|
Lots of the History Of Rome podcast passed by quickly through large stretches of time due to lacking records, so all you could really say was an overview of what might have been legends during the time period in question. The Eastern empire after 476 or so still has some gaps in history to work around, but they aren't near as long or as frequent compared to the History of Rome time period.
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:54 |
|
|
History of Rome podcast went quickly because, as Mike Duncan admitted on the podcast, it became a History of the Emperors of Rome after the Republican period. He glossed a ton of stuff to focus on what the emperors were doing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
I think he is referring to the monarchy and the early republic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
Personally I think the Byzantium podcast has improved quite a bit. Certainly in many of the earlier episodes he did seem to veer between overly dry into trying too hard to be 'relaxed' but has gotten more comfortable with the balance. It feels like he's going into more detail with his casts than Mike did for a lot of his. The content certainly seems pretty good to me. If it comes down to style, give him a go and, like reading the first hundred pages of a book, if you're still not enjoying it 4 or 5 casts in then leave it. I find starting a new podcast series like this is always a little off and it takes a while to get used to the new style.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
What are people's opinions on the different translations of Xenophon's Anabasis? What's the best available translation and why?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:What are people's opinions on the different translations of Xenophon's Anabasis? What's the best available translation and why? Thought there was a Landmark version which are usually good but no dice. Personally I think I have the best translation ever because my dog ate half the book. Wonderful fun to read.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
I lived with a pack of Romanians in Madrid for years and I've been to Timisoara a number of times, so Romania is a particular interest of mine when I'm not sperging out about Spain. Why and how did ethnic Romanians get to the Romania region and manage to stay that way without getting absorbed ethnically and/or linguistically by the surrounding Slavs? They aren't ethnically Hungarian either (on the whole) so they're kinda stranded out there. Also, looks like a lot of what we know of the ancient peoples of Dacia comes from Trajan's column. How were the people who lived in the conquered territory integrated into the Roman Empire? They must have liked it to call themselves Romanians. Ce faci, român?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Xibanya posted:I lived with a pack of Romanians in Madrid for years and I've been to Timisoara a number of times, so Romania is a particular interest of mine when I'm not sperging out about Spain. Why and how did ethnic Romanians get to the Romania region and manage to stay that way without getting absorbed ethnically and/or linguistically by the surrounding Slavs? They aren't ethnically Hungarian either (on the whole) so they're kinda stranded out there. Isn't the president of Romania called Traian? I find it slightly strange that the name has stuck with them for so long, but then I suppose it's not greatly different to people in the Anglo-world being named Julius or Livia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Xibanya posted:
One kind of fun thing about Trajan's column is comparing the size of the Dacians' weaponry with non-column sources -- they have these little hand-scythes on the column, but other sculptural sources suggest they had kind of scary weapons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
As far as the History of Byzantium podcast goes, it's kind of weird to get into if you just blazed through the HoR podcast, since the pacing is definitely slower. Also with the History of Rome, everybody is kind of already familiar with a lot of the historical figures so there's already a frame of reference that helps keep track of things. But in any case I applaud the effort, after a while you do get used to his style, and it'll be drat amazing if he does finish it all. As for the period I find it really fascinating how all of a sudden the city itself becomes *the* main character, and all the important people are running around trying so desperately to go about business as usual in a world that's changing drastically for the worse all around them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Octy posted:Isn't the president of Romania called Traian? I find it slightly strange that the name has stuck with them for so long, but then I suppose it's not greatly different to people in the Anglo-world being named Julius or Livia. Is there an explanation on why some names (with variations) remain in use now (besides the "sounds cool", "sounds ok" explanations)? Caesar, Julius, Hadrian, Marcus, in their Spanish versions, remain in use in my country, but I've never seen a Trajan or a Caius. Has anyone written anything about the history of western names?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
radlum posted:Is there an explanation on why some names (with variations) remain in use now (besides the "sounds cool", "sounds ok" explanations)? Caesar, Julius, Hadrian, Marcus, in their Spanish versions, remain in use in my country, but I've never seen a Trajan or a Caius. Has anyone written anything about the history of western names? In the US having a classical name strikes me as old-fashioned and probably Southern. Looking through a list of generals who fought for the Confederacy, I see a Rufus, Junius, Julius, Theophilus, Leonidas, Marcellus, Otho, Cadmus, Marcus, and a number of Felixes, Luciuses, and Claudiuses in among the slew of generic Anglo or Biblical names. As a more recent example, the boxer Muhammad Ali's birth name was Cassius Clay. My amateur guess is that it comes from people wanting to give their child a name from literature but thinking Biblical names are too common.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:In the US having a classical name strikes me as old-fashioned and probably Southern. Looking through a list of generals who fought for the Confederacy, I see a Rufus, Junius, Julius, Theophilus, Leonidas, Marcellus, Otho, Cadmus, Marcus, and a number of Felixes, Luciuses, and Claudiuses in among the slew of generic Anglo or Biblical names. As a more recent example, the boxer Muhammad Ali's birth name was Cassius Clay. I think it has more to do with the fact that the Southerners have historically been hardcore democrats in the most literal sense, so they naturally look up to the Roman Republic and the associated public figures. But yeah, Roman styled names are definitely more common down in the South, even today.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
I'm not sure there's a pattern to what names survive in popularity, but there are plenty of non-obvious Classical names too, changed into different forms in other languages. It is weird Trajan seems to only be used in Romania and not Spain, since he was from Spain and murdered people in Romania. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
The US army was even organized as a Legion composed of sub-legions during the early to mid 1790s under Anthony Wayne. Its soldiers were even called legionnaires. It would have been cool if the US army had maintained the legionary structure. Does the "82nd Airborne Legion" or "1st Armored Legion" not sound completely badass?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
homullus posted:One kind of fun thing about Trajan's column is comparing the size of the Dacians' weaponry with non-column sources -- they have these little hand-scythes on the column, but other sculptural sources suggest they had kind of scary weapons. The weapon in question is called the falx. It was wielded with two hands, with the edge on the inside of the curve. We're not certain how it was used, though modern reconstruction suggests it was potent enough to take off a limb with a well-placed blow. The Romans actually modified their helmets to reduce it's effectiveness, putting a flange as a form of neck guard. The conjecture I read years ago suggested that the falx may have have been used to reach over a shield and hook the back of the enemy's neck with the inside edge of the blade, which the falx-wielder would then pull towards themselves with predictable results. Given the relatively short reach of the gladius compared to the falx, you can see how this might have been possible. Mustang posted:The US army was even organized as a Legion composed of sub-legions during the early to mid 1790s under Anthony Wayne. Its soldiers were even called legionnaires. We kind of do. The modern company/battery/troop is comprised of 80-140 soldiers: very close to the century. It's command structure--with a Captain and First Sergeant--is similar to the Centurion and Optio structure. The modern battalion/squadron is around 800 soldiers: very close to a cohort. And the modern brigade weighs in right around 5000 soldiers: quite close to a legion. With attachments, a brigade might reach 8000 soldiers: or, a legion plus auxiliaries. Ynglaur fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Feb 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Do you have any insight on how the khopesh was used? I always figured it was a sickle-sword, but Wikipedia says the outside edge was sharpened.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Xibanya posted:I lived with a pack of Romanians in Madrid for years and I've been to Timisoara a number of times, so Romania is a particular interest of mine when I'm not sperging out about Spain. Why and how did ethnic Romanians get to the Romania region and manage to stay that way without getting absorbed ethnically and/or linguistically by the surrounding Slavs? They aren't ethnically Hungarian either (on the whole) so they're kinda stranded out there. There's no clear cut answer, but the most common theory is that the Romanian languages developed some way south of modern Romania, in an area that wasn't intensely slavicised at the time, perhaps modern Western Bulgaria/Macedonia/Serbia. During the Middle Ages these Romance speakers ended up north of the Danube within the Bulgarian Empires, and by the 1100s-1200s Romance speakers had become major players in the area that is today Romania. Also note that much of modern Romania was under the rule of Turkic tribes until, idk, when did the Pechenegs and Cumans disappear? 1200s? So the area wasn't slavicised politically early on like much of the Balkans was. The theory that Romanian nationalists prefer is that they descend directly from Daco-Romanian tribes that have remained in the area since its settlement by Romans after Trajan's conquest, but that's a much more problematic hypothesis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 11:16
|
|
|
radlum posted:Is there an explanation on why some names (with variations) remain in use now (besides the "sounds cool", "sounds ok" explanations)? Caesar, Julius, Hadrian, Marcus, in their Spanish versions, remain in use in my country, but I've never seen a Trajan or a Caius. Has anyone written anything about the history of western names? I find it somehwhat fascinating that a Carthigian name such as Hannibal is still in use. Even more common in Iberia, the current Portuguese president is named "Anibal", for example. There are a few lusophone people called Amilcar as well, though not as common. Most notably Amilcar Cabral, Guinea-Bissau resistance fighter. Any other Phoenician names still in use? My own name is pretty common name in Portugal, Spain and Brazil as well. Which is kind of cool as it's Gothic in origin, a dead language. I don't know any other current gothic names, so afaik it is the most widespread gothic name, which I find really remarkable that is has survived for so long, and has actually surged in popularity these last decades. Falukorv fucked around with this message at 12:15 on Feb 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 12:04
|
|
|
I've always been curious about the origin of names, especially in Spain, and it struck me as odd that some names are really popular and others are never used, like Trajan as someone else mentioned early. It also helps that by some weird chance I ended up having a classical name in it's original latin form that, as far as I know, it's only commonly used in Romania and Denmark Edit: Falukorv posted:My own name is pretty common name in Portugal, Spain and Brazil as well. Which is kind of cool as it's Gothic in origin, a dead language. I don't know any other current gothic names, so afaik it is the most widespread gothic name, which I find really remarkable that is has survived for so long, and has actually surged in popularity these last decades. The only really common goth name I can think off is Rodrigo (Roderic), I've encountered some people with names based in the Gothic Kings, like Recaredo, but it's really rare and I blame for it the influence exercized in several generations by the old test in Spanish education consisting in memorizing the list of the goth kings. Angry Lobster fucked around with this message at 12:32 on Feb 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:We kind of do. The modern company/battery/troop is comprised of 80-140 soldiers: very close to the century. It's command structure--with a Captain and First Sergeant--is similar to the Centurion and Optio structure. The modern battalion/squadron is around 800 soldiers: very close to a cohort. And the modern brigade weighs in right around 5000 soldiers: quite close to a legion. With attachments, a brigade might reach 8000 soldiers: or, a legion plus auxiliaries. Yep, all modern militaries are based on the legions. Not because the legions were the best ever but because when modern state armies were beginning to be created at the end of the Middle Ages, they consciously based them on the legions. That basic organization of those first modern European armies is still fundamentally what's used today.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 12:21
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:In the US having a classical name strikes me as old-fashioned and probably Southern. Looking through a list of generals who fought for the Confederacy, I see a Rufus, Junius, Julius, Theophilus, Leonidas, Marcellus, Otho, Cadmus, Marcus, and a number of Felixes, Luciuses, and Claudiuses in among the slew of generic Anglo or Biblical names. As a more recent example, the boxer Muhammad Ali's birth name was Cassius Clay. I'm guessing it has more to do with the fact that books were pretty expensive up until fairly recently. So you'd get a bible, maybe a book on ancient history, and that would be about it. Nobody is saying that Hank Williams was a great scholar of Greek history, but he nicknamed his kid Bosephus, after Alexander the Great's horse Bosephalus. Although it's probable that Hank Sr. was drunk at the time. Still, it's kind of impressive that an alcoholic country singer knew more about ancient history than most of us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 12:34
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yep, all modern militaries are based on the legions. Not because the legions were the best ever but because when modern state armies were beginning to be created at the end of the Middle Ages, they consciously based them on the legions. That basic organization of those first modern European armies is still fundamentally what's used today. I disagree. I don't mean to poo poo up this thread by going off topic. I didn't know that Middle ages command structure was based on Roman, but I think (today) it's a case of convergent evolution. The most effective team size for command/control is ~4-5 people (stretched from 3-8 in a pinch), and modern militaries are built up in units of higher tier commands 3-5 lower tiers, all the way from a lance corporal with a fire team or 3-5 privates to a company commander with 3-5 platoons and corps field marshal with 3-5 divisions. I suspect the Romans were smart enough to figure out that it worked and you end up with similar command structures. Namarrgon posted:If anyone knows about Chinese medieval/ancient military history that would be a relatively easy statement (convergent evolution) to check. I, for one, am not ready to accept the claim that it is the most efficient system if I know of no counterexamples. I'll admit that I'm extrapolating somewhat, but there are plenty of studies of modern command structures in the military/business, and they show that when you have a group of professionals who have to get a job done (i.e, special forces, commanders etc), 4-5 is about the magic number where you have enough people to achieve something meaningful without the team becoming too hard to supervise. Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 12:49 on Feb 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 12:41
|
|
|
If anyone knows about Chinese medieval/ancient military history that would be a relatively easy statement (convergent evolution) to check. I, for one, am not ready to accept the claim that it is the most efficient system if I know of no counterexamples.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
I believe the classics and ancient history were more rigorously taught to our parents and grandparents and so on than they are nowadays. I recall my own experience of high school ancient history was skimming over the histories of the Big Three (Egyptians, Greeks and Romans) and going slightly in-depth on people like Julius Caesar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
You can never be too careful what role 19th century scholarship and nationalism played when it comes to these names. Also, I gave my son a good roman name.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
Angry Lobster posted:I've always been curious about the origin of names, especially in Spain, and it struck me as odd that some names are really popular and others are never used, like Trajan as someone else mentioned early. It also helps that by some weird chance I ended up having a classical name in it's original latin form that, as far as I know, it's only commonly used in Romania and Denmark Oh yeah forgot about Rodrigo, and it's derivatives such as Rui.The name I'm referring to is modern day Gonçalo/Gonzalo/Gonçalves, which comes from the Latinized Gothic name "Gundisalvus". If I remember correctly, it shares some etymology with other Germanic names with the word "gun" in it, like Gunhild, Gunnar, Gunilla etc, means warrior or something similar. Falukorv fucked around with this message at 14:13 on Feb 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:In the US having a classical name strikes me as old-fashioned and probably Southern. Looking through a list of generals who fought for the Confederacy, I see a Rufus, Junius, Julius, Theophilus, Leonidas, Marcellus, Otho, Cadmus, Marcus, and a number of Felixes, Luciuses, and Claudiuses in among the slew of generic Anglo or Biblical names. As a more recent example, the boxer Muhammad Ali's birth name was Cassius Clay. It was a whole movement, actually. I'm hardly an expert in it, but I think the general idea is that late 1700s through the late 1800s, Americans were trying to create a separate culture from what-was-then contemporary Europe. We see the remnants in architecture especially, and city names like Athens, Ithaca, Syracuse, Rome, etc etc. Also, this is during the period of expansion of the new American state, and at least for place names you needed a name for a registered township or whatever. Sometimes it was as simple as not wanting to call your town "Susquehahananana" or "Mud Flat Shithole". Syracuse NY got named Syracuse because Corinth NY was already taken, true story. And of course, the classical names slapped on the kids. Ulysses S. Grant. So it wasn't necessarily a Southern thing. Remember that a classical education was a great deal more common back then (for those that received education at all), so it was a natural fallback point for the educated elite. And I'd speculate that American neo-classical fever was just a cultural echo chamber of the neo-classicism that had previously swept the British mid-/upper classes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Do you have any insight on how the khopesh was used? I always figured it was a sickle-sword, but Wikipedia says the outside edge was sharpened. Think of it more like an ax then a sword. the curved end adds weight and extra wallop to swings with it. It gives you a decent sized curved cutting edge that you can really whack someone with. Hooking someone with the curved portion would also obviously be a viable tactic, as would stabbing with the point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Also, I gave my son a good roman name. Wouldn't this mean you two have the exact same name He better do something badass to get himself an agnomen!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:You can never be too careful what role 19th century scholarship and nationalism played when it comes to these names. Plebeian or patrician? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Gonna name my future son Aurelian
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:I disagree. I don't mean to poo poo up this thread by going off topic. I didn't know that Middle ages command structure was based on Roman, but I think (today) it's a case of convergent evolution. The most effective team size for command/control is ~4-5 people (stretched from 3-8 in a pinch), and modern militaries are built up in units of higher tier commands 3-5 lower tiers, all the way from a lance corporal with a fire team or 3-5 privates to a company commander with 3-5 platoons and corps field marshal with 3-5 divisions. I suspect the Romans were smart enough to figure out that it worked and you end up with similar command structures. It's a rough relationship, and I would bet the convergent evolution is a thing as well. I don't know about other professional armies like the Chinese but I would guess most armies on the level of the legions were organized along roughly similar lines. The (rough) unit sizes and structure existed before Rome; the main command innovation of the legions was the creation of the NCO in the form of the centurions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:It's a rough relationship, and I would bet the convergent evolution is a thing as well. I don't know about other professional armies like the Chinese but I would guess most armies on the level of the legions were organized along roughly similar lines. The (rough) unit sizes and structure existed before Rome; the main command innovation of the legions was the creation of the NCO in the form of the centurions. I've wondered about centurions as NCO's. By the modern definition, they would have covered the spectrum from senior NCO's to mid rank officers albeit unable to get promoted to senior rank, wouldn't they? I mean, no one below the rank of tribune would have been commissioned and been an officer by modern standards, but didn't centurions essentially command small units, and relatively independently outside major engagements? Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Feb 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
I am thinking of naming my next son Anton which is a nice Roman name.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:I've wondered about centurions as NCO's. By the modern definition, they would have been professional officers albeit unable to get promoted above junior rank, wouldn't they? I mean, no one below the rank of tribune would have been commissioned and been an officer by modern standards, but didn't centurions essentially command small units, and relatively independently outside major engagements? Modern NCOs do that same function. They effectively command the units both in garrison and in the field, and woe to any wet-earred lieutenant who mistakes that. Basically the officer corps exists to transmit orders up and down the chain of command, and to provide a leader that is tacitly external to the unit. But it's the NCOs who do almost all of the command-work. There are a lot of intentional similarities between the modern military system and that of the Roman Empire, particularly if you take a look at the early versions of our modern systems before the advent of mechanized warfare and a shifting of the command structure. During the American Civil War there are some stark comparisons to be made - with many officers being politically-appointed, a similar staff-cadet education system, and a heavy reliance on the NCO corps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:It's a rough relationship, and I would bet the convergent evolution is a thing as well. I don't know about other professional armies like the Chinese but I would guess most armies on the level of the legions were organized along roughly similar lines. The (rough) unit sizes and structure existed before Rome; the main command innovation of the legions was the creation of the NCO in the form of the centurions. Reading the Cyropedia is a trip. It's kinda Xenophon doing some Tom Clancy military theory crafting, but he basically proposes the legions. Well, he puts a lot more emphasis on command rewarding merit instead of a salary structure, but he breaks it down in pretty similar ways. A 5 to 10 to 100 to 1000 basic structure isn't exactly a surprise in a base ten system. And even the Greek phalanx would have 'file' leaders and captains to pull NCO duties. I think the real roman innovation was professionalism, not command structure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Indeed, a professional army with standarized equipment supplied by the state was huge for it's time, it really lacked a true oficcer school instead it had to rely on nobles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
In the US military at least, Lieutenants serve two purposes: 1. Serve as the ultimate morale authority of the unit. Their commission comes from the Congress and--by extension--the People. NCOs are not accountable to the people, but only to the Executive branch. 2. Learn how to be staff officers and--perhaps someday--Battalion Commanders. #2 in particular is an evolution of the military tribune concept. The idea is that if an officer is to manage supplies, personnel, or the maneuver and disposition of a large unit, he should understand how the small units actually function. As mentioned above: the best lieutenants (platoon leaders) and captains (company commanders) understand their NCO counterparts have far more experience with tactics, and will command accordingly. It's a very odd system, that somehow works very well in spite of itself. The Roman system at the century level was simpler: they simply had the most senior NCO in charge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:54 |
|
|
Roman centurions filled all the roles of modern NCOs but went considerably farther than that, probably up to where a modern day colonel would end. This was particularly so under the Principate, when the Roman "governor" of Egypt was a centurion who reported directly to the Emperor. Centurions commanded forward bases and maneuvers all the time. It wasn't a lockstep linear system like what we see today. I'll speculate that the earliest centurions began showing up during the initial patrician-plebian cohabitation. Centurions would have been the plebs who nominally reported to the patricians, but in reality ran the army, and not in a condescending "oh NCOs are the backbone of this operation" kind of way but literally in a "centurions get the Roman army to show up at all" kind of way. I find this explanation better than the alternative, which would be that some unknown Roman military genius invented the centuriate out of whole cloth. Edit: To make that clear, I suspect the centurions were the original Roman military leadership, though military might be a strong word for a couple hundred guys with sticks. When the patricians show up they got glued on top of it. physeter fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Feb 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 19:48
|
|