|
The Romans took fermented fish to an art form.
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 06:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
Squalid posted:If the assertion is that a modern New Yorker's food travels on average fewer miles than the average Roman's in 100 AD, then so far we have shared very little supporting evidence. We have established that 1/3 of the grain Roman's consumed came from Egypt, which is farther from Rome than Iowa is from New York. We still have not established anything regarding the distance travelled by a modern New Yorker's dinner. That's because no one really knows where modern food comes from. Not in a particularly useful way at least. Our distribution system is so complex and interconnected that tracking everything is very difficult. For example, we can say that 50% of NYC food has a local origin, but that typically just means that it was shipped to a regional redistributor before it was sold to consumers. Probably the most telling statistic is that 15% of NYC food does not have a local or domestic origin. http://mpaenvironment.ei.columbia.edu/news/documents/UnderstandingNYCsFoodSupply_May2010.pdf Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Oct 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 08:35
|
|
|
Well, wouldn't the key be looking primarily at the grains or whatever food staple dominates in the region? Proportion of imports needs to be correlated with proportion of exports in order to figure out how much food they'd have if external sources fail.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 08:50
|
|
|
Sounds like a dissertation. Get to it!
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 11:03
|
|
|
bobthedinosaur posted:If the Koreans invented kimchi so they could have vegetables throughout the winter, did the early Romans do anything similar like preserving foods through fermentation? They had all sorts of winter vegetables and roots that would store, and the emperors at least were known to use the permanent snowcaps in the Alps as freezers. The Romans had sauerkraut and fermented turnips, those two are known from written material. I would bet other vegetables were also preserved this way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 13:50
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Just got my copy of Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire, thanks thread! After reading that I'd suggest getting Goldsworthy's Fall of the West, which I think makes a stronger case regarding said fall. I especially like his point that the Notitia Dignitatum is in some cases comparable to Hitler shifting phantom divisions around in 1945, in that we don't know how many of the units mentioned were anything other than paper forces. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Oct 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
Added to the list. I'm down for any article recommendations, too, since I've got JSTOR for a few more weeks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:They had all sorts of winter vegetables and roots that would store, and the emperors at least were known to use the permanent snowcaps in the Alps as freezers. The Romans had sauerkraut and fermented turnips, those two are known from written material. I would bet other vegetables were also preserved this way. Man, I don't want to be the unlucky slave who has to get the food down from the mountain again. On a somewhat related note, did the Romans use cellars at all to store their food, or was all food stored aboveground in granaries and stuff? The temperature difference would make a huge difference in how long food lasts, and if they're dumping food in the Alps I'm guessing that the Romans also knew about that basic principle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
I mean through all of these food questions we have to remember that the Roman Empire was loving enormously diverse and included among other peoples and places: Egypt, Thracian Tribes, the Welsh, the Fertile Crescent, and Morocco. I guess we have been focusing on Rome and the Italian peninsula though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm basically just thinking Italy and/or Rome itself when I answer because obviously things vary so widely over such a massive empire. And writing is from the upper classes so they're not concerned about anyone but True Romans who eat True Roman Bread. The Alps thing would suck for those slaves, but hey, the emperor wants asparagus in October so get your loving rear end up there and dig out his frozen asparagus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:After reading that I'd suggest getting Goldsworthy's Fall of the West, which I think makes a stronger case regarding said fall. I especially like his point that the Notitia Dignitatum is in some cases comparable to Hitler shifting phantom divisions around in 1945, in that we don't know how many of the units mentioned were anything other than paper forces. I'm kind of a fan of Goldworthy and I'd say that Fall of the West is one of the best things he's written. He deals well with presenting the Roman empire as a special case in history (that can't be directly compared to current countries) and how there was a fall, but then again, there wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 09:32
|
|
|
ughhhh posted:They could have followed some 'minor' character like titus pullo dealing with daily life and finding jesus and becoming a revolutionary. I just wanted more titus pullo and lucius varinus. So, I'm watching Spartacus: Blood and Sand, and it's done wonders for my understanding of gladiators, slavery, and prostitution in ancient Rome--because of all the frantic looking-up I do whenever the series does something that has me going "No loving way." The fight scenes are good, though, except for my #1 pet peeve--all the loving spinning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 14:18
|
|
|
I finished Spartacus a while ago, it is ridiculous but I was impressed with how much they did bother to get right. There are tons of accurate details in there, and things like (season 3)Crassus reviving decimation. The biggest persistent problem is the gladiator matches as fights to the death; that was fairly rare.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 14:21
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Even if we assume that Titus Pullo happened to be in the Jewish temple where Jesus began his "ministry" as a child, that's 30-odd years after the end of the series. It's an interesting show because despite discarding realism all the time in favour of visceral storytelling, they start with a foundation of things that are true and then change them (as opposed to just using 'hollywood Rome' as their starting point and adapting). It feels a lot like what the Romans would have produced if they'd made a TV action drama.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 14:25
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Even if we assume that Titus Pullo happened to be in the Jewish temple where Jesus began his "ministry" as a child, that's 30-odd years after the end of the series. Does one mean to say spinning doesn't allow one to insert cock for deeper ramming? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
It was also strange that the first two seasons were reasonably historical, then the last part of season 3 went so completely off the rails that it threw me hard and took me out of the show. Still a good show worth watching. But I'd put in the box with Gladiator: fun but you're not going to learn much. As opposed to Rome, which has history issues but overall is an incredibly good depiction of Roman life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
Hey GF, can you comment further on the attitude of Romans toward Greeks and Egyptians? Nowadays there are many people who think "I don't like Italians, but this guy's okay" whereas Romans seem to have had the opposite prejudice, where they looked down on Egyptians and Greeks but respected the ancient grandeur of Egyptian and Greek culture. Was it just because Greece and Egypt hadn't come out on top? I wonder if it had something to do with the relative wealth of those countries; Greece is resource-poor, and while Egypt was rich as poo poo it was also hot and sandy and lacking in certain goods Rome took for granted (like timber) and for thousands of years, the average Egyptian artisan had to squat naked in the sand. Also, what was their stereotype of Germans and Gauls beyond boogeymen? I'm guessing unkempt and fierce in war, but good craftsmen? (Also they wear those girly trousers). Was it the same for the Celts?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
The relationship with Egypt was relatively easy. Romans respected age immensely, and Egypt was old. You've probably read before, but the often repeated example is that there were more years between Caesar and the building of the Great Pyramid of Giza than between Caesar and the moon landing. They didn't necessarily care for Egyptians, but Egyptian culture was considered incredibly valuable and powerful. Greece has some similarity--the Romans were aware Greece was an older civilization that was doing great things when the Romans were still hitting each other with sticks, relatively speaking, and they of course had nothing but love for Alexander. Again, they were viewed as being lovely today but coming from a great past. In some ways I think the dissonance between the Roman smug superiority to everyone they met and the undeniable greatness of the Greek/Egyptian civilization may have made them more hostile. It was easier to reconcile being smug to people living in huts in Britain, but to Egyptians? But there was still value seen. Egyptian culture, styles, religion were all very popular in the empire, and Greeks were greatly respected for their learning. Having a Greek teacher was a big thing, doctors were commonly Greek, people like rhetoric tutors were often Greek. Rhodes was the center of learning for oratory. It's a complex relationship.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
Could it be that the prejudice towards their contemporary Greeks and Egyptians stemmed from value dissonance, even as they admired the accomplishments of their culture(and naturally, ignoring that these values were what allowed them to become great once upon a time)?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
veekie posted:Could it be that the prejudice towards their contemporary Greeks and Egyptians stemmed from value dissonance, even as they admired the accomplishments of their culture(and naturally, ignoring that these values were what allowed them to become great once upon a time)? Or perhaps more of a "you losers are unworthy of your heritage. If you were worth anything, your civilization would still be kicking rear end."
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:It was also strange that the first two seasons were reasonably historical, then the last part of season 3 went so completely off the rails that it threw me hard and took me out of the show. I'm sure this has been asked before, but what's your opinion of the starting battle in Gladiator?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
Well, from what I can tell, the Greeks valued philosophy and learning in their own right, while the Romans had a greater focus on agriculture and militarism(sorta like rednecks), with education being a source of military power, but no particular value on it's own. That'd be a pretty hefty clash of values since the Greeks would look kinda sissy in that light.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The biggest persistent problem is the gladiator matches as fights to the death; that was fairly rare. How set-up were the matches? Would they be specifically billed as fights to the death? Or was the idea that they were to fight and whatever happened happened?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
i barely GNU her! posted:How set-up were the matches? Would they be specifically billed as fights to the death? Or was the idea that they were to fight and whatever happened happened? We have records of advertisements for various matches, and the ones to the death are highlighted and made into a big deal, they were relatively rare. Normally they fought till one combatant was wounded and defeated. Swinging swords at one another will obviously lead to unplanned deaths of course. From gladiator graves we have learned that they got amazing medical care as they often have wounds to the bone that healed, broken bones, etc. That also informs us that they lived decently long, obviously a far shorter life expectency the nthe rest of the society though! So in general, gladiators did not usually fight to the death, although seeing one die would not be a shocking event.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Hey GF, can you comment further on the attitude of Romans toward Greeks and Egyptians? Nowadays there are many people who think "I don't like Italians, but this guy's okay" whereas Romans seem to have had the opposite prejudice, where they looked down on Egyptians and Greeks but respected the ancient grandeur of Egyptian and Greek culture. Was it just because Greece and Egypt hadn't come out on top? I wonder if it had something to do with the relative wealth of those countries; Greece is resource-poor, and while Egypt was rich as poo poo it was also hot and sandy and lacking in certain goods Rome took for granted (like timber) and for thousands of years, the average Egyptian artisan had to squat naked in the sand. As far as the Romans are concerned, the Greeks are the best teachers and the slickest sophists, while the Egyptians are just so old culturally and yet still Asiatic in their luxuries and "weakness". People further north are the "noble savages", proud and undisciplined.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
I figure Gladiators were a considerable investment and akin to sport stars, so you wouldn't toss them away at TO THE DEATH stuff all that often if you could avoid it. Spartacus ran with it because it makes for better TV and awesome .gifs, which is fine. Never tried to claim it was super realistic or anything. Only thing that I didn't expect was that it didn't feature any Gladiatrix(-es? -ii?), the more historical kind or the hollywood kind, despite having several stabby women in prominent roles. The wiki article is pretty interesting reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiatrix posted:Their first attested appearance is under Nero, at the games organised by Patrobius for Tiridates I of Armenia. There is also a reference in Petronius's Satyricon - possibly based on a factual show - to a female essedarius, or one who fought from a Celtic-style chariot. On the Amazon and Achillia thing: "they are depicted in loincloths and wearing traditional gladiator equipment such as greaves and a manica. Each is armed with a sword and shield; neither is wearing a helmet nor a shirt" Even ancient Rome was Hollywood as gently caress. Pimpmust fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Oct 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend me a good translation/edition of History of the Peloponnesian War? I tried reading the Barns & Noble Classics printing a few years ago, but I had such a hard time with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
homullus posted:As far as the Romans are concerned, the Greeks are the best teachers and the slickest sophists, while the Egyptians are just so old culturally and yet still Asiatic in their luxuries and "weakness". People further north are the "noble savages", proud and undisciplined. At the same time, they both were remnants of Alexander the Great's empire. Maybe Egypt would have been less respected if it weren't for the Ptolemaic dynasty of the time..?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
brozozo posted:Can anyone recommend me a good translation/edition of History of the Peloponnesian War? I tried reading the Barns & Noble Classics printing a few years ago, but I had such a hard time with it. That's a super dry book, you're gonna struggle with any translation tbf.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
brozozo posted:Can anyone recommend me a good translation/edition of History of the Peloponnesian War? I tried reading the Barns & Noble Classics printing a few years ago, but I had such a hard time with it. In general, you are (far) better off reading the works of modern historians who frequently cite ancient historians than you are actually reading the ancient historians, unless you are reading it in the original language, which is a different experience entirely. They are slow, slow going in any English translation due to the nature of the genre at the time. Donald Kagan might be the guy you want for the Peloponnesian War. Nenonen posted:At the same time, they both were remnants of Alexander the Great's empire. Maybe Egypt would have been less respected if it weren't for the Ptolemaic dynasty of the time..? Maybe! Egypt never fully Hellenized or even Romanized, so it always had that exotic Asian feel to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Well, they were ruled by the incestuous Ptolmies, who were the ones fighting Caeser & Cleopatra over control of Egypt. The actual Egyptians hadn't had a native ruler since Cambyses' time. The Greek aristocracy had done a bang-up job of not integrating themselves with the native population, with the exception of trying to Co-opt the native religion with them at the head.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
veekie posted:Though it's worth keeping in mind that the population of a million people in one city is more or less held up by the resources of the empire, whereas in the modern world, even a small country would be likely to have one or two urban centers of a million people. Less likely than you think. Norway is a small country for example; Oslo proper is a bit under 1 million people, Bergen being the next city down is like 250,000. Even the UK, which most people would consider more medium sized, basically has London and Birmingham over the 1 million mark (and London is a massive outlier).
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
brozozo posted:Can anyone recommend me a good translation/edition of History of the Peloponnesian War? I tried reading the Barns & Noble Classics printing a few years ago, but I had such a hard time with it. The Landmark Thucydides has a lot of maps and notes about the flow of the text, which can help contextualize it a bit in terms of where all of these places were or if you were losing the plot. If what you had trouble with was how dry the text is, well, you're in for a rough ride regardless of the edition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Less likely than you think. Norway is a small country for example; Oslo proper is a bit under 1 million people, Bergen being the next city down is like 250,000. Even the UK, which most people would consider more medium sized, basically has London and Birmingham over the 1 million mark (and London is a massive outlier). Yeah but compare the size of the UK to the size of the Roman Empire at the time Rome held a million people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
veekie posted:Yeah but compare the size of the UK to the size of the Roman Empire at the time Rome held a million people. Yeah but then you should compare the population of London at the time THEY held the largest empire in the world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:The Landmark Thucydides has a lot of maps and notes about the flow of the text, which can help contextualize it a bit in terms of where all of these places were or if you were losing the plot. If what you had trouble with was how dry the text is, well, you're in for a rough ride regardless of the edition. Thanks for the recommendation! The Landmark Thucydides seems right up my alley.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
brozozo posted:Can anyone recommend me a good translation/edition of History of the Peloponnesian War? I tried reading the Barns & Noble Classics printing a few years ago, but I had such a hard time with it. The Landmarks are the best. Well footnoted and the maps are great for contextualizing information visually. e: fb, should have kept reading.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
Donald Kagan's history of the Peloponnesian War is excellent, highly recommended. Histories like Thucydides' tend to be very dry and a bit less useful, because they were written for a contemporary audience. So when, for example, he describes a campaign or an event, he just says what happened. Whereas a modern historian using that source will tell you what the terms being used are describing, etc. Does that make any sense? Ancient historians should usually be read in conjunction with analysis, reading it on its own will not give you a very thorough understanding of the P. War.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
Genghis Cohen posted:Donald Kagan's history of the Peloponnesian War is excellent, highly recommended. Histories like Thucydides' tend to be very dry and a bit less useful, because they were written for a contemporary audience. So when, for example, he describes a campaign or an event, he just says what happened. Whereas a modern historian using that source will tell you what the terms being used are describing, etc. Does that make any sense? Ancient historians should usually be read in conjunction with analysis, reading it on its own will not give you a very thorough understanding of the P. War. Honestly, I couldn't get into that Kagan book, partly because it was kinda pop-hist in its approach so he was swinging out there with some assumptions and interpretations without really backing them up.* Not that he was, like factually wrong, just that he had his own take on things. You're not so much reading Thucy's Peloponnesian War as Donald Kagan's Peloponnesian War. I think the Landmarks are a much better way to go, hitting that sweet spot of contextualization while still presenting the whole thing there for you to see for yourself. *By which I mean: not enough footnotes. Never enough footnotes...
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
Pimpmust posted:I figure Gladiators were a considerable investment and akin to sport stars, so you wouldn't toss them away at TO THE DEATH stuff all that often if you could avoid it. This is exactly correct. Fights to the death would be throwing away valuable men. The owners were presumably paid well for their gladiators when they were used in such matches.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 01:37
|
|