|
the_rhino posted: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. The problem was that "saecular" can be interpreted in two ways - once per (societal) lifecycle, or as a centennial celebration. As a result, two separate series of Saecular Games were ongoing, and most long-lived people who were young during the Augustan games could count on seeing Claudian games in their old age.
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 06:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:00 |
|
|
Jazerus posted:once per (societal) lifecycle Sulla: We're holding three saecular games this year! The Senate: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
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'. The legions had a degree of financial and physical autonomy that suggests that at least during a good part of the Principate, each legion COULD have functioned as a separate army, each loyal to itself. Imagine a spoke-and-hub command structure, as opposed to a top-down command chain. It becomes easier to understand the rapidity with which legions would fight each other, or turn on Rome itself, if we are least open to the idea that each legion was more politically independent than our modern experience might otherwise dictate. As the Empire reached the limits of its expansion, it might also help to explain why emperors were constantly giving pay raises, perhaps in attempts to further domesticate a military that was previously focused on expansion and plunder, and gaining the rewards from same. Sorry if that's ambiguous, it's hard to cut through centuries of western scholarship that essentially just assigns a modern day soldier's outlook to a system that might not have shared it. I'm not even sure it's a theory I support, but I think it bears consideration.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
Just saw this in the Rome 2 thread and was wondering how accurate this video might be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_fpOUQcAac also how well received are Roman Historical reenactors in academia? Are they just relegated to history channel shows? ughhhh fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Aug 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
That looks pretty accurate for Marius to the early Empire, but the Roman military changed many, many times over its history. I'm also curious if "let's go out and try it" gets any respect in academic circles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
It does. Experimental archaeology used to be mocked but then they found out a ton of poo poo that way, so it isn't mocked so much anymore. Famously there were a lot of medieval tools that no one could figure out the purpose of until some archaeologists recreated a medieval farming village and lived in it, and suddenly they realized what they were for when they were forced to live that way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
I just love the line about "how every formation eventually breaks up, and then this sword is also great for hacking and slashing!". First of all, it's a sharp piece of iron. Most of them are. Second of all, the entire point to the exercise is ensuring that the formation doesn't break up. If it breaks, then something is hosed, and your odds of dying just went way up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 03:11
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
BurningStone posted:That looks pretty accurate for Marius to the early Empire, but the Roman military changed many, many times over its history. I'm also curious if "let's go out and try it" gets any respect in academic circles. If you don't go out and try things, then often what looks on paper ends up being totally unfeasible and obviously untrue. A prime example would be the idea of classical armies getting into massive pushing matches with their shields. This makes sense when you're interpreting the histories, but then re-enactors started trying it and realized that it immediately turned a battle into a chaotic bloodbath without purpose - something that was certainly ahistorical. It's good to go try things out in the field. PittTheElder posted:I just love the line about "how every formation eventually breaks up, and then this sword is also great for hacking and slashing!". First of all, it's a sharp piece of iron. Most of them are. Second of all, the entire point to the exercise is ensuring that the formation doesn't break up. If it breaks, then something is hosed, and your odds of dying just went way up. Either that or you just broke the enemy formation and are running them down. Which Romans did all the time. Kaal fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Aug 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
physeter posted:We see the past through the prism of our modern experience, which is armies loyal to the state, or loyal to a political movement of some kind. But there's a good argument that very early Rome was essentially a bandit camp, and its earliest armies simply groups of raiders. This can radically change the way we see the later generations of the Roman army, an institution which functioned at its best on foreign ground hitting foreign targets. The oldest traditions of the Roman army are not so far from the basic behavior of rape and plunder. What type of financial autonomy did they have? This is the only real part I'm having trouble grasping, unless you mean in the sense 'they protected markets in villages under their 'protection' and received taxes from them'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
Post-Marius, the general or whomever was paying for the Legion's stuff was paying the men a salary. This was a big part of how the Legions went from loyalty to the state to loyalty to their commander/benefactor. Pillaging/raping/enslaving was a bonus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Either that or you just broke the enemy formation and are running them down. Which Romans did all the time. Was that a thing the infantry did though? I would have assumed that to be a role reserved to the cavalry. Seems like a pretty big risk otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
I can never get over how weird it is that Rome's heavy infantry had swords as their primary weapon. Having a spear to jab at the enemy from a bit of a distance instead of stabbing right up close with a sword seems like such a better model, and both before the Roman Legions in ancient Greece and after Rome's decline, most armies tended to arm their infantry with spears as the primary weapon. Why did Rome rely more on the Gladius than on polearms?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 07:20
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Why did Rome rely more on the Gladius than on polearms? They used to fight in a phalanx formation at some point but the issue with polearms was that your formations were really unflexible and turning them around was hard. The maniples could be a lot more flexible, and of course they still had the pilum that could be used as a spear in a pinch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 11:06
|
|
|
physeter posted:We see the past through the prism of our modern experience, which is armies loyal to the state, or loyal to a political movement of some kind. But there's a good argument that very early Rome was essentially a bandit camp, and its earliest armies simply groups of raiders. This can radically change the way we see the later generations of the Roman army, an institution which functioned at its best on foreign ground hitting foreign targets. The oldest traditions of the Roman army are not so far from the basic behavior of rape and plunder. I'm not so sure it was that simple, since soldiers had to pay for their own equipment and fighting was seen as the prerogative/duty of aristocrats before Marius turned the legions into a professional standing army. Not to say that these aristocrats didn't pillage and rape, but they were probably not just a band of raiders. Most of them were or were related to wealthy land-owners with not many material shortcomings and a vested interest to protect their farms. Before they became foederati, I would say that wandering bands of warriors such as the Visigoths or Burgundians were much closer to that description.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 11:32
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Why did Rome rely more on the Gladius than on polearms? Swords are better weapons in a lot of cases, one reason why spears are so common is they're cheap and easy to make. The Roman state was capable of mass producing swords, which was something most others simply couldn't manage to do. I bet a lot of armies would've liked to have more swords. Maneuverability was the main advantage. Spear phalanxes are also pretty useless if you get past the wall of points, which the Roman shield and armor allowed. The scutum offered each soldier excellent protection, better than any shield that a spear wielding soldier would be able to carry, so really the Roman formation is primarily a wall of impenetrable shields. In that situation, a short thrusting weapon is ideal. You can do that with a spear, but a sword is more maneuverable and less likely to break.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 12:09
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Swords are better weapons in a lot of cases, one reason why spears are so common is they're cheap and easy to make. The Roman state was capable of mass producing swords, which was something most others simply couldn't manage to do. I bet a lot of armies would've liked to have more swords. Wasn't the bolded bit another key factor? A well-trained soldier could basically make short, deadly thrusts at close range with the Gladius all day long without becoming fatigued? That plus their disciplined group fighting tactics must have made it seem to the enemy like they were fighting some kind of horrible automated machine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 12:19
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Wasn't the bolded bit another key factor? A well-trained soldier could basically make short, deadly thrusts at close range with the Gladius all day long without becoming fatigued? That plus their disciplined group fighting tactics must have made it seem to the enemy like they were fighting some kind of horrible automated machine. Yeah, poking people with a gladius is a lot easier than fighting with a large sword or a spear. And endurance is big. Combine that with rotating out the front line regularly and probably providing water/rest at the rear for every soldier and a Roman formation could stay together and fight for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 12:32
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I can never get over how weird it is that Rome's heavy infantry had swords as their primary weapon. Having a spear to jab at the enemy from a bit of a distance instead of stabbing right up close with a sword seems like such a better model, and both before the Roman Legions in ancient Greece and after Rome's decline, most armies tended to arm their infantry with spears as the primary weapon. Spears are the best choice when you have: A. Limited materials - Cheaper and easier to put a bit of steel at the end of a pole then to make an entire sword. B. Limited training - Stand close together, and stab the guys trying to stab your friends. Also hide behind this big piece of wood. C. Limited manpower - Long pointy things to try and keep the bad guys from getting close enough to start stabbing your guys. The Romans had none of these issues until the later empire, and as soon as they did, spears started showing up again. Keep in mind a proper phalanx is much different then standard spear armed infantry. Many of the states that used phalanxes also equppied them with swords, but I am lacking in my knowledge of how the Successor states equpped their armies. I know It was a mixture of mercenaries and other troops.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 13:05
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:What type of financial autonomy did they have? This is the only real part I'm having trouble grasping, unless you mean in the sense 'they protected markets in villages under their 'protection' and received taxes from them'. the jizz taxi posted:I'm not so sure it was that simple, since soldiers had to pay for their own equipment and fighting was seen as the prerogative/duty of aristocrats before Marius turned the legions into a professional standing army. Not to say that these aristocrats didn't pillage and rape, but they were probably not just a band of raiders. Most of them were or were related to wealthy land-owners with not many material shortcomings and a vested interest to protect their farms. Before they became foederati, I would say that wandering bands of warriors such as the Visigoths or Burgundians were much closer to that description.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
physeter posted:There are some missing pieces, but at least by the time of Marius each legion has its own internal banking and accounting system, probably controlled by the signifers. Pay comes from the SPQR. Plunder is still an expected part of a soldier's take home. Unrelated, but one of my favourite pieces of Roman trivia is that a Legion's accountants/bankers were ALSO charged with the incredibly deadly job of carrying around the Legion's signum.  Possibly because someone figured out the best way to make soldiers care about a military standard was to give it to the guy who knew how much back pay they had accrued. Slantedfloors fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Aug 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
physeter posted:I'm referring to very early, pre-Republic Rome, probably even pre-monarchy. The legend of the Rape of the Sabine Women has been taken by some to indicate that the earliest Romans didn't have enough women, which suggests a group of refugees or bandits, rather than an "organic" settlement. What I am suggesting though, is that perhaps the Roman legions were a very evolved form of raider group, rather than a levy taxed beyond its means. Certainly, there's plenty of support for the latter and it is by far the conventional view, but I do think it's interesting to speculate as to the former. Ah, that wouldn't seem too far-fetched, no. Many civilizations or cultural groups began this way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
I just came across this image the other day, and assuming it's accurate, why did the population make such a big jump in the 400-200 BC period? (also assuming the difference isn't just an artifact of the increase in resolution there)
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
eszett engma posted:I just came across this image the other day, and assuming it's accurate, why did the population make such a big jump in the 400-200 BC period? (also assuming the difference isn't just an artifact of the increase in resolution there) e: VVV yeah, I was looking at the wrong pop. scaling. Iseeyouseemeseeyou fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Aug 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Probably would have continued increasing if the Punic Wars never happened. That's obviously not what the graph is depicting. The Gallic Wars were much deadlier, for example. It might be about the Chinese Warring States period, but I've no idea. Historical population estimations must be something of a crapshoot. e: oh wait, jump. Yeah, no idea. An agricultural revolution somewhere?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
Yeah, I'd look to events in India or China before I looked to Rome. The far east has always been where the real population was at. But I also don't know a damned thing about what was happening out there at that point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
Isn't that also the time mesoamerican civilizations were first taking off? it's a massive jump though, it was probably a few simultaneous growth booms around the world.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
So the gladius is just another example of Rome having better logistics than any society had before it and many that came afterwards then. That's interesting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Pretty much, The Romans were never the biggest, strongest people, but no one could touch their organization and training. In the History of Rome podcast, the speaker talks about taking an ancient philosophy course in college. The other parts were pretty standard, Plato and the like. For the Romans they read military strategy and logistics. The professor explained that really is Roman philosophy. They never had thinkers like the Greeks or Eastern cultures, and when they sat down to think, military matters is what they thought about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:So the gladius is just another example of Rome having better logistics than any society had before it and many that came afterwards then. That's interesting. Also of bad metallurgy. A wider, shorter blade means it's less likely to snap or bend on impact. This is more than a casual concern; there's one account of the Gauls having to take a break and bend their longer swords back into shape in the middle of a battle. Good metallurgy was a fairly relative concept in Antiquity. And for some reason, a gladius always looks almost comically short in movies, if you ever get to handle a scale reproduction it feels more than long enough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
Anyone else feel bad about ambivalent feelings regarding the 75-100 years prior to 476? It's such a muddled mess. Even the History of Rome podcast on it tends to drift around East and West, this and that regent, Attila shows up, failed General Emperors, and then we're at 476. Actually, what's potentially interesting is during this period is the rise of the emerging Roman Catholic church. Leo the Great did his "Great" stuff around this time and he marks the real rise of the Church's power. It'd be neat to see how Western Imperial power faded while at the same time the Church rose to take up the slack.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:Anyone else feel bad about ambivalent feelings regarding the 75-100 years prior to 476? That might be my absolute favorite period. It's definitely a muddled mess, but that muddled mess does a great job of making you question what exactly Roman-ness is, how Roman rule was actually carried out, what exactly ethnicity means, and so on. Basically, how a state fails can tell you a lot about it why it was successful in the first place. I love reading about it, but I find myself needing to take notes as I read, just to keep track of all the regional players. Unless you mean you feel bad about how little popular coverage it gets, in which case I'm totally with you. Really need to go bone up on the Crisis of the Third Century as well, but I'm already terribly behind on my reading. Does anyone have any good book recommendations? Academic preferably.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
Quick question: what is the oldest surviving signature? As in, a person writing their own name (or using their own personal seal on wax themselves etc)? Would it be medieval or earlier? Referring to formal documents only (so excluding graffiti)
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 06:39
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Quick question: what is the oldest surviving signature? As in, a person writing their own name (or using their own personal seal on wax themselves etc)? Would it be medieval or earlier? Referring to formal documents only (so excluding graffiti) Far earlier - there are examples of signatures in ancient Mesopotamia (circa 4000-2000 BC), from traders putting them on clay tablets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 06:49
|
|
|
AdjectiveNoun posted:Far earlier - there are examples of signatures in ancient Mesopotamia (circa 4000-2000 BC), from traders putting them on clay tablets. I thought they were usually scribes making records. OK, what if we narrow it to "famous" people, defining "famous" as someone we know something about other than their signature and that they existed?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 06:52
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:I thought they were usually scribes making records. It might have been scribes - my gut instinct says 'merchants' over 'scribes' but I might very well be wrong. With that narrowing, depends on what you consider a signature. Various kings in Sumeria would proudly announce their martial deeds on obelisks/steles/whatever, so it wasn't like they signed off with a special symbol at the end, but you still had relatively large monuments saying things like "And I, King Sargon, magnificent ruler of the universe and four corners of the globe, laid waste to my enemies and killed them by the thousands". Does that count?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 06:58
|
|
|
eszett engma posted:I just came across this image the other day, and assuming it's accurate, why did the population make such a big jump in the 400-200 BC period? (also assuming the difference isn't just an artifact of the increase in resolution there) That's the beginning of the Iron Age and the agricultural revolution, with the Bronze Age Collapse masking the early agricultural productivity increase.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 07:24
|
|
|
AdjectiveNoun posted:It might have been scribes - my gut instinct says 'merchants' over 'scribes' but I might very well be wrong. It doesn't count unless King Sargon actually held the hammer and chisel and personally carved the obelisk. Otherwise, it was just a scribe writing for him. That's why I'm wondering about signatures, rather than names. edit: I ask partly as a "whats the world record?  ", but also as in "when did legal systems develop sufficiently that rulers and other significant people could delegate their authority to a second party and demonstrate their delegation to a third party who will never meet them in person"? Or when did it become practice to add authenticity to a document such as saying "these are my thoughts, words or original creation and I endorse them" like an author or artist might?
Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 07:39
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I can never get over how weird it is that Rome's heavy infantry had swords as their primary weapon. Having a spear to jab at the enemy from a bit of a distance instead of stabbing right up close with a sword seems like such a better model, and both before the Roman Legions in ancient Greece and after Rome's decline, most armies tended to arm their infantry with spears as the primary weapon. While the phalanx formation was pretty formidable in certain circumstances, like the Battle of Thermopylae, unfortunately phalanxes had a tendency to fall apart if the soldiers were flanked, and it just became a mess of everyman for them self, like the Battle of Thermopylae.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 08:36
|
|
|
Kaal posted:That's the beginning of the Iron Age and the agricultural revolution, with the Bronze Age Collapse masking the early agricultural productivity increase. Huh? The Bronze Age collapse and beginning of the Iron Age were centuries earlier. And I've never heard of an agricultural revolution between the Neolithic and the 17th century. I found this long blog post about the shape of Rome, how its buildings are made up of older buildings and how it's developed through history - I hope you find it interesting. If the link doesn't work, the main site is here, scroll down past the photos of Oxford.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 09:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:00 |
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Quick question: what is the oldest surviving signature? As in, a person writing their own name (or using their own personal seal on wax themselves etc)? Would it be medieval or earlier? Referring to formal documents only (so excluding graffiti) Scholars believe we have an example of Cleopatra's handwriting on a document. She wrote γινεσθοι (ginesthoi), which means "do it", on an order to give a tax exemption to one of Mark Antony's cronies. The order is written in a different hand, so it's speculated that a scribe wrote the order and she "signed" it. Granted, that's not exactly a signature in the sense that she wasn't writing her name, but it seems to have been the style in Egypt -- another document from about sixty years earlier is one of the only other examples of what we think to be a ruler's personal handwriting on a document (from Ptolemy X) and it was in a similarly imperative style.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 13:35
|
|
