|
It's not even a question, Agamemnon uses τοι. "Hades, you well know, is harsh and hard; and it is for this reason that he is the most hated by mortals of all the gods."
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 12:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 03:12 |
|
|
Octy posted:Why did Flavius become such a popular name in the late Roman empire? Seriously, especially for consuls. I'm on the Wikipedia List of Roman consuls and you get the occasional Flavius up to the end of the third century. Then suddenly it's Flavius everywhere. I'm starting to wonder if someone on Wikipedia is playing a trick on me. According to a biography of Valens I've read, Flavius was a name made popular because anyone who was associated with the Constantinian dynasty (aka officials and followers) acquired that name as a result of their service - so much so that it became more like "Mr" than a proper name.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 13:08
|
|
|
So essentially the other non-Hades gods were gigantic dicks and may ruin your life for fun, but at least there was a reasonable chance you could either bribe them or just straight up beg while Hades simply did not negotiate?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 13:10
|
|
|
Sort of? The specific words are ameilikhos (lit. un-sweet, un-kind, un-softened) and adamastos (lit. un-tamed, un-chained). They're not happy either with his attitude or the fact that's he's implacable about it. As fits Death.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 13:16
|
|
|
Durokar posted:According to a biography of Valens I've read, Flavius was a name made popular because anyone who was associated with the Constantinian dynasty (aka officials and followers) acquired that name as a result of their service - so much so that it became more like "Mr" than a proper name. I guess I never thought to check Constantine's first name.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
What exactly did the romans (and their close allies) normally DO when they sacked cities? In some periods you can't go a month without the legions just "taking cities" as according to ancient historians. But those historians are so vague and treat the "taking" of cities like no big deal. Like an every day occurrence. There's talk of getting plunder, but no descriptions of the means of obtaining it. In my brain a squad of wine-drunken legionaries would basically just go home to home, breaking into dirtfarmer Osgars mud cottage,
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
I think it depended on the commander, but most of them didn't care as long as they got the lion's share of the spoils. I read somewhere that they where really efficient plunderers. For example, the razing and meticulous looting of Corinth in 146 BC, a city well-known for the quality of it's prostitutes and art (Romans took both of course), and many other Greek Cities lead to the establishment of one of the first organized art dealing markets in the world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
I think it would have depended a lot on the commander, the mood of the troops, whose city it was and so on. The Goths' sack of Rome (and the ~end of glorious Civilisation~) was actually relatively peaceful. Most of the destruction and looting was around the gates where the army entered or aimed at pagan monuments. Churches were designated sanctuaries. Like Angry Lobster said, loot was the real priority, and I think Alaric's instructions were basically along the lines of 'I know you guys want your loot and that's cool but don't be dicks about it, ok?'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
It depends so much on so many factors. I'll try to summarize the main parts. Okay, so throughout Roman history they have a general policy that if you surrender when the army rolls up, you aren't harmed. The city is incorporated into the empire and you now pay your taxes and tribute to Rome. No looting, no rape and murder. This was designed to accomplish two main goals. One, when the news gets out that surrendering cities are unharmed, cities are a lot more likely to surrender so you don't have to fight/besiege every loving little podunk place with a wall. Second, an intact city is a lot more economically useful, so the Romans really would rather have those. Genghis Khan famously had the same policy--it shows up a lot since it makes sense. Before the Marian reforms, taking a city would always involve looting because that was half (conservatively) the reason the soldiers bothered to even show up when you raised the army. They weren't being paid, they expected to get spoils. This, again, is not Roman. Any army that isn't being paid professionally gets paid through looting. After the reforms, the soldiers are paid so looting is nonessential. What's done to cities is often political here. Razing poo poo to the ground is more common. Take everything of value, kill all the fighting men, take everyone else into slavery, level the city. There's also kind of like targeted looting as punishment to wayward allies/vassals. One example would be the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, which intentionally hauled off all the Jewish relics and destroyed the Second Temple to punish them for revolting. Some generals allowed soldiers to loot more often than others. Some made it organized, some just let the soldiers run wild. And what they chose to do could depend on circumstances. If it was a tough campaign and the soldiers were restless, a good looting could boost morale. Especially if it was the last city you were taking. E: This thread's now over two years old. That's a lot of spergin. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 14:33 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
Sleep of Bronze posted:Arachne's is of gods seducing mortals in all their various bizarre ways. No judges, just Minerva being pissed off at Arachne's daring and spidering her. The certain I remember was that Minerva throws a poo poo fit, tears up Arachne's work and disappears. Arachne basically feels worthless and spurned so hangs herself and the spidering was actually Minerva's remorse and mercy. Of course Ovid also the in more nuance than some writers so maybe the original story was a little harsher. Our I'm just totally misremembering.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:The certain I remember was that Minerva throws a poo poo fit, tears up Arachne's work and disappears. Arachne basically feels worthless and spurned so hangs herself and the spidering was actually Minerva's remorse and mercy. Of course Ovid also the in more nuance than some writers so maybe the original story was a little harsher. I think the big point here is that a lot of these societies didn't really have 'canon' texts except for Homer, and even then people were pretty free to riff and write, well, fanfiction. If anyone is looking for big sweeping truths about 'the Romans' or 'the Greeks' in their religion they're better off breaking down into the specifics of when a particular story was told, who told it in what medium, and the context around that. This isn't just a polytheist thing either, if you want to understand how Christians think you can't just read the New Testament, you have to look at the theological debates of the time and how those are operating.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:E: This thread's now over two years old. That's a lot of spergin. Only 1478 more years before this thread has endured longer than its principal subject. We can do it!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Psh, April 21st, 753 BCE to Tuesday, May 29th, 1453 CE is precisely 2,200 years and 38 days.  E: Sorry, I meant 
Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Awesome thread, finally finished it and time to add my own questions! On the Assyrians, it's been said throughout the thread that they were such assholes that when they were finally conquered the victors made the conscious decision to erase their memory from history. How did they actually go about it though? I presume destroying their monuments and writings was the largest part of it? Secondly, what knowledge and skills does your average modern person have that, if they were placed into the past, would allow them to be more than just an ordinary person in society, perhaps very rich? Clearly, modern engineers, doctors, chemists etc know a helluva lot, but I'm thinking of us normals. It makes me sad that so much has been lost to time. I wish we had some sort of Tardis device that would allow us to quietly observe everything that has ever happened 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
Exioce posted:Secondly, what knowledge and skills does your average modern person have that, if they were placed into the past, would allow them to be more than just an ordinary person in society, perhaps very rich? Clearly, modern engineers, doctors, chemists etc know a helluva lot, but I'm thinking of us normals. Basic literacy and numeracy could be an asset in a society where such skills are rare, depending on circumstances you could introduce the current numeral system ahead of time. Knowledge of modern hygienic practices, such as "boil stuff in order to kill bacteria", and "try to minimise exposure to excrement and other biological waste" could also give an advantage. Then again, you might simply wind up like the protagonist in Poul Anderson's short story "The man who came early".
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
Exioce posted:On the Assyrians, it's been said throughout the thread that they were such assholes that when they were finally conquered the victors made the conscious decision to erase their memory from history. How did they actually go about it though? I presume destroying their monuments and writings was the largest part of it? We don't really know what they did. The cities were all destroyed/depopulated and not a lot of Assyrian material survives, so this seems likely. For skills of a modern person, I'd say medical knowledge would be the most valuable. Even a normal person with no training knows a hell of a lot more about disease than an ancient doctor would. Knowing germ theory and about how to sterilize/disinfect, and knowing penicillin comes from bread mold, would be indescribably huge advances to the ancient world. Stuff like knowing cholera is bad water, malaria is from mosquitoes, all that kind of thing. If anyone would believe you. For more specialized knowledge, I can't think of anything better than giving the Romans gunpowder. Better if you want the Romans to annihilate everyone, anyway. That's probably the most useful technology that they actually would've been able to do something with given their other technical skills. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 14:24 on Jun 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:Then again, you might simply wind up like the protagonist in Poul Anderson's short story "The man who came early".
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:For more specialized knowledge, I can't think of anything better than giving the Romans gunpowder. Better if you want the Romans to annihilate everyone, anyway. That's probably the most useful technology that they actually would've been able to do something with given their other technical skills. Which era Romans are you referring to here? Anytime before the fall of the Western Empire? Would their metalworking really be up to the task of creating cannon or handgun barrels?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:We don't really know what they did. The cities were all destroyed/depopulated and not a lot of Assyrian material survives, so this seems likely. That's the rub. IMO most of us going back in time with modern knowledge would be considered insane.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:Which era Romans are you referring to here? Anytime before the fall of the Western Empire? Would their metalworking really be up to the task of creating cannon or handgun barrels? The original iron handguns and small bronze cannon would be game changers when used against other societies in antiquity, not to mention using it in grenades and rockets. It would turn an already efficient and frightening army into a terrifying force.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:For more specialized knowledge, I can't think of anything better than giving the Romans gunpowder. Better if you want the Romans to annihilate everyone, anyway. That's probably the most useful technology that they actually would've been able to do something with given their other technical skills. Isn't quality (or even just useable) gunpowder really hard to make? does the average joe know how to refine KNO3 (I don't )? mixing ratios? Grain size?I would vote for crop rotation. Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Jun 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:The original iron handguns and small bronze cannon would be game changers when used against other societies in antiquity, not to mention using it in grenades and rockets. It would turn an already efficient and frightening army into a terrifying force. No doubt, but that wasn't my question. Once again: was Roman metalworking up to the task of casting bronze cannon or making iron handguns?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:No doubt, but that wasn't my question. Once again: was Roman metalworking up to the task of casting bronze cannon or making iron handguns? I don't know, but if they'd had gunpowder they would've figured it out eventually, I'm sure. They didn't really need that sort of technology without it. To paraphrase Scotty, someone had to invent the thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:For more specialized knowledge, I can't think of anything better than giving the Romans gunpowder. Better if you want the Romans to annihilate everyone, anyway. That's probably the most useful technology that they actually would've been able to do something with given their other technical skills.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:No doubt, but that wasn't my question. Once again: was Roman metalworking up to the task of casting bronze cannon or making iron handguns? The original barrels for guns and cannon were wrought iron, cast iron, and cast bronze. The Romans had iron and bronze, and knew what casting was. Given gunpower, they could have made pretty similar versions of the earliest gunpowder weapons. The problem would be mass production, as while they had lots of metal, they did not have it in the quantities of 1400's europe after all of the other advances in mining and metallurgy and such.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
Think about what possibilities gunpowder opens up in sieges. You don't need canons. You can undermine walls, and instead torching the beams, you blow that poo poo up. Or fling barrel with it over the walls.Kopijeger posted:No doubt, but that wasn't my question. Once again: was Roman metalworking up to the task of casting bronze cannon or making iron handguns? Have you seen early handguns? They're just a stick with some lovely short barrel on it. Casting large, flawless objects is another story.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Have you seen early handguns? They're just a stick with some lovely short barrel on it. Casting large, flawless objects is another story. Yeah, that's why I am limiting my statement to the early guns. Without knowing more about the metallurgy needed, I do not want to claim anything else, but the Romans definitely had the tech to make versions of the earliest stuff, and maybe could have figured out a few of the later developments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
You know, I'm thinking of some of the larger bronze statues that I've seen. The skill that it takes to cast something like that is considerable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
I imagine the Romans could have made excellent use of primitive hand grenades, and given their boner for gigantic engineering projects I'm sure they'd have applied it to demolition ASAP. Dunno anything about the metallurgy for guns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
I'm sure I'm saying something stupid, but bronze and brass cannon were used for a very long time, and as far as I know, bronze is not AS complicated as steel, and more impurities and such can we worked out of it with less technology needed. Gunmetal is bronze and was used until not all that long ago, the Romans could have done a hell of a lot with bronze if they had gunpowder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
I may be oversimplifying but I figure having a reason to cast cannons would lead to you figuring out how to cast cannons. They had no reason to develop such technology, so they didn't. Incendiary grenades were a known technology at the time, it wouldn't have taken much to figure out explosive ones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
A still would probably be an average modern person's best bet for getting rich at any time prior to its actual invention. New and exotic booze is almost always a solid product.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
It's been mentioned a lot in the thread but where did the Romans' obsession for cleanliness come from? I was really surprised by the earlier mentions of having running water near the waste areas so as to cleanse oneself and that they were told to bathe every day is surprising given that other cultures didn't follow suit in that time period.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:A still would probably be an average modern person's best bet for getting rich at any time prior to its actual invention. New and exotic booze is almost always a solid product. And then introduce proper bookkeeping, Arabic numerals, and semaphore telegraphy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
One area of advancement that I think often gets missed in these types of discussions is art and culture. A contemporary educated person has a wealth of knowledge when it comes to things like art, music, or drama. Citizens of ancient civilizations would definitely appreciate the novelty of realist art, a six-string guitar, or costumed soap opera. And while our hobbies may not be big moneymakers in our contemporary economy, there's plenty of people out there with casual experience in things like glassblowing, woodworking, or pottery, that could have significant impacts on the ancient world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Kaal posted:One area of advancement that I think often gets missed in these types of discussions is art and culture. A contemporary educated person has a wealth of knowledge when it comes to things like art, music, or drama. Citizens of ancient civilizations would definitely appreciate the novelty of realist art, a six-string guitar, or costumed soap opera. And while our hobbies may not be big moneymakers in our contemporary economy, there's plenty of people out there with casual experience in things like glassblowing, woodworking, or pottery, that could have significant impacts on the ancient world. Those things get missed because the ancients were conflicted about the "untrue" nature of acting and the low-class nature of artists in general. Skill in woodworking or glassblowing would put a modern person in "won't die of starvation" territory, but working conditions were far worse than today, and on top of that, those skills were more common (and therefore less special) than they are today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
But that's not really true at all? I mean some Roman traditionalist elites thought actors were too lowbrow, sure, but there's plenty of populist Romans who didn't feel that way, and plenty of civilized cultures that didn't have a taboo about actors (like, say, Greece or China). And anyone who could introduce a culture to things like contrasting art genres, special effects theatre, or resonating instruments is going to find patronage pretty easily. Similarly, the idea that there haven't been significant advances in artisanal crafting in the last 2,000 years is absurd, and mainly speaks to a lack of interest/awareness in disciplines outside big-T Engineering Technology. There's more to societal advancement than bridge-making and war machines. Sure introducing microbrewing or frame-construction isn't as sexy as handing out arquebuses, but that doesn't make them any less impactful. edit: It goes back to the old idea of a sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic. If you showed a 3rd century Roman a Cessna they'd be pretty doubtful about it, but if you showed them a Conestoga Wagon they'd be all over it and want to buy them by the score. Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Jun 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Kaal posted:But that's not really true at all? I mean some Roman traditionalist elites thought actors were too lowbrow, sure, but there's plenty of populist Romans who didn't feel that way, and plenty of civilized cultures that didn't have a taboo about actors (like, say, Greece or China). And anyone who could introduce a culture to things like contrasting art genres, special effects theatre, or resonating instruments is going to find patronage pretty easily. Similarly, the idea that there haven't been significant advances in artisanal crafting in the last 2,000 years is absurd, and mainly speaks to a lack of interest/awareness in disciplines outside big-T Engineering Technology. There's more to societal advancement than bridge-making and war machines. Sure introducing microbrewing or frame-construction isn't as sexy as handing out arquebuses, but that doesn't make them any less impactful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Some is, but no, a trained artist today would utterly revolutionize things, the advances over the past six hundred years have been absolutely monumental. And on the whole I think you guys are grossly underestimating just how many stupid little things we take for granted and have had drilled into us these days that would markedly improve life for people in history. I don't know about getting rich, or building planes or internal combustion engines or guns or being able to improve metallurgy enough to actually assemble whatever mechanical poo poo some of us have sperged into our brains, but there definitely are things we know, can do, can make, that would blow 2000 year old people's minds. A moderately intelligent and charismatic person could definitely change things, and probably spin it to get rich if they were determined/ manipulative enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 03:12 |
|
|
After years of reading military history, I remain unconvinced that gunpowder was the game-changer its commonly thought. I think the rise of the organized nation-state had a far more profound impact on society, politics, warfare, and science. That is, had gunpowder never found a modern application in warfare, I think the 1400s to 1700s would have gone largely the same. The Man Who Came Early sounds very interesting. I'll have to pick it up some time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 20:49
|
|
