|
euphronius posted:The Romans conquered Veii because of salt. But it was conquered in 386 BC or so, and while it was expensive then it definitely became cheaper as time went on and they put up more salt producing factories. Though I haven't taken any formal classes on Rome, so you should take what I said with a grain of salt (  ) since I'm just putting things together from what I've read.EDIT: Better start the new page with a question at least, but something that's been bugging me is that Iberia seems to fade out of relevancy sometime around the time Julius Caesar is marching on Rome, is there any reason for this? You'd think that with all the silver over there it would be pretty important for any general who fancied himself emperor to take so they could fund their legions, but as far as I can tell it doesn't seem to do much after all the tribes have been pacified and it is fully integrated into the empire. Don Gato fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Aug 23, 2013 |
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 09:41 |
|
|
physeter posted:The Romans had industrial-sized salt distilleries set up all over the place and plenty of them are still there. It's a good bet the stuff wasn't much more valuable in Antiquity than it is today. If someone paid a legionary in salt, he'd probably get the poo poo beat out of him. Well, we know salt was hella valuable to a lot of ancient civilisations, so "salarium" could come from the early days of Rome, before mass production. I'm not gonna go look for the dates of classical quotes on it now, though, just speculating...
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 12:06
|
|
|
Speaking of salt, Hallstatt was pretty famous for it's salt mines (that name rings a bell, right?). I doubt that salt had the same importance to cultures that had access to the sea. It's pretty easy to harvest. You just need to make some shallow pools and let the sun do the rest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 12:55
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:EDIT: Better start the new page with a question at least, but something that's been bugging me is that Iberia seems to fade out of relevancy sometime around the time Julius Caesar is marching on Rome, is there any reason for this? You'd think that with all the silver over there it would be pretty important for any general who fancied himself emperor to take so they could fund their legions, but as far as I can tell it doesn't seem to do much after all the tribes have been pacified and it is fully integrated into the empire. Nah, Galba to totally does this a few generations later, and Hadrian and Trajan have hometowns in Spain. But given how many emperors end up in their positions solely because they have the backing of the front line legions from somewhere, I think you answered your own question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 13:57
|
|
|
It had a lot of people and riches, and Iberia is where western Latin Roman culture survives the longest so it's pretty baller, but yeah. It doesn't get a lot of press after it's pacified because not much happens between then and the Visigoths.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 14:05
|
|
|
Brain Candy posted:Nah, Galba to totally does this a few generations later, and Hadrian and Trajan have hometowns in Spain. But given how many emperors end up in their positions solely because they have the backing of the front line legions from somewhere, I think you answered your own question. Did legions have personal loyalties (e.g. supporting Octavian because he's Caesar's son and all) or was it motivated more by greed (e.g. essentially mercenaries)? It seems to me that the basic legionnaire was solely motivated by gaining wealth & prestige, perhaps also by virtue of civic service, but at the same time there's so many stories of legions fighting for 'their man/leader'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
Depends on the era and the legion. In the beginning their loyalty was to the state, not men or plunder. Later you find legions who will fight for whoever pays them, as well as ones fanatically loyal to their general (Caesar's legions come to mind here).
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Did legions have personal loyalties (e.g. supporting Octavian because he's Caesar's son and all) or was it motivated more by greed (e.g. essentially mercenaries)? It seems to me that the basic legionnaire was solely motivated by gaining wealth & prestige, perhaps also by virtue of civic service, but at the same time there's so many stories of legions fighting for 'their man/leader'. It depends at what time period you're talking about. In the early republic, it was the responsibility of the soldiers to outfit themselves and required to be citizens, which usually meant plebian footsoldiers with patrician equites (cavalry, because they could afford horses) and leaders. Post-Marian reforms, soldiers carried their own kits, were paid and outfitted by the state, and became a somewhat meritocratic structure with foreign clients doing the cavalry, skirmishing, and light infantry work. This led to the poorer classes become more dominant in the legions, which led to generals who seemed to share their plight and make promises receiving extreme loyalty to their followers, and nobody was better at this then Caesar. Just ask the Pompeii family. So when Roman on Roman battles were fought, the commanders resulted to massive bribes of money and lands to get legions to fight each other. If not, you could expect soldiers to take their leaders hostage or just desert them for the enemy (and in one case between Antony and Octavian, both sides throwing down arms and demanding the generals settle it themselves). Bro Dad fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Aug 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
The Romans may not have had robots, but according to this Smithsonian article, they may have had nanotechnology.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:The Romans may not have had robots, but according to this Smithsonian article, they may have had nanotechnology. ....and they used it on a fancy goblet. Between this and the aedile, never underestimate the ancient world's ability to make technological breakthroughs solely as stupid gimmick distractions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
Well they didn't have a scientific breakthrough, they had an artistic breakthrough. They knew how to do it, not why it was happening.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 22:26
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Bro Dad posted:Between this and the aedile, never underestimate the ancient world's ability to make technological breakthroughs  science.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Also I can't speak for the Romans since I have better knowledge of Ancient Greek society when it comes down to things like that, but the stuff that we would call applied science was only an afterthought to them: it was menial stuff to be done by slaves. The intellectual pursuit was more important than the actual benefit it might bring to society, and guys who both came up with and actually built their own stuff were seen as eccentric.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What does this refer to? I googled aediles, but I don't see the He meant Aeolipile. Basically a little steam toy that spun around when filled with water and heated to boiling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
It's also a brilliant example of how far apart a simple steam engine is from one that you can do useful work with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
So how about that Manichaeism? It was an early rival to Christianity and spread throughout the Roman world. What I'm wondering is, how did Christianity manage to beat it off? Did any of its ideas survive in other forms?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:how did Christianity manage to beat it off?   I'm sorry, I'm mentally about twelve.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:So how about that Manichaeism? It was an early rival to Christianity and spread throughout the Roman world. What I'm wondering is, how did Christianity manage to beat it off? Did any of its ideas survive in other forms? There are some hazy links between Manicheanism, the Bogomils of the late Eastern Empire, and the Cathars but they my have just been guessed at/made up by inquisitors following the Albigensian crusades. I don't know how the early Christians masturbated the Manicheans, but if I had to guess, I'd say "harshly."
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 07:40
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:So how about that Manichaeism? It was an early rival to Christianity and spread throughout the Roman world. What I'm wondering is, how did Christianity manage to beat it off? Did any of its ideas survive in other forms? However, I think your general question was more about how it died out in general, and I don't think that you need to look any further than the fact that it failed to gain adherence among the leadership of a successful empire. Without an area where it was consistently promoted, or at least consistently tolerated, successive persecutions took there toll and it gradually died out as it found fewer and fewer new converts and older members died off. Unlike Judaism, which already had an established and self-sustaining community, Manichaeism relied on new converts as people drifted in and out of the religion, which made it much more susceptible to persecution. Grand Prize Winner posted:There are some hazy links between Manicheanism, the Bogomils of the late Eastern Empire, and the Cathars but they my have just been guessed at/made up by inquisitors following the Albigensian crusades. That being said, there are definitely similar features in many of the various Gnostic Christian movements, though I do not personally believe that there is an unbroken chain of believers, living in secret and passing on their teachings, going from Manicheans to Bogomils and Cathars. I find it far more likely that the progenitors of these movements arrived at similar conclusions based on their own reading and interpretations of scripture, with a definite influence of the existing Gnostic texts that were known to be circulating at the time. This passage of theological ideas through texts is very likely how Catharism sprung up in France, through contact with travelling Bogomils. Individual scholars, interpreting the Bible, tend to follow major lines of thought that recur again and again throughout history. This isn't surprising since I would argue that there are a finite number of internally consistent ways that the Bible can be interpreted, and that people tend to interpret along the lines in which they were taught. Thus, individuals separated by hundreds of years and thousands of miles, come to similar conclusions based on their readings, either because they think in a similar way or because they read many of the same texts and agreed with what was written. For example, Christian denominations that do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity have been present in Christianity from it's earliest times. Arius preached this in the around the time of Constantine, who called the Council of Nicea to sort out the controvercy (which gives us the Nicene Creed), but direct descendants of his teachings died out in the 8th Century when the various Germanic tribes, who were the last major cultural group to subscribe to Arian Christianity, converted to a Trinitarian form of Christianity. However, a good number of groups preaching a similar view sprang up during the Protestant Reformation and continue to this day in groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons. That these groups exist isn't an argument for some kind of crypto-Arian community existing within Medieval Christianity, but rather that, when faced with a set of texts, independent people can and will come up with similar interpretations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
Are there any good books or information on the Kingdom of Axum? Ethiopian history has always interested me, but I've never really gone into any in depth look at much of the pre-1700's history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
Well this one looks legit!
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 07:51
|
|
|
When did the convention for Augustus = Senior Emperor and Ceaser = Junior Emperor develop or first appear? I've been listening to the podcast the History of Rome - great stuff, btw - but as I'm getting into the later Empire suddenly we're not only getting a lot more Emperors, but different ranks of Emperor, Augustus and Ceaser. (Previously Emperors did make sure to name their sons/adopted sons successors, but seemingly only as heir apparents). Is this perhaps a term used in hindsight by historians but not necessarily used at the time, like Byzantine, or were Ceaser and Augustus really solid and different ranks?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
Did the Romans engage in mountain climbing for fun? After all, they did have the Alps.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
mediadave posted:When did the convention for Augustus = Senior Emperor and Ceaser = Junior Emperor develop or first appear? Caesar and Augustus were solid and different ranks, though a former Caesar might retain it after becoming Augustus. It began immediately after the fall of the Julio-Claudians during the Year of Four Emperors, 68 AD, when several of the emperors, including the final victor Vespasian, used it to designate the heir while retaining Augustus for themselves. Essentially, it began as a transparent grasp on nonexistent legitimacy and was then just the way things were. Use of Caesar for junior emperor instead of heir was instituted with the Tetrarchy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Did the Romans engage in mountain climbing for fun? After all, they did have the Alps. They had a hell of a lot more mountains than just the alps lol. But I do want an answer to this question too. I doubt there was much of a mountaineering culture as a sport that you see in modern times but I'm sure more than a few folks went hill walking, even if it was to appreciate the vantage/keep an eye on their herds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
Were there Roman beach bums, as an aside? There's a shitton of beaches and beautiful coasts for them to dick around in, I'd assume they'd hang out on a boat fishing and bangin' babes all the time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 07:46
|
|
|
That was probably one of the few positives of being a fisherman back then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 08:14
|
|
|
I'm sure all of those things happened, but we don't have any records of it, because that's the kind of poo poo poors do. Who the gently caress is going to preserve books about herders and fishermen for 2000 years?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 08:57
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I'm sure all of those things happened, but we don't have any records of it, because that's the kind of poo poo poors do. Who the gently caress is going to preserve books about herders and fishermen for 2000 years? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 09:08
|
|
|
WHAT A GOOD DOG posted:Were there Roman beach bums, as an aside? There's a shitton of beaches and beautiful coasts for them to dick around in, I'd assume they'd hang out on a boat fishing and bangin' babes all the time. Wasn't Pompeii kind of like an ancient world holiday resort where the rich went to chill out from a hard few months of living in incredible urban luxury? The graffiti from the town indicates plenty of the common people there spent their free time getting as drunk and laid as possible, at least.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 09:18
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Wasn't Pompeii kind of like an ancient world holiday resort where the rich went to chill out from a hard few months of living in incredible urban luxury? The neighboring Heraclium was more of a rich mans resort.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 11:11
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Wasn't Pompeii kind of like an ancient world holiday resort where the rich went to chill out from a hard few months of living in incredible urban luxury? I bet a spring break-esque holiday in Ancient Rome would be loving nuts. SPend all year killing the poo poo out of Gauls, and farming really loving hard, but one week out of every year you get to just cut loose, pop your toga collar, and dedicate EVERYTHING to Dionysus for a week or so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
WHAT A GOOD DOG posted:I bet a spring break-esque holiday in Ancient Rome would be loving nuts. SPend all year killing the poo poo out of Gauls, and farming really loving hard, but one week out of every year you get to just cut loose, pop your toga collar, and dedicate EVERYTHING to Dionysus for a week or so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
Falukorv posted:The neighboring Heraclium was more of a rich mans resort. Also Lake Avernus, which despite being the entrance to Hades was completely surrounded by rich resort villas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
What was the name of that Once In a Generation party I think we've discussed in this thread before?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:What was the name of that Once In a Generation party I think we've discussed in this thread before? The Saecular Games. It was quite literally once in a lifetime.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
I listened to Dan Carlin's Decline/Fall of the Republic series a while back and am wondering if anyone else has listened to it and/or can weigh in on it. It wasn't nearly as in-depth as the History of Rome series, but the guy was a former broadcaster and throws a pretty good Orson Welles dramaticism on there that makes it pretty enthralling. I'd recommend it on the narrative alone, but I can't vouch for accuracy. He cites quite a few of the usual texts - Appian, Livy, etc. But I am not sure if the accuracy is free of being made subjugate to the "story."
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
It's accurate and great. All the Hardcore History shows are worth listening to, he's one of my favorites.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:The Saecular Games. It was quite literally once in a lifetime. Which Emperor held one of the "once in a lifetime" games only a couple of decades or so after the last "once in a lifetime" games? Was it Claudius?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 09:41 |
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Which Emperor held one of the "once in a lifetime" games only a couple of decades or so after the last "once in a lifetime" games? Was it Claudius? Yes, Claudius held his own in 47AD to commemorate the 800th anniversary of the founding of Rome. Quite a few people attended the one under Augustus, so they got a double dose of one in a lifetime action. Messed things up a bit too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 05:20
|
|
