Roman/ancient history: Checkmate, Atenists

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Roman/ancient history: Checkmate, Atenists

Beamed: Nov 26, 2010; Then you have a responsibility that no man has ever faced. You have your fear which could become reality, and you have Godzilla, which is reality.

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

Edit:

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.

Another important note is that Romania very consciously tried to emphasize their possibly-Romantic roots, and I am more than willing to bet these Roman names were unpopular until fairly recently(the last 300 years or so), when this came underway.

# ? Feb 26, 2014 21:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 21:42

Noctis Horrendae: Nov 1, 2013

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

Edit:

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.

Isn't Cedrik a Gothic name, too? The amount of Germans I know with that name is insane.

# ? Feb 26, 2014 22:25

Anti-Hero: Feb 26, 2004

Octy posted:

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.

Yeah, my grandfather grew up in podunk Arkansas receiving a public education that stopped after high school. He was able to read Latin.

# ? Feb 26, 2014 22:56

Ras Het: May 23, 2007; when I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child - but now I am a man.

Noctis Horrendae posted:

Isn't Cedrik a Gothic name, too? The amount of Germans I know with that name is insane.

Just a variation of Cedric, no? It's from Ivanhoe, and Celtic or at least certainly British in origin: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedric_(Vorname)

# ? Feb 26, 2014 23:30

Xibanya: Sep 17, 2012; Clever Betty

Is there a modern version of the name Wamba? He was always my favorite gothic king of Spain as according to legend he was a farmer (from what is now Portugal) that got made king because God told a bishop to do it. How come nobody gets named after poor Wamba? Also, is there a kernel of truth to the legend? Why would a commoner be named king/why would a king claim to have been a commoner?

EDIT:

My own personal photo of Wamba dear
Not pictured: me and friends at the base of the statue high as balls

Xibanya fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Feb 27, 2014

# ? Feb 27, 2014 01:33

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

Yeah Walter Scott invented Cedric.

Maybe in 400 years kids will be named Tyrion.

# ? Feb 27, 2014 01:36

Golden_Zucchini: May 16, 2007; Would you love if I was big as a whale, had a-
Oh wait. I still am.

Noctis Horrendae posted:

Isn't Cedrik a Gothic name, too? The amount of Germans I know with that name is insane.

I had a similar thought about Ludovicus (the Roman form of the seed for modern Louis, Ludwig, Luigi, Luis, etc) but that was Old High German, not Gothic.

# ? Feb 27, 2014 03:00

Noctis Horrendae: Nov 1, 2013

Golden_Zucchini posted:

I had a similar thought about Ludovicus (the Roman form of the seed for modern Louis, Ludwig, Luigi, Luis, etc) but that was Old High German, not Gothic.

Yeah, I never would have thought that Cedrik was originally Welsh in origin. Very interesting - thanks.

# ? Feb 27, 2014 03:02

Titan: Jan 14, 2002

If this has been covered I am very sorry.

I know the battle statistics are largely exagerated but is there a general consensus on how many people fought at Battle of the Teutoburg Forest and Battle of Cannae to name a few? Was it really common to have 40,000+ Romans do battle with forces of equal number? Just how exagerated were the numbers?

# ? Feb 27, 2014 04:43

Grand Fromage: Jan 30, 2006; L-l-look at you bar-bartender, a-a pa-pathetic creature of meat and bone, un-underestimating my l-l-liver's ability to metab-meTABolize t-toxins. How can you p-poison a perfect, immortal alcohOLIC?

Teutoburg we can guess at the Roman casualties, the loss of three legions should be around 18,000 men. German casualties are unknown but probably a lot lighter than you'd expect. Typically most casualties in ancient battles occur when one side breaks and the other slaughters them, not during the direct combat, so for an ambush like that the attacker can get away quite well.

Usually ancient accounts exaggerate the number of combatants. This is because most ancient writers aren't interested in trying to present objective truth. So when you read "a million men" you should take that as meaning a shitload, but certainly not actually a million.

One exception to this is Cannae, where we believe the account of 60-70,000 Roman deaths is actually accurate. Hannibal lost perhaps 6,000. There wasn't any whitewashing of this battle; the Romans wanted everyone in Rome to know what a dire situation they were in so they could raise new forces. The Romans often were more dangerous the harder you beat them.

A single legion would be around 6,000 people, and one legion was enough for a lot of military activity. Some larger engagements would be like the invasion of Britain, which used four legions. 40,000 soldiers was a big army, but it certainly happened from time to time. Alexander's army numbered around 50,000. The Persian invasion of Greece may have been as large as 200,000.

# ? Feb 27, 2014 04:54

Titan: Jan 14, 2002

Grand Fromage posted:

Teutoburg we can guess at the Roman casualties, the loss of three legions should be around 18,000 men. German casualties are unknown but probably a lot lighter than you'd expect. Typically most casualties in ancient battles occur when one side breaks and the other slaughters them, not during the direct combat, so for an ambush like that the attacker can get away quite well.

Usually ancient accounts exaggerate the number of combatants. This is because most ancient writers aren't interested in trying to present objective truth. So when you read "a million men" you should take that as meaning a shitload, but certainly not actually a million.

One exception to this is Cannae, where we believe the account of 60-70,000 Roman deaths is actually accurate. Hannibal lost perhaps 6,000. There wasn't any whitewashing of this battle; the Romans wanted everyone in Rome to know what a dire situation they were in so they could raise new forces. The Romans often were more dangerous the harder you beat them.

A single legion would be around 6,000 people, and one legion was enough for a lot of military activity. Some larger engagements would be like the invasion of Britain, which used four legions. 40,000 soldiers was a big army, but it certainly happened from time to time. Alexander's army numbered around 50,000. The Persian invasion of Greece may have been as large as 200,000.

Thanks a lot! I've been reading this thread over the last couple of days and your posts are always very informative. One more question, what percentage of the population was in the Army? How did the Roman people react when they heard 50,000+ of their husbands, sons, and brothers were killed? That must have been a significant fraction of the Empire (Republic) total population, right?

# ? Feb 27, 2014 05:13

Noctis Horrendae: Nov 1, 2013

Grand Fromage posted:

Teutoburg we can guess at the Roman casualties, the loss of three legions should be around 18,000 men. German casualties are unknown but probably a lot lighter than you'd expect. Typically most casualties in ancient battles occur when one side breaks and the other slaughters them, not during the direct combat, so for an ambush like that the attacker can get away quite well.

Usually ancient accounts exaggerate the number of combatants. This is because most ancient writers aren't interested in trying to present objective truth. So when you read "a million men" you should take that as meaning a shitload, but certainly not actually a million.

One exception to this is Cannae, where we believe the account of 60-70,000 Roman deaths is actually accurate. Hannibal lost perhaps 6,000. There wasn't any whitewashing of this battle; the Romans wanted everyone in Rome to know what a dire situation they were in so they could raise new forces. The Romans often were more dangerous the harder you beat them.

A single legion would be around 6,000 people, and one legion was enough for a lot of military activity. Some larger engagements would be like the invasion of Britain, which used four legions. 40,000 soldiers was a big army, but it certainly happened from time to time. Alexander's army numbered around 50,000. The Persian invasion of Greece may have been as large as 200,000.

Was this mainly for propaganda reasons (e.g. to make the Romans seem like they had much more men than so-and-so) or were the Romans just extremely hyperbolic when it came down to military affairs?

# ? Feb 27, 2014 05:30

Grand Fromage: Jan 30, 2006; L-l-look at you bar-bartender, a-a pa-pathetic creature of meat and bone, un-underestimating my l-l-liver's ability to metab-meTABolize t-toxins. How can you p-poison a perfect, immortal alcohOLIC?

It wasn't a Roman thing, everyone wrote that way. Some of it was just the style of the time, some was certainly propaganda. Alexander did it that way for sure--he was always outnumbered, but never as badly as the sources claim. Which would make him seem all the greater, of course.

It's important not to go too far the other way. Sure, Alexander didn't beat two million Persians with 50,000 soldiers. But he probably beat 200-250,000 with 50,000, which is still impressive.

The modern view has a distinct line between history and literature. In the ancient world this line is blurry at best, and nonexistent much of the time.

Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Feb 27, 2014

# ? Feb 27, 2014 05:35

Noctis Horrendae: Nov 1, 2013

Grand Fromage posted:

It wasn't a Roman thing, everyone wrote that way. Some of it was just the style of the time, some was certainly propaganda. Alexander did it that way for sure--he was always outnumbered, but never as badly as the sources claim. Which would make him seem all the greater, of course.

It's important not to go too far the other way. Sure, Alexander didn't beat two million Persians with 50,000 soldiers. But he probably beat 200-250,000 with 50,000, which is still impressive.

The modern view has a distinct line between history and literature. In the ancient world this line is blurry at best, and nonexistent much of the time.

Very interesting. I always thought it was propaganda related, but I figured part of it was that there was no reliable way to estimate deaths and the likes.

# ? Feb 27, 2014 05:50

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Noctis Horrendae posted:

Very interesting. I always thought it was propaganda related, but I figured part of it was that there was no reliable way to estimate deaths and the likes.

Greek warfare is really loving weird, but at least in early inter-Greek warfare circa Athens and Sparta there's a whole etiquette about recovering the dead. Like, a supremely important etiquette. Like have seven of your ten generals executed for not doing enough to recover the dead after a winning battle serious. Like conduct a hit and run raid, stop and turn around because you lost two men and, because you're recovering the dead under truce, the raid victims just let them go on your way again serious. The one time fallen bodies are intentionally withheld in the whole Peloponnesian war it's literally because the victors thought the Spartans had violated the temple at Delphi and should pay restitution to get their dead back. Which the Spartans did. So, you know, when Achillies fucks with Hector's body in the Iliad that's not just him being a douche. That's him being a "gently caress you and your chances at a good afterlife" war criminal level of douche. Just to, you know, really make sure you're getting the impact of that scene.

What I'm saying is, aside from apocalyptic not-enough-living-to-bury-the-dead situations, (cough, Sicily, cough) you actually get more or less accurate counts on each side.

# ? Feb 27, 2014 07:53

achillesforever6: Apr 23, 2012; psst you wanna do a communism?

the JJ posted:

Greek warfare is really loving weird, but at least in early inter-Greek warfare circa Athens and Sparta there's a whole etiquette about recovering the dead. Like, a supremely important etiquette. Like have seven of your ten generals executed for not doing enough to recover the dead after a winning battle serious. Like conduct a hit and run raid, stop and turn around because you lost two men and, because you're recovering the dead under truce, the raid victims just let them go on your way again serious. The one time fallen bodies are intentionally withheld in the whole Peloponnesian war it's literally because the victors thought the Spartans had violated the temple at Delphi and should pay restitution to get their dead back. Which the Spartans did. So, you know, when Achillies fucks with Hector's body in the Iliad that's not just him being a douche. That's him being a "gently caress you and your chances at a good afterlife" war criminal level of douche. Just to, you know, really make sure you're getting the impact of that scene.

What I'm saying is, aside from apocalyptic not-enough-living-to-bury-the-dead situations, (cough, Sicily, cough) you actually get more or less accurate counts on each side.

To be fair Hector was going to do the same thing with Patroclus' body had it not been for Ajax rescuing the body though losing the armor.

# ? Feb 27, 2014 08:39

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

achillesforever6 posted:

To be fair Hector was going to do the same thing with Patroclus' body had it not been for Ajax rescuing the body though losing the armor.

Yeah, but really who gives a poo poo about Patroclus. I mean, Achilles aside. The point is there's a formalized cultural connotation to the treatment of a dead enemy that we don't quite share. It's a faux pas to go piss on a body, for sure, but it's not like the Taliban is calling timeouts in between airstrikes to collect the bodies.

# ? Feb 27, 2014 10:01

Decius: Oct 14, 2005; Ramrod XTreme

Grand Fromage posted:

A single legion would be around 6,000 people, and one legion was enough for a lot of military activity.

That said, this is what we know of the Republican and Principate legion. The military organization changed a lot later on, and the Dominate legion is less well known IIRC. The size then is probably a lot smaller, even on paper, more so in reality, it might have been that legions during the 4th and 5th century were as small as 1000 soldiers.
We don't know exactly how the restructuring into Comitatenses and Limitanei worked in every day life, only that legions apparently could consist of both and commanders of either structure might command soldiers of the other structure too, so the distinction between "field army" and "guard army" is not quite as clear as it often was made out to be by earlier scholars.

# ? Feb 27, 2014 11:09

Grand Fromage: Jan 30, 2006; L-l-look at you bar-bartender, a-a pa-pathetic creature of meat and bone, un-underestimating my l-l-liver's ability to metab-meTABolize t-toxins. How can you p-poison a perfect, immortal alcohOLIC?

Yeah the army gets reorganized and weird later on because the role changed. It became more of a rapid reaction force, split into two major groupings. One was cavalry (this is where cavalry becomes a major thing rather than a side thing for barbarian ally scum) to go out and harass anybody who penetrated the border. Then there were heavy infantry stationed further away from the border in permanent garrisons. The idea was the cavalry would destroy the invader if it wasn't very big, otherwise they would keep them occupied until the infantry arrived or herd them into the fortifications. Your classic hammer and anvil strategy. It worked reasonably well except when it didn't.

The maximum size of the entire army at its height is thought to have been around 300,000 men from a population of around 50 million in the empire. For reference's sake that is a slightly higher ratio than the US active military, and a slightly lower one if you include the reserves. If we take the 300K/50 mil numbers that comes out to six soldiers per 1000, so that's an active military of a scale similar to Egypt, Turkey, or Kuwait. Including reserves it's similar to Yemen, El Salvador, or, oddly enough, Italy.

# ? Feb 27, 2014 13:41

Halloween Jack: Sep 12, 2003; I WILL CUT OFF BOTH OF MY ARMS BEFORE I VOTE FOR ANYONE THAT IS MORE POPULAR THAN BERNIE!!!!!

Do we know anything about how infamous defeats impacted the standing of the losing generals' families? I imagine your career prospects are not good if people are still referring to your dad as "old gold-guts" or if the emperor is still prone to demanding that his ghost give his legions back.

# ? Feb 27, 2014 15:05

Beamed: Nov 26, 2010; Then you have a responsibility that no man has ever faced. You have your fear which could become reality, and you have Godzilla, which is reality.

Grand Fromage posted:

Yeah the army gets reorganized and weird later on because the role changed. It became more of a rapid reaction force, split into two major groupings. One was cavalry (this is where cavalry becomes a major thing rather than a side thing for barbarian ally scum) to go out and harass anybody who penetrated the border. Then there were heavy infantry stationed further away from the border in permanent garrisons. The idea was the cavalry would destroy the invader if it wasn't very big, otherwise they would keep them occupied until the infantry arrived or herd them into the fortifications. Your classic hammer and anvil strategy. It worked reasonably well except when it didn't.

The maximum size of the entire army at its height is thought to have been around 300,000 men from a population of around 50 million in the empire. For reference's sake that is a slightly higher ratio than the US active military, and a slightly lower one if you include the reserves. If we take the 300K/50 mil numbers that comes out to six soldiers per 1000, so that's an active military of a scale similar to Egypt, Turkey, or Kuwait. Including reserves it's similar to Yemen, El Salvador, or, oddly enough, Italy.

This was effectively because of the shifting stance of the empire from an offensive role to a defensive one, correct?

# ? Feb 27, 2014 16:56

Thwomp: Apr 10, 2003; BA-DUHHH; Grimey Drawer

Titan posted:

How did the Roman people react when they heard 50,000+ of their husbands, sons, and brothers were killed?

They panicked. Literally. Everyone was sure Hannibal was going to march on Rome.

And it wasn't just the loss of men but many generals (some of whom were former Consuls), a few senators and one of that year's actual Consuls. The other Consul, who was also at the battle, escaped but lost all legitimacy because, really, who wants to follow that guy.

Everyone knew that Rome threw their best, most powerful, and largest army at Hannibal and they just got curb-stomped. Even if they raised new Legions, it'd take time to gather, train, and equip them. Meanwhile, Hannibal has the run of the whole Italian peninsula. It was a disaster of truly epic proportions.

# ? Feb 27, 2014 19:25

Fork of Unknown Origins: Oct 21, 2005; Gotta Herd On?

They actually had to place a ban on mourning in the city of Rome after the defeat so that they could mobilize some sort of response to survive after Cannae.

# ? Feb 27, 2014 20:57

Tunicate: May 15, 2012

Didn't they make the word 'peace' illegal?

# ? Feb 27, 2014 21:01

WoodrowSkillson: Feb 24, 2005; *Gestures at 60 years of Lions history*

They also turned to human sacrifice, something they had not done for hundreds fo years and looked down on barbarians for doing.

# ? Feb 27, 2014 21:03

Fork of Unknown Origins: Oct 21, 2005; Gotta Herd On?

Yes, that was one of three (I think) examples of ritual human sacrifice generally reported by Roman sources, over a several hundred year window. Not counting gladiatorial games of course. They were extremely panicked in addition to being grief-stricken for their personal losses.

# ? Feb 27, 2014 21:17

Jazerus: May 24, 2011

Beamed posted:

This was effectively because of the shifting stance of the empire from an offensive role to a defensive one, correct?

Yes. As Rome's borders began to contract or stay static for very long periods of time the entire military shifted to a defensive posture. Walls were put up around cities near borders around the time of the Tetrarchy, and the legions pulled back from manning the length of the borders to instead be a mobile, reactionary force that could respond to attacks over a wide area because the walls and garrisons would hold attackers in Roman territory long enough for the mobile legions to crash down upon them.

# ? Feb 27, 2014 21:20

Titan: Jan 14, 2002

Are there any good video series about battles and famous events in the ancient world? One of the series that comes to mind is the old history channel series called Decisive Battles. That show used the Rome: Total War engine to reenact battles and also discuss the backround of said battle. Are there any other shows like that? Not the reenact with a video game part but just generally disects the backround and order of battle?

Titan fucked around with this message at 08:22 on Feb 28, 2014

# ? Feb 28, 2014 07:30

Jerusalem: May 20, 2004; Would you be my new best friends?

Thwomp posted:

Everyone knew that Rome threw their best, most powerful, and largest army at Hannibal and they just got curb-stomped. Even if they raised new Legions, it'd take time to gather, train, and equip them. Meanwhile, Hannibal has the run of the whole Italian peninsula. It was a disaster of truly epic proportions.

They were so desperate they let some 24 year old punk kid who didn't even have a beard take charge of the armies fighting Hannibal.

Jerusalem fucked around with this message at 11:44 on Feb 28, 2014

# ? Feb 28, 2014 11:42

Octy: Apr 1, 2010

Jerusalem posted:

They were so desperate they let some 24 year old punk kid who didn't even have a beard take charge of the armies fighting Hannibal.

I turned 23 the other day and I still haven't accomplished anything (and probably never will) compared to Scipio or Pompey or any of those guys.

# ? Feb 28, 2014 12:14

Captain Postal: Sep 16, 2007

Octy posted:

I turned 23 the other day and I still haven't accomplished anything (and probably never will) compared to Scipio or Pompey or any of those guys.

Don't worry, you might yet turn out to be another Hitler :v:

# ? Feb 28, 2014 13:30

Jerusalem: May 20, 2004; Would you be my new best friends?

Octy posted:

I turned 23 the other day and I still haven't accomplished anything (and probably never will) compared to Scipio or Pompey or any of those guys.

Julius Caesar felt the same about Alexander the Great!

Julius loving Caesar once sat there all depressed and thought,"I'm a nobody and I've wasted my life."

# ? Feb 28, 2014 14:01

WoodrowSkillson: Feb 24, 2005; *Gestures at 60 years of Lions history*

Jerusalem posted:

They were so desperate they let some 24 year old punk kid who didn't even have a beard take charge of the armies fighting Hannibal.

And long hair

# ? Feb 28, 2014 14:51

MrNemo: Aug 26, 2010; "I just love beeting off"

Titan posted:

Are there any good video series about battles and famous events in the ancient world?

There's Time Commanders, a BBC series that got teams of people to direct those ancient battles in R:TW engine with military historians and others commenting. It's been a while since I've watched it but I think they do a lot of compare and contrasting with what actually happened and generally discuss the tactics being used.

# ? Feb 28, 2014 14:57

Sleep of Bronze: Feb 9, 2013; If I could only somewhere find Aias, master of the warcry, then we could go forth and again ignite our battle-lust, even in the face of the gods themselves.

There was a goon as one of the actual players on Time Commanders (given orders by the contestants) who had hilarious stories about it. I think he popped up in this thread.

# ? Feb 28, 2014 15:35

Komet: Apr 4, 2003

Mark Zuckerberg is the new Alexander the Great.

# ? Feb 28, 2014 15:45

SkySteak: Sep 9, 2010

MrNemo posted:

There's Time Commanders, a BBC series that got teams of people to direct those ancient battles in R:TW engine with military historians and others commenting. It's been a while since I've watched it but I think they do a lot of compare and contrasting with what actually happened and generally discuss the tactics being used.

It was a pretty cool concept and the series actually got some amazing teams. However, I will never will forget the team for the Battle of Chalons where the team, playing the Huns, stood statically around a hill and gave almost their entire army in trying to keep it. I mean it probably isn't the easiest thing in the world to play and do well but it is just so painful to watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7HnELFSW84

# ? Feb 28, 2014 15:51

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

SkySteak posted:

It was a pretty cool concept and the series actually got some amazing teams. However, I will never will forget the team for the Battle of Chalons where the team, playing the Huns, stood statically around a hill and gave almost their entire army in trying to keep it. I mean it probably isn't the easiest thing in the world to play and do well but it is just so painful to watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7HnELFSW84

Time Commanders is a great show, but every single team seems to focus entirely on standing atop hills to the detriment of every other tactical concern. I have to imagine that whomever advises them about strategy in the pre-game must have reiterated it constantly.

# ? Feb 28, 2014 17:02

Grand Fromage: Jan 30, 2006; L-l-look at you bar-bartender, a-a pa-pathetic creature of meat and bone, un-underestimating my l-l-liver's ability to metab-meTABolize t-toxins. How can you p-poison a perfect, immortal alcohOLIC?

To be fair, standing on the hill at all costs was a common enough and often vital part of actual military strategy. The last major field battle of the western empire was against the Huns and basically centered on both sides trying to get to the top of a ridge.

# ? Feb 28, 2014 17:07

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 21:42

Ynglaur: Oct 9, 2013; The Malta Conference, anyone?

Most operational maneuvering centered around either putting your own forces on a hill, or at least fighting somewhere the other side wasn't on a hill.

# ? Feb 28, 2014 17:53

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Roman/ancient history: Checkmate, Atenists

«‹›1313 »