|
Only popular revolts, I should've said. Usually the military things are called civil war but I dunno what, if any, difference there is.
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
Rome didn't really have peasants, if you mean a class of semi-free farmers. They did have lots of slaves and quite a few slave revolts. Edit: unless you're talking about after the 3rd century crisis. Diocletian and Constantine changed things so much I think of them as ending the classical period and starting the early Middle Ages. BurningStone fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Oct 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
So I'm going back through the History of Rome podcasts, and man there's all kinds of little details I'm picking up this time that I missed out on originally. My favorite so far is Vespasian busting up laughing at the genealogy someone made for him linking him back to Heracles. Between him and his kid, Emperor "When you got their peckers in your pocket their hearts and minds will follow" Domitian, the Flavians really were a family of time traveling Lyndon Johnsons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
There were non-slave farmers, but they certainly weren't as big a class as they were in China. Depends the time period too, there were many more at first, but that was the standard society of farmer/citizen/soldiers like the Greeks. Once Rome went imperial and had tons of slaves and farms started turning into big plantations there's not so much. They never go away, but Rome never has a 95% peasant population or anything like that. The differences in civil unrest are interesting though. China has a lot more bottom-up unrest, while Roman tends to be top-down from military leaders (not to say China doesn't have that but it's not a vast majority the way it is in Rome). Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Oct 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:There were non-slave farmers, but they certainly weren't as big a class as they were in China. Depends the time period too, there were many more at first, but that was the standard society of farmer/citizen/soldiers like the Greeks. Once Rome went imperial and had tons of slaves and farms started turning into big plantations there's not so much. They never go away, but Rome never has a 95% peasant population or anything like that. Wouldn't the private farms all be in like Gaul, Spain, and Mauritania and stuff? Seems like all the slaves would be in the grain centers like Sicily or Egypt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
I think actually the traditional Egyptian farming system remained more or less, Egypt was quite independent and slaves probably wouldn't have been as productive. I'm not sure about that but I don't think Egyptian society was much messed with in general, and farms were part of that. Sicily and the North African breadbasket for sure. Sicily was basically one giant slave plantation. And yeah, fringe areas. I'd bet a lot of farms in Britain were much more peasanty, whereas in Italy it was probably all slave. Edit: Actually you know what I forgot, a fair number of the people who joined Spartacus' rebellion were free Roman peasants. That's probably the closest thing to a peasant uprising in the empire's history. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Oct 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
The Goth warband that roamed the Empire under Alaric probably counts too. It started off with just the actual Goths that had crossed into Thrace fleeing the Huns, but constantly picked up new recruits from the countryside as it wandered around. If you were a peasant that had absolutely nothing and a huge group of tough looking guys in trousers and with huge handlebar mustaches dropped into your village, what did you have to lose by joining up with them? Sure, you would basically be contributing to the escalating problem of Mad Max style anarchy that drove you to join them in the first place, but on the other hand, now you get to eat as long as the plundertrain keeps rolling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
History becomes hilarious when you picture the Goths as pale, angst-ridden mall goths in black clothes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
So, the discussion a few pages ago about how Roman the empire was reminded me of a tirade a grad student classmate of mine once went on about a video we were watching which claimed that Roman culture was spread by them building amphitheatres everywhere. He said that it was an outdated idea. I teach high school and I don't have the most in-depth knowledge of modern theories, although I try to keep up. What are some theories that often get treated as true, but are actually disproved?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Fell Fire posted:So, the discussion a few pages ago about how Roman the empire was reminded me of a tirade a grad student classmate of mine once went on about a video we were watching which claimed that Roman culture was spread by them building amphitheatres everywhere. He said that it was an outdated idea. I teach high school and I don't have the most in-depth knowledge of modern theories, although I try to keep up. What are some theories that often get treated as true, but are actually disproved? The ones that come immediately to mind is that Romans used vomitoriums to feast for hours on end by vomiting (it's a mistranslation, a vomitorium is an building exit) and also pretty much everything to do with gladiators.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Fell Fire posted:So, the discussion a few pages ago about how Roman the empire was reminded me of a tirade a grad student classmate of mine once went on about a video we were watching which claimed that Roman culture was spread by them building amphitheatres everywhere. He said that it was an outdated idea. I teach high school and I don't have the most in-depth knowledge of modern theories, although I try to keep up. What are some theories that often get treated as true, but are actually disproved? I'd say just about everything about the decline of the Western Roman Empire also counts. The idea that a bunch of Germans rolled in and kicked the Romans out (or to go back further, that they succeeded because Christianity made the Romans weak) is something we now know to be very untrue. Unfortunately the true political picture is exceedingly muddy, and so there's no easy theory to counter it with. Then of course there's that whole thing where most people seem to think the Roman Empire ended in the 5th Century.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:42
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Fell Fire posted:So, the discussion a few pages ago about how Roman the empire was reminded me of a tirade a grad student classmate of mine once went on about a video we were watching which claimed that Roman culture was spread by them building amphitheatres everywhere. He said that it was an outdated idea. I teach high school and I don't have the most in-depth knowledge of modern theories, although I try to keep up. What are some theories that often get treated as true, but are actually disproved? That the fall of Rome was caused by lead in the water is what immediately springs to mind for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Nope it was conversion to Christianity
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
pretty much any monocausal explanation for the decline of the empire (or any large change, really)
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:That the fall of Rome was caused by lead in the water is what immediately springs to mind for me. "Caused" is a bit strong but it certainly could have contributed to it. Roman skeletons that have been examined have tended to have rather toxic levels of lead in them. What's not known very well is how extensive the lead poisoning was and when. The idea that lead poisoning contributed to leaders making dumb decisions at critical moments which became increasingly difficult to recover from is not completely crazy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Nope it was conversion to Christianity 
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
How are we measuring scientific advancement? Kilo-beakers (non-muslim of course)?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Ron Paul assures me it was due to debasement of their currency. If they had stuck to pure gold, they wouldn't have had any problems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Sure, there was certainly some level of lead in the water - a study earlier this year suggests levels of lead in Roman tap water 100x greater than spring water. But I'm talking about the study from the 1980s that argued very forcefully for lead in the water being the primary cause, which is something I've heard more than a few people say. (That study's one of the main reasons why US gasoline is unleaded.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:Sure, there was certainly some level of lead in the water - a study earlier this year suggests levels of lead in Roman tap water 100x greater than spring water. But I'm talking about the study from the 1980s that argued very forcefully for lead in the water being the primary cause, which is something I've heard more than a few people say. No, US gasoline is unleaded because the EPA mandated NOx and CO levels in car exhaust that could not be met with ordinary means. Reaching those levels required a catalytic converter in the exhaust, which would be ruined by lead. Hence unleaded gasoline became the norm in the 1970s, a decade before the study you're referencing (which was bullshit with regards to the Romans).
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:No, US gasoline is unleaded because the EPA mandated NOx and CO levels in car exhaust that could not be met with ordinary means. Reaching those levels required a catalytic converter in the exhaust, which would be ruined by lead. Well, that makes sense. I remember there still being leaded gas around in the 1980s and maybe early 90s, though. (I might be misremembering; I was a child.) I guess I had the idea that it was completely phased out as a result of concerns brought about by studies like Lead Poisoning in Antiquity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Recent studies have proven that the Western Roman Empire fell due to using notorious language "latin" and no other cause.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:Rome didn't really have peasants, if you mean a class of semi-free farmers. They did have lots of slaves and quite a few slave revolts. There were a few peasant-ish revolts in during the Byzantine years. A lot of the military revolts were prompted by peasant-soldiers losing their lands in the themes, which was problematic since the peasants did have military training (and occasionally would install their claimant). Then the Bulgarian revolt under Michael "The Forger" IV was prompted requiring taxes to be paid in actual coinage, and the only later assumed a more national character once the Bulgarian pretenders joined in the revolt. The revolt that ousted his successor Michael "The Caulker" V was a popular revolt, but centered more in the urban population of Constantinople.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:How are we measuring scientific advancement? Kilo-beakers (non-muslim of course)? Well, you have to specialize your cities to really get the most science production. Build libraries and whatnot in your science cities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
And never build more than 4 cities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Edit: Actually you know what I forgot, a fair number of the people who joined Spartacus' rebellion were free Roman peasants. That's probably the closest thing to a peasant uprising in the empire's history.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
Yes, through out the Roman era there seem to have been plenty of runaway slaves/bankrupt farmers/etc that became bandits. And I am delighted that Michael "The Caulker" existed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Nope! You're forgetting the Bagaudae, peasants in the West who got so squeezed by the Roman system of the 3rd century that they took up arms against it. There's a lot of scholarly debate over who the Bagudae actually were though I think. They may have been angry peasants, or the militias of disloyal noble-types, or both. That's for the late western empire anyway, not sure if that applies during The Crisis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:Yes, through out the Roman era there seem to have been plenty of runaway slaves/bankrupt farmers/etc that became bandits.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:And never build more than 4 cities. This is the ancient history thread. ICS for lyfe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
How did people react to the Christian crackdown on pederasty? I know about the massacre of Thessalonica, but that may have to do with celebrity status of the accused and overarching political conflicts. Ps. Refrain from priest jokes if you can.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
It's not a Roman-centered myth, but it's a Roman-related myth I've seen mentioned time and again but without actual evidence - if Carthage had won the Punic Wars, Humanity would already be on Mars. Same thing with Aztecs/Incas and the Colonization of America - if they hadn't been conquered, modern medicine would be way better. I don't know how to associate A with B though. It's Gay Black Hitler territory to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
Azran posted:It's not a Roman-centered myth, but it's a Roman-related myth I've seen mentioned time and again but without actual evidence - if Carthage had won the Punic Wars, Humanity would already be on Mars. See, I've heard people claim that if Rome hadn't 'fallen', humanity would have been on the moon by the Middle Ages. It's just wild speculation without any evidence and it's contrary to what we know of the Romans and their relationship with technology.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I think actually the traditional Egyptian farming system remained more or less, Egypt was quite independent and slaves probably wouldn't have been as productive. I'm not sure about that but I don't think Egyptian society was much messed with in general, and farms were part of that. Can you go into any detail about the Egyptian farming system? I'm vaguely aware its all tied to the flooding of the Nile and that it gets super fertile, but how did it function? Was it like some weird public garden thing where you farmed X amount of land and gave the priest and what not a cut or was it more systematic? Any particularly humorous or trashy (in the watching jersey shore sense) books on roman stuff? I wish I could give my mother a copy of Lives of Famous Whores as a funny give, but anything a lay person would enjoy. e;Who was it with all the archery chat, I was curious if they had any recommendations for historical bow chat and construction etc. Definitely anything regarding composite doodads from around the world, especially Hungarian and desert stuff. Synnr fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
Azran posted:It's not a Roman-centered myth, but it's a Roman-related myth I've seen mentioned time and again but without actual evidence - if Carthage had won the Punic Wars, Humanity would already be on Mars. I've never heard of Carthage leading us to the stars but had Rome not fallen we'd all be posting from our space legion barracks on the moon in the year 2767 AUC is a pretty common thing. If I recall the Romans didn't really have the natural resource deposits such as metals and their smelting techniques would be considered poor in comparison to the Middle Ages. Non-practical steam engines were designed but there wasn't a way that they could have developed metal materials strong enough to make an actual steam engine necessary to fuel something like an industrial revolution. A good as guess as any as to how science would have advanced without the Western Empire falling would be the advances in Muslim countries up to the Renaissance as they basically retained all the cities and learning infrastructure of half (the good half) of the Roman Empire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I've done a little reading about the end of the Han dynasty and it's like reading a plot synopsis of Game of Thrones. So many disastrous decisions. On the subject of old mistakes I pulled out my Korean history book and realized my post about the opinion of Silla scholars towards Goguryeo was completely wrong. Silla scholars didn't attempt to minimize Goguryeo's association with Korea, but EMPHASIZED their Koreaness. Their objective was to build a teleological case for the wars of Silla and to emphasize the naturalness of the conquest of states and people that prior to unification of the Peninsula probably didn't have that much in common. The author believes Goguryeo was in many ways ethnically and culturally similar to the later Korean people, but also very different, with a strong Tungustic influence. Weird how i read something and literally took away the exact opposite point I was supposed. Teach me to check my sources before I post! Th
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Nope! You're forgetting the Bagaudae, peasants in the West who got so squeezed by the Roman system of the 3rd century that they took up arms against it. I didn't forget because I'd never heard of them before! Interesting. I don't know nearly enough about that period.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 12:07
|
|
|
Synnr posted:Any particularly humorous or trashy (in the watching jersey shore sense) books on roman stuff? I wish I could give my mother a copy of Lives of Famous Whores as a funny give, but anything a lay person would enjoy. She would probably have been bored to tears about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 12:26
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:She would probably have been bored to tears about it. Yeah nobody wants to read a biography of themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:She would probably have been bored to tears about it. She is a big classics nut, maybe not. If nothing else... Grand Fromage posted:Yeah nobody wants to read a biography of themselves. that would have been the joke on the dust jacket.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 13:31
|
|