|
the JJ posted:Okay, it was being held up like it was the final truth that would let us all see the light. I wrote a few sentences on how stupid it was because it was stupid. Stop being so butthurt.
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
the JJ posted:Okay, it was being held up like it was the final truth that would let us all see the light. I wrote a few sentences on how stupid it was because it was stupid. You're being a little rude... Are you ok? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Okay, it was being held up like it was the final truth that would let us all see the light. I wrote a few sentences on how stupid it was because it was stupid. Quit being such a Negative Nero
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:One of the more interesting spices Romans used a lot was long pepper, which is mostly unknown in the west today. It tastes a lot like a citrusy black pepper and is still in common use in South/Southeast Asia. When Romans talk about pepper they're usually referring to long pepper. I remember that from when I was learning about spices a long time ago. It came from Northern Africa didn't it? e: wiki says no, it's from India still and SE asia where regular pepper comes from. Oh well, I thought there was a source of a 'pepper' closer to Rome that was a different species. Fo3 fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
Well, the Romans carried on extensive Indian trade already. They had permanent trading bases in western India and ships went back and forth from the Red Sea to India all the time. I dunno of any source prior to that but India trade wasn't all that exotic to Romans. India being a vastly exotic distant land to Europeans comes later. Remember that a significant part of India was part of the Hellenistic Greek world for centuries. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I'm saying there's a reason that the spice trade drove worldwide exploration and colonization post-Columbus. Right, but that's about things that weren't available in Europe, but what was available in Europe wasn't "salt or nothing".
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:Right, but that's about things that weren't available in Europe, but what was available in Europe wasn't "salt or nothing". Yes, you are correct, I was being a bit hyperbolic. It's not hyperbolic to say that in general people found their food bland. Salt was the most "bang for the buck" as it were - it gave the most flavor for a dish for the least cost and effort. If you were a commoner out in the provinces, your choices were generally salt and whatever you could grow in your own herb garden.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
I agree with you the JJ for what it is worth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:One of the more interesting spices Romans used a lot was long pepper, which is mostly unknown in the west today. It tastes a lot like a citrusy black pepper and is still in common use in South/Southeast Asia. When Romans talk about pepper they're usually referring to long pepper. Didn't someone in this thread say that Romans sometimes used "pepper" to mean spice in general, and that a recipe calling for pepper might mean whatever spices were appropriate to the recipe (which would have been obvious to Roman cooks) rather than pepper specifically?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I agree with you the JJ for what it is worth.  Meh, it's a debate that's come up a bunch, we've had it before with more cogent arguments and people like our dear Big Cheese weighing in. Mostly what annoys me is people get so close to a really important breakthrough in how they think about history (i.e. not the video game model or pointless nationalism) but then double down on the stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
The fall of the Sultan of Rum was the end of the Roman State anyways No not that one the other one
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
the JJ posted:
There's really not a huge fundamental difference between the Constantinople of Theodosius and the Constantinople of Heraclius 200 years later. The "not Rome" line is pretty arbitrary. Hell, Heraclius' predecessor Phocas built a huge monument to himself in the Roman Forum as if he were Trajan or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Why does Leo the Syrian showing up with a big army saying "I am the Emperor now" not represent a break in continuity but when Mehmet does it that's the real break? Just to harp on this one little point, but 'guy uses an army loyal to him to seize political power' is like the most Roman thing anyone can do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:00
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Doesnt that mean that literally every territory that was conquered by barbarians is a Continuation of the True Roman Empire? this is all rather byzantine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:Doesnt that mean that literally every territory that was conquered by barbarians is a Continuation of the True Roman Empire? I've heard this argument, yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
JJ I'm sorry but your arguments are and have always been awful. You veer too far into "everything is everything" territory. GF, have you ever listened to any of the episodes of A History of the World in 100 Objects? It's a podcast/radio show from a few years back, hosted by the director of the British Museum, that tells the story of human history from earliest times to present day by highlighting objects in the collection of that museum. Episode 40 is centered on this elegant lady right here.  That's a silver pepper pot buried with a treasure hoard in southern Britain in the early 5th century, an object that belonged to a very rich Roman family indeed. The episode gives some very nice general information about the subject of Roman consumption of pepper as well. Highly recommended! It's only about 15 minutes long.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Just want to throw in a second recommendation for htat podcast. It's awesome and should be listened to by everyone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Just to harp on this one little point, but 'guy uses an army loyal to him to seize political power' is like the most Roman thing anyone can do. Yup, that's the point I'm making. Patter Song posted:There's really not a huge fundamental difference between the Constantinople of Theodosius and the Constantinople of Heraclius 200 years later. The "not Rome" line is pretty arbitrary. Hell, Heraclius' predecessor Phocas built a huge monument to himself in the Roman Forum as if he were Trajan or something. Which is why I think it's dumb. As far as the 'okay when do we start giving this a new name' goes I'd put it as 'when other people start claiming the title and we have to figure it out.' Agean90 posted:Doesnt that mean that literally every territory that was conquered by barbarians is a Continuation of the True Roman Empire? Not every territory, but you can talk about the continuity of many things; social, economic, political, what have you. When those barbarians derive their legitimacy to rule from the title of Dux and the divine rights entrusted to them by the Roman Catholic church... yeah. cheerfullydrab posted:JJ I'm sorry but your arguments are and have always been awful. You veer too far into "everything is everything" territory. Not everything, certainly. But I have yet to see someone point to a good place to say this is this and that is that which can be universally applied. Some people in here want to talk about minting, some people want to talk about the continuity of a polity but then why isn't Charlemagne a legitimate 'Roman Emperor' when Michael Palaiologos is. End of the say any periodization and classification is going to be both necessary but also necessarily poo poo. I think you can get a lot of productive conversation about these sorts of debates but determining a final answer on "the True Rome" is not going to be one of them. Partly, again, because the True Rome is an important concept to the people we're studying but it really shouldn't be for any historian trying to do actual history. *various usurpations, monarchical death, poo poo like the Diocletian/Constantine/Julian reorganizations aside.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
So Rome is essentially the Ship of Theseus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
What is Rome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
homullus posted:So Rome is essentially the Ship of Theseus. Yeah, only a bunch of people nicked a bunch of bits and built their own ships and now we're all arguing over whose ship is the original.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
I'd like to request pictures about architecture and how people lived in antiquity. City maps, floor plans, those cut-away schematics from children's books, stuff that gives a more complete picture of a building and life inside it than a photograph of some ruined pillars. How were the rooms laid out? What were they for? How were city districts laid out? Doesn't matter if it's palaces or hovels, or whether it's Greek or Roman or Egyptian or Assyrian or whatever, it's all interesting. Though I'm especially interested in places and buildings that people lived and worked in. I'm less interested in temples, unless they have something more interesting going on than a big room with an altar at one end, like living quarters for priests or libraries or self contained monastery style temple complexes or something. Edit: Also, if you have links to any of those cool Google street view like interactive tours of some palace or ruins or something. Oo Koo fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Not everything, certainly. But I have yet to see someone point to a good place to say this is this and that is that which can be universally applied. Some people in here want to talk about minting, some people want to talk about the continuity of a polity but then why isn't Charlemagne a legitimate 'Roman Emperor' when Michael Palaiologos is. End of the say any periodization and classification is going to be both necessary but also necessarily poo poo. I think you can get a lot of productive conversation about these sorts of debates but determining a final answer on "the True Rome" is not going to be one of them. Partly, again, because the True Rome is an important concept to the people we're studying but it really shouldn't be for any historian trying to do actual history. Because there was four centuries between the last recognized emperor in the west and the arrival of Charlemagne. And Charlemagne's 'Romanitas' is based on a claim to have been crowned by the Bishop of Rome, who had no authority to do such a thing anyway. Meanwhile in the East you have an effectively unbroken line of political continuity. Sure there's coups, but Rome has that all over the place anyway. The point where it really gets muddy in the east is 1204, but even the continuity there is clear. I'm not saying Charlemagne or Baldwin or Mehmed's claim to Roman authority are completely illegitimate, or that a Palaiologos has some special divine-right-esque claim to authority. It's just that those polities headed by the three former men are clearly distinct from the Roman state of old, while the one headed by Alexios Angelos and Constantine Palaiologos is pretty clearly the same one once headed by Augustus and Diocletian. Literally the only reason I think the distinction is important is so that the right name can be written on maps. I assure you I don't feel this way for any nationalistic reasons. homullus posted:So Rome is essentially the Ship of Theseus. Pretty much. I personally think the Ship of Theseus is the same ship as it once was, while the replica built later is a different ship. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Oo Koo posted:I'd like to request pictures about architecture and how people lived in antiquity. City maps, floor plans, those cut-away schematics from children's books, stuff that gives a more complete picture of a building and life inside it than a photograph of some ruined pillars. How were the rooms laid out? What were they for? How were city districts laid out? Doesn't matter if it's palaces or hovels, or whether it's Greek or Roman or Egyptian or Assyrian or whatever, it's all interesting. Though I'm especially interested in places and buildings that people lived and worked in. I'm less interested in temples, unless they have something more interesting going on than a big room with an altar at one end, like living quarters for priests or libraries or self contained monastery style temple complexes or something. You can get everything you're describing with a google image search for "Roman Villa Floorplan." Substitute "roman" and "villa" for whatever culture and building type you want. Thus concludes basic internet research 101 for today, tomorrow we will discuss "porn: finding what you want, avoiding what you can't unsee." edit: if you click on the images many of them are parts of articles or discussions that may interest you as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Why did togas/robes fall out of style? Togas seem much more comfy than pants. What I'm saying is BRING BACK TOGAS
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
they look mad dumb and fall off all the time
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:Why did togas/robes fall out of style? Togas seem much more comfy than pants. What I'm saying is BRING BACK TOGAS If you live in a cold place, or a place that gets cold, pants are a much warmer option than a skirted garment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
euphronius posted:What is Rome. A miserable pile of salted fish.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Koramei posted:they look mad dumb and fall off all the time Nuh uh. Pants are super ugly. Mad Hamish posted:If you live in a cold place, or a place that gets cold, pants are a much warmer option than a skirted garment. Why not wear legging under skirts like women do?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:You can get everything you're describing with a google image search for "Roman Villa Floorplan." The signal to noise ratio is pretty bad on that method if you don't know which archaeology or civilization specific terms, like latin room names, you can use to narrow down the search. You tend to get a lot of ruin photos, videogame screenshots, tabletop RPG maps, random hotel and rich people dream house floorplans and other cruft. I thought that someone who knew something about what they were searching for could get more focused results than my random flailing and maybe provide some insightful commentary on what makes that particular picture interesting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:Why not wear legging under skirts like women do? So, basically pants? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Jaramin posted:So, basically pants? loving barbarian
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Koramei posted:they look mad dumb and fall off all the time That's what your slaves are for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Because there was four centuries between the last recognized emperor in the west and the arrival of Charlemagne. And Charlemagne's 'Romanitas' is based on a claim to have been crowned by the Bishop of Rome, who had no authority to do such a thing anyway. Meanwhile in the East you have an effectively unbroken line of political continuity. Sure there's coups, but Rome has that all over the place anyway. The point where it really gets muddy in the east is 1204, but even the continuity there is clear. Jaramin posted:I'm pretty sure 80% of the human population doesn't even know the Byzantine polity ever even existed. Far more definitely know about the Roman Empire at its height, so when they are told "The Byzantines were Roman" they're skeptical. I honestly believe more people would know about the later Romans if the old-school narrative of a toga-wearing, Latin-speaking, classical Roman Empire that was cleared away from the Earth in 476 didn't exist. Getting people to recognize the continuity is very important.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
In the end, all the actions at Marathon and Thermopylae were for nothing. The Persian trousers won, and the Greeks sleep with their chitons in their graves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
hosed up how there are many so-called "Christians" but no one wants to pick up Jesus's pantsless cross I believe Jesus said, "truly I say that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than for a pants-wearing man to get into Heaven"
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Koramei posted:they look mad dumb and fall off all the time I wish I could remember the citation, but I think this actually happened to a war veteran giving a speech in the Senate (or something similar). I want to say it was somewhere in Livy, but that doesn't even narrow it down much. Everyone was laughing at the wardrobe malfunction, but then he pointed out what were presumably really nasty-looking scars from the war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Because there was four centuries between the last recognized emperor in the west and the arrival of Charlemagne. By whom? And what do you consider too long a break? And while the office of Emperor hadn't been filled everyone was speaking Latin, bowing to Dux's, and praying to the same God they'd prayed to in the same city when that office had been filled. quote:And Charlemagne's 'Romanitas' is based on a claim to have been crowned by the Bishop of Rome, who had no authority to do such a thing anyway. Meanwhile in the East you have an effectively unbroken line of political continuity. Sure there's coups, but Rome has that all over the place anyway. quote:The point where it really gets muddy in the east is 1204, but even the continuity there is clear. Make it clear for me. quote:I'm not saying Charlemagne or Baldwin or Mehmed's claim to Roman authority are completely illegitimate, or that a Palaiologos has some special divine-right-esque claim to authority. It's just that those polities headed by the three former men are clearly distinct from the Roman state of old, while the one headed by Alexios Angelos and Constantine Palaiologos is pretty clearly the same one once headed by Augustus and Diocletian. I disagree. You just say 'pretty clearly' and I don't see the clarity. quote:Literally the only reason I think the distinction is important is so that the right name can be written on maps. I assure you I don't feel this way for any nationalistic reasons.  Poor excuse for bad historiography.quote:Pretty much. I personally think the Ship of Theseus is the same ship as it once was, while the replica built later is a different ship. I'm picturing a boat that expands out and gets turned into a catamaran at some point, only the 'original' hull gets mulched while the add on (made, to be fair, with a number of bits from the original) carries on, and after a while people tie the splinters of the first one back into a rough semblance of a boat only along the way some dudes on horse back hopped on a raft that these desert nomads had made from the cast offs of the second half of the catamaran and then they started stealing planks off that second bit until they had a boat of their own, so the people on the second bit were like whoa and tried to get help from the people on the second bit (a fair number of whom, to be fair, were stowaways, but that's okay because the people on the second half of the catamaran were originally people the first boat had picked up before they made it a catamaran) and then the people on the first bit tried to steal the second bit (at the time it was a nicer boat) on their way to grabbing one of the bits that the other guys had nicked because that bit had sentimental value, they'd found a chill dude on that bit of driftwood but no one really remembered how chill he was until they'd already killed him. Then the guys who were making a new boat out of the second boat stole the last plank. Something like that. Now that's not as neat a story, but it's more accurate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
I'm happy with ditching the post-1204 empire, okay, why not. That's the only bit of your argument that has any truth to it at all. The rest is total garbage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
1204 is as good a point as any. The Nicaean state is clearly a revivalist effort.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 00:09
|
|