|
There's a few other cities of a smaller scale that have well preserved ruins. Check out this amphitheater in El-Djem, Tunisia. It's like a mini coliseum.
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 17:38 |
|
|
It's neat that you can go in the centre. The Colosseum in Rome was a let down for that reason, but to be fair I'd never looked at photos of the inside before I went.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Destroying ancient historical sites? I wasn't sure before, but that seals it. ISIS is no good. Obviously ISIS is vile for far more immediate reasons than destroying history, it's just an additional layer to their shittiness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Destroying ancient historical sites? I wasn't sure before, but that seals it. ISIS is no good. Worse than the Protestants, I reckon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 08:07
|
|
|
Mustang posted:There's a few other cities of a smaller scale that have well preserved ruins. Check out this amphitheater in El-Djem, Tunisia. I've been there, about 8 or 9 years ago and its stunningly well preserved. Probably due to all the dry desert sands and whatever secret blend of minerals and spices that also keeps the pyramids a thing after so long. You can go under neath through the cells\rooms and see the special entrance rising platforms, 200AD special effects. Around the edges, where the audience would walk there is loads of graffiti to, ranging from Roman -> Victorian at around which point they decided to stop letting people carve into it. Depending on the current political situation and which passport(s) you hold North Africa has some awesome old Roman stuff kicking around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
Jeoh posted:Worse than the Protestants, I reckon. I'll never forgive the Copts for burning down the Library of Alexandria. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
Yeah there are lots of individual well preserved ruins, and places like Rome itself that have a number spread around, but there aren't very many where it's a whole city more or less unspoiled except by time. One of my professors told a story of going to Palmyra, nobody ever visits it so he was literally the only person there. There weren't guards or anything, you could go wherever. He sat down in the middle of that long street of columns and watched the sun set and stars come out over the city, said it was a totally magical experience.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
As far as science fiction goes, how good is the history in Lest Darkness Fall?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yeah there are lots of individual well preserved ruins, and places like Rome itself that have a number spread around, but there aren't very many where it's a whole city more or less unspoiled except by time. One of my professors told a story of going to Palmyra, nobody ever visits it so he was literally the only person there. There weren't guards or anything, you could go wherever. He sat down in the middle of that long street of columns and watched the sun set and stars come out over the city, said it was a totally magical experience. Nothing last forever, I suppose. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
Regarding Roman plumbing. We know that they had public baths and fountains for general hygiene and convenience, but what about indoor residential plumbing? I know that consul's homes, Nero's palace, and other elites had running water in their homes, but what about the general landed-gentry and wealthy? How common was it for some rich Roman who just bought an old villa to tap into the cities water supply, how was this done, managed, if ever?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Yep, wealthy homes in cities commonly had running water and indoor plumbing. I don't know what the management was, I suspect not much because aqueducts typically supplied more water than the city needed. Even in huge cities like Rome; it had multiple aqueducts but there was plenty of water. Water scarcity is a modern thing, there just weren't enough people back then. I suppose desert cities may have had some sort of rationing, but nowhere that had major cities in the empire was all that dry. They're all along the Mediterranean more or less. I'm sure there was some sort of management but I don't think we have records from the water company or anything. I don't think poorer people's houses had plumbing, they had to go to public latrines and fountains. But there might've been some higher class apartment buildings that offered it as a feature to charge more rent? I'm just speculating but it seems entirely reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I'm sure there was some sort of management but I don't think we have records from the water company or anything. We do, actually! First century. quote:With such an array of indispensable structures carrying so many waters, compare, if you will, the idle Pyramids or the useless, though famous, works of the Greeks! Full translation here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yep, wealthy homes in cities commonly had running water and indoor plumbing. I don't know what the management was, I suspect not much because aqueducts typically supplied more water than the city needed. Even in huge cities like Rome; it had multiple aqueducts but there was plenty of water. Water scarcity is a modern thing, there just weren't enough people back then. I suppose desert cities may have had some sort of rationing, but nowhere that had major cities in the empire was all that dry. They're all along the Mediterranean more or less. I can't track it down right now, but conversely I remember reading that Roman authorities were always having to track down unofficial private taps on the water network. Everyone wanted to run personal pipelines into their houses, but the officials didn't allow it (possibly because of throughput concerns). I think I heard about it in the discussion of Roman lead piping, because that's what was used and private residences were particularly vulnerable to the effects of lead poisoning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
I wouldn't be surprised if people were trying to steal water. You wouldn't be able to charge by usage with a meter or anything, I'd guess they just didn't want people breaking the thing. Maybe you had to pay a yearly tax to have running water? That would be doable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I can't track it down right now, but conversely I remember reading that Roman authorities were always having to track down unofficial private taps on the water network. Everyone wanted to run personal pipelines into their houses, but the officials didn't allow it (possibly because of throughput concerns). I wouldn't be surprised if some of those taps were, erm, e: Way to ruin my own joke. 
my dad fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Oct 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Gaj posted:How common was it for some rich Roman who just bought an old villa to tap into the cities water supply, how was this done, managed, if ever? Adding to what Fromage said (e: and everyone in between his first reply to you and now), management of the distribution of water from aqueducts was a challenge that had to be dealt with. Rich people - particularly in the city, without the possibility of a good independent supply, though country villa owners did it too - could pay to tap an aqueduct with a pipe of a certain breadth and so have water for their house. The power to grant such a tap was pretty quickly brought under personal control of the emperors, under Claudius while he was working on the Claudia and the Novus Anio. Issues included an illegal widening of your tap beyond the amount you'd paid for, and outright tapping without a grant, to the extent that a fine of 100,000 sestertii plus restoration work was levied against offenders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I wouldn't be surprised if people were trying to steal water. You wouldn't be able to charge by usage with a meter or anything, I'd guess they just didn't want people breaking the thing. Maybe you had to pay a yearly tax to have running water? That would be doable. Yearly charge based on the radius of the pipe, it seems. It seems they tried to meter the overall water to find people stealing it, but they didn't really understand fluid dynamics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Welp that's way more than I ever knew about the water system. Neat that records of such little things survived.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:I'll never forgive the Copts for burning down the Library of Alexandria. I've read somewhere that the burning of the librairy was either accidental, or someone misinterpreting orders. Any truth to these claims, or records that explains what happened? It was also my understanding that this had happened when Ceasar took control of Egypt, or around that period. I browsed Wikipedia regarding this, and they speak of 4 events that might be when the librairy was destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Dalael posted:I've read somewhere that the burning of the librairy was either accidental, or someone misinterpreting orders. Any truth to these claims, or records that explains what happened? Nobody's really sure what happened, but part of the library was damaged during Caesar's siege in Alexandria. The actual library itself disappears from history after a roman general burned down part of Alexandria during some riots in the 300's.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
I think it got burned down several times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Christians killing Hypatia is certain at least.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
At the risk of bringing up something that's already been covered: How was legion, auxiliary, and cavalry recruitment handled throughout the Roman era? Say I, Bobbus Dinosaurus, wanted to enlist in the legion. Would I go to the nearest fort and ask to see the commander? Would I simply be conscripted when a war broke out, being dragged from my home by men with swords? Were there recruitment centers? I recall that to go anywhere politically one had to have served in the army: serve with distinguish and acclaim, too. So maybe not everybody got press-ganged into it? edit: I can imagine that it fell in line with economic classes and castes but I'm in the dark with how that would have played out. frogge fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Well, during the Republic until the Marian reforms all land owners had to serve (and non landowners could not serve), had to furnish their own equipment, and didn't get paid. Afterward I'm less sure but they started paying them and you didn't have to have land anymore. Also later on when a group was subjugated they would be required to provide a certain number of soldiers each year, although a lot of people wanted to join because A) being in the army wasn't that dangerous, B) it was one of very few ways to make money if you weren't a skilled laborer, and C) after 25 years (I think) you got citizenship.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
At least for auxiliaries, lots of Western tribes had long traditions of Joe McGaul being a client-dependent of his local aristocrat. That would translate into a share of the harvest, but also into picking up a spear when it was time to go rough up the next tribe over. Mercenary service for the Greeks and Persians had also been a thing for centuries, so it wouldn't be out of the ordinary to see the local lord come by promising loot, pay and some new fangled citizenship stuff. He'd be their officer too in the legions (I think it was only later that Rome started insisting on all Roman leadership?), so it was easily adapted to peoples' usual social structure. I'd be interested to know how it went down in the East, though, with such a different culture. Lots of the cities there had small concessions of independence and alliance with Rome - so I guess it would be dressed up as ~free citizens~ helping their city's allies? Strategic Tea fucked around with this message at 12:10 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Recruitment, and everything else, about the Roman army changed dramatically over the centuries. The system after Marius and through the Empire's peak wasn't much different than a lot of armies today, really: volunteers who signed up for long term service. If you wanted to join, you'd find a recruiter, who'd be traveling around looking for men. Assuming you passed the height and health checks (and maybe a character check?) you were in. You'd get a signing bonus and march off to join your new legion, where you'd go through some basic training before officially joining. If you lived through the 20 years of service, you'd get to retire with a cash bonus or a piece of land. Now, if you were a young aristocrat during the Republic, and needed to start a political career, you probably didn't join the army, officially. Instead, you used family and friends connections, and arranged to serve on the staff of some general. Your duties could be anything he wanted them to be, from running messages (you brought a good horse, right?) to actually getting to command something (if you really, really, really impressed him). Once you'd put in your time, and hopefully gained a little reputation and glory, you'd go back to Rome and stand for election.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Weren't essentially all generals during the Republican period career politicians anyway? Particularly in the early Republic the army was always supposed to be led by the Consuls, while in the late Republic governorships and military commands were still handed out men of political standing; the very title Praetor implies that you're a dude of standing to begin with. Using the word 'General' in the Roman context just seems wrong somehow. On both accounts I guess, given the whole 2000 years of existence thing. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 05:49
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
BurningStone posted:Now, if you were a young aristocrat during the Republic, and needed to start a political career, you probably didn't join the army, officially. Instead, you used family and friends connections, and arranged to serve on the staff of some general. Your duties could be anything he wanted them to be, from running messages (you brought a good horse, right?) to actually getting to command something (if you really, really, really impressed him). Once you'd put in your time, and hopefully gained a little reputation and glory, you'd go back to Rome and stand for election. If you really pissed him off, he'd send you to command a unit in the worst of the fighting. Of course, if you lived, you were a hero. This is how Caesar earned his famous laurels - he commanded a unit of notorious hard-cases in the middle of a siege on the island of Lesbos.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
I cant remember where I read it but I remember reading how young aristocratic Romans would be expected to join as cavalry for a few years somewhere in the 16-20 years age before going back to Rome to continue their political education/career. No idea how right this is since I cant even remember where I read it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 09:09
|
|
|
Goons don't like to talk about Equestrians.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 10:13
|
|
|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:I cant remember where I read it but I remember reading how young aristocratic Romans would be expected to join as cavalry for a few years somewhere in the 16-20 years age before going back to Rome to continue their political education/career. Not really? Like BurningStone said, you probably would need a good horse at one time or another during your time in the military as a young politician-in-training but the tasks you mostly faced would be political/administrative ones unless you were a real hotshot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Was there ever a black roman senator? Iirc there were some Germans inducted senators under Julius Caesar.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Was there ever a black roman senator? Iirc there were some Germans inducted senators under Julius Caesar. There's plenty of attestation to senators out of Africa, including the Severan dynasty. The extent to which some/any of these people were 'black' in whatever sense you mean that is perhaps less secure* but I imagine at least one would fit criteria you're thinking of. *Septimus Severus' busts don't immediately set him apart as being of a different ethnicity to most of the other emperors, for example; on the other hand, the Severan tondo gives him noticeably darker skin than his wife or sons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Was there ever a black roman senator? Iirc there were some Germans inducted senators under Julius Caesar. No way to know for sure, but its totally plausible and probably did happen. The ancient world was not racist in the same way we are now. If a black dude was born in the Empire, he was Roman, and if things worked out right, sure he could be a senator. That's not to claim the Romans were morally superior, they just used different qualities of people to determine who to be discriminatory towards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:No way to know for sure, but its totally plausible and probably did happen. The ancient world was not racist in the same way we are now. If a black dude was born in the Empire, he was Roman, and if things worked out right, sure he could be a senator. That's not to claim the Romans were morally superior, they just used different qualities of people to determine who to be discriminatory towards. If there's 2 things I noticed about history, is that it tends to repeat itself, and people do not really change. I am willing to bet, today's racism may not be /that/ different from what it was back then. People may very well have been citizen of the Empire, it doesn't mean that they were accepted by everyone. Just like 2 people of different race/color/whateverdifference may have been born in the same country today yet still hate the other one's race.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
Dalael posted:If there's 2 things I noticed about history, is that it tends to repeat itself, and people do not really change. See the chain of events that led the Sack of Rome. And all the genocide and imperialism makes them rather squarely racist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
Dalael posted:If there's 2 things I noticed about history, is that it tends to repeat itself, and people do not really change. I do not think anyone here would bet money on no racial discrimination happening, but there is not much evidence of it AFAIK. They were really busy hating non-Romans, slaves, actors, women, people with long hair, people with mustaches, people who wore pants, etc etc etc. BravestOfTheLamps posted:See the chain of events that led the Sack of Rome. By today's use of the word racist that would not really count. The Goths and Vandals were of similar ethnicity to tons of Roman citizens, had the same religion, the same color skin as the majority, and were culturally familiar with them due to serving in the legions. They did horrible things, just with different motivations then the Ku Klux Klan or Hitler. WoodrowSkillson fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:I do not think anyone here would bet money on no racial discrimination happening, but there is not much evidence of it AFAIK. They were really busy hating non-Romans, slaves, actors, women, people with long hair, people with mustaches, people who wore pants, etc etc etc. Yeah, it's more like it does not seem like the colour of your skin was that important, or at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:I do not think anyone here would bet money on no racial discrimination happening, but there is not much evidence of it AFAIK. They were really busy hating non-Romans, slaves, actors, women, people with long hair, people with mustaches, people who wore pants, etc etc etc. Although, during the Gothic war, they did massacre friendly Goths, just to be on the safe side. Which seems like they did have a conception that Gothic-Roman was not the same as "true Roman".
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 17:38 |
|
|
Well today racism means discrimination based on not only skin color but ethnicity and national background so it gets complicated. In my opinion Romans and esp upper class romans were racist as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:57
|
|
