from a Roman legionnaire based on his equipment alone, with obvious exceptions for specialized troops.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
At what age could you at youngest join the Legion?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:Also, just as an aside, I've found one common misconception is that auxilia were a lot different than the legions. This isn't the case. While there were specialized units such as archers, heavy cavalry, horse archers, slingers, and allegedly even some camelry, in general most auxilia were either cavalry or infantry armed very similarly to Roman legions. An auxiliary would be almost indistinguishable from a Roman legionnaire based on his equipment alone, with obvious exceptions for specialized troops. Quite so, the auxilia weren't designed to be cannonfodder. Typically they would be used to fill the roles that Romans tended to not be great at - light cavalry, archery, and all sorts of other skirmish type troops. This did not make them throwaway troops.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 21:37
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Skeleton Jelly posted:At what age could you at youngest join the Legion? But doesn't such specific criteria require precise birth records available for it to work? Even as late as WW1, when all of the requisites were certainly in place in theory, age requirements were either ignored or the kids just seemed old enough to the recruiters (who were hard pressed to feed their regiments with fresh bodies). Did Romans have anything approaching our records on everyone?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
Well, isn't it a bit different between a prospective legionnaire and an WWI English army recruiter? The recruiter's just looking for warm bodies, but in order to serve in the legion you had to be really well trained. Wasn't their ideal legionnaire a grizzly badass in his 40's? I could imagine them turning away a kid who was too young just because they wouldn't be any good, rather than any moral obligation not to conscript children.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
Right, but I just don't see how they'd have enforced a minimum age requirement?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
How did age work in Rome? Like, did they have expectations of particular age groups? Were there certain things you could only do after reaching a certain age? Did people celebrate your birthday?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Quite so, the auxilia weren't designed to be cannonfodder. Typically they would be used to fill the roles that Romans tended to not be great at - light cavalry, archery, and all sorts of other skirmish type troops. This did not make them throwaway troops. How did the legions get along with the auxiliary forces? Did your average legionnaire respect them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
Anti-Hero posted:How did the legions get along with the auxiliary forces? Did your average legionnaire respect them? Did your average legionnaire respect your average legionnaire from a different legion?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:How did age work in Rome? Like, did they have expectations of particular age groups? Were there certain things you could only do after reaching a certain age? Did people celebrate your birthday? At the very least, certain public offices had minimum age requirement. A quaestor had to be at least 30, a consul 42.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Did your average legionnaire respect your average legionnaire from a different legion? I'm not sure what you are getting at. I was curious if there were sources that expanded on how a boots-on-the-ground legionnaire felt about the auxiliaries. It sounds like the commanders understood their value, I could see a Titus Pullo thinking of them as barbarian garbage, that's all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:How did age work in Rome? Like, did they have expectations of particular age groups? Were there certain things you could only do after reaching a certain age? Did people celebrate your birthday? About the age of 14 or 15 a boy would become a man by removing childhood clothes (toga praetexta) and putting on the clothes of an adult (toga virilis), which marked him as an adult and granted him voting rights. There was also a charm that children wore (the bulla praetexta) to ward off evil that would be removed because as an adult they were now expected to be (somewhat) able to fend for themselves. There was a cursus honorum that dictated the ideal course of offices a Roman should pass through, starting with military service and ending (ideally) as Censor. It was considered a huge feat and point of pride to reach every step of the cursus honorum "in your year" (suo anno) as it basically showed you to be a man of great prestige. So at about 20 years old you began a 10 year career in the military, then at 30 you became a Quaestor who managed important financial affairs, then at 36 you could become an aedile which was a hugely important (and very, very, very expensive) administrative role responsible for temples, roads, food supplies etc. At 39 you could become a Praetor, effectively a super-powerful judge in an empire that was obsessed with court trials, then at 42 you could become one of two Consuls, which was not only the supreme authority in Rome for a single year but immortalized you as the years were reckoned by whose consulship it was - if you became Consul then your name would live "forever" in history/the records. Instead of "in the year 56 we did such and such" it would be,"In the year of <Consul 1> and <Consul 2> we did such and such" Consul was the top, and if you hit that at 42 you were basically an ideal Roman. After Consul there were higher offices but they weren't part of the cursus honorum and didn't have the same age restrictions/expectations. A Governor got to run (and rob blind) a province and is how many Romans paid off the debts they'd built up becoming aediles, and the Censor was responsible for the moral health of the Empire, a hugely prestigious role perhaps most famously held by Cato the Elder (and may Carthage be destroyed!).
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
Speaking of age, how did they even make sure someone wasn't lying? It isn't like they had birth certificates (someone please tell me I'm wrong and post a birth certificate from 100 BC).
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
Anti-Hero posted:I'm not sure what you are getting at. I was curious if there were sources that expanded on how a boots-on-the-ground legionnaire felt about the auxiliaries. It sounds like the commanders understood their value, I could see a Titus Pullo thinking of them as barbarian garbage, that's all. If we had any sources about what boots-on-the-ground legionnaires felt about anything that would be an amazing find. Legendary Ptarmigan posted:Speaking of age, how did they even make sure someone wasn't lying? It isn't like they had birth certificates (someone please tell me I'm wrong and post a birth certificate from 100 BC). It's easy to check ages for people who are well enough off to run for public office. Wealthy people would keep track of when family members were born. It's your average joe-schmo legionnaire wannabe that you would be hard pressed to find records for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
Anti-Hero posted:I'm not sure what you are getting at. I was curious if there were sources that expanded on how a boots-on-the-ground legionnaire felt about the auxiliaries. It sounds like the commanders understood their value, I could see a Titus Pullo thinking of them as barbarian garbage, that's all. Just an expansion on your question, sorry for being unclear. There are plenty of modern examples of inter-regimental hijinks and Roman commanders tended to promote a high esprit de corp and personal loyalty, so I wonder how well they came along when men from different units met off duty. Like, did inter-legionnaire riots ever occur etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
I've never heard the Romans using a minimum age for the legions, but they did have a minimum height (5' 7", in modern units, I think). Apparently it was routinely stretched, and went completely out the window during emergencies. Recruiters were also told to look for lean, muscular recruits. If a kid's reasonably tall and muscular, he probably isn't too young.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
What kind of prestige did the Roman cavalry have? On the one hand the Equites is where all the rich and nobles served, on the other hand everyone must have known that the infantry is where the power of the Roman army was.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
About the way to track years, with "year of consul1 and consul2", surely they must have some way to keep numerical track of them? Even for bookkeeping it would be incredibly efficient to only write names of consuls and just assume everyone remembered them in the right order.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:What kind of prestige did the Roman cavalry have? On the one hand the Equites is where all the rich and nobles served, on the other hand everyone must have known that the infantry is where the power of the Roman army was. The Romans were pretty pragmatic about their lovely cavalry and did their best to use auxilia instead. Later in the empire, the cavalry becomes much more important as border defence becomes the main concern for the military.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
Those age limits for magistrate office were more like guidelines. Well, they were not uniformly enforced across Roman history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:The Romans were pretty pragmatic about their lovely cavalry and did their best to use auxilia instead. Later in the empire, the cavalry becomes much more important as border defence becomes the main concern for the military. I mean more when a dude comes home and he's all 'I served in the cavalry', are people impressed because he's a noble doing his military service or is he scoffed at a bit because the cavalry is poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I mean more when a dude comes home and he's all 'I served in the cavalry', are people impressed because he's a noble doing his military service or is he scoffed at a bit because the cavalry is poo poo? Would that even occur in Roman times? I have a hard time believing they would be as prideful as we are over our military when civic service was more of an expectation for them. And the equites already knew they were top dog.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
They probably laughed at his accent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 01:42
|
|