|
the JJ posted:Okay, so there's a very Persian poet who called himself 'the Roman' because he lived in Rome. This one? quote:Jalāl ad-Dīn Muḥammad Balkhī, also known as Jalāl ad-Dīn Muḥammad Rūmī, and popularly known as Mowlānā but known to the English-speaking world simply as Rumi, (30 September 1207 – 17 December 1273), was a 13th-century Persian poet, jurist, theologian, and mystic. Rūmī is a descriptive name meaning “the Roman” since he lived most of his life in an area called Rūm because it was once ruled by the Byzantine Empire.
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:18 |
|
|
the JJ posted:
China does actually claim that the Yuan dynasty is a legitimate Chinese dynasty, despite being, you know, Mongol invaders. I've heard some things where they claim that Ghengis Khan was also Chinese because what is and what isn't Chinese changes based on what makes China look good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:This one? Rome by what definition? This is my point. Don Gato posted:China does actually claim that the Yuan dynasty is a legitimate Chinese dynasty, despite being, you know, Mongol invaders. I've heard some things where they claim that Ghengis Khan was also Chinese because what is and what isn't Chinese changes based on what makes China look good. Yeah. They Yuan also claimed they were legitimate Chinese emperors because their definition of 'gently caress you we're the loving Mongols.' Per the Qin, Tang, Manchu, various other 'not official' dynasties, that's sort of how you do it. But I'm referring more specifically to the legacy of the Mongols as a whole. No one (serious) is going out there and saying 'grah, Timur is totally illegitimate' or 'the Ilkhanate should be call Mongolia because it's the real one, calling the Illkhanate besmirches this legacy' or 'lol the Mughals called themselves 'Mongols' what a joke' or what have you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Rome by what definition? This is my point. Specifically Berke Negri posted:The fall of the Sultan of Rum was the end of the Roman State anyways
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:China does actually claim that the Yuan dynasty is a legitimate Chinese dynasty, despite being, you know, Mongol invaders. I've heard some things where they claim that Ghengis Khan was also Chinese because what is and what isn't Chinese changes based on what makes China look good. What they actually claim is that the Mongols were in fact Chinese, so they can claim the legacy of the Yuan dynasty as having conquered half the world. If you say they don't get to do that because the Mongols weren't Chinese, then it's not a real dynasty anymore
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Just finished the first of the Marcus Didius Falco stories. It left me wondering if there were actually people like Falco in the days of the Roman Empire post-Augustus (the books are set in the 70s with Vespasian and Co. wearing the purple, so the current Caesar is about as competent at being an emperor as you're likely to find) who said they wanted a republic again. Were there, or more specifically, are there actual people like that who we know about?
Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Nov 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
I don't see how the Chinese dynasty canon sheds light on the problem of legacy. It's just as contentious and arbitrary as the Romes really. Why Sui but not Former Jin? Why Southern Song but not Northern Jin? And identity is another thing entirely; Chinese-ness was just as fluid across ethnicity as Roman-ness. But ideas of ethnicity and identity have changed over time. So questions like "was Kubulai Chinese" is different from "were the Mongols chinese" and both those questions have different answers over time as the observer's concept of identity changes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:What they actually claim is that the Mongols were in fact Chinese, so they can claim the legacy of the Yuan dynasty as having conquered half the world. If you say they don't get to do that because the Mongols weren't Chinese, then it's not a real dynasty anymore But Chinese by that point is barely Chinese. The Mongol's had a four tiered hierarchy of Mongols->Foreigners (Arabs, Persians, Europeans)-> Northern Chinese (who had been under steppe rule (albeit very Sinized steppe rule...) for quite a while) -> Southern Chinese. Not that both the Northern and Southern 'Chinese' hadn't been ruled by the Tang forever... It's almost like these whole continuity things are pretty complicated. Fake edit: Argle beat me to it. Yeah, the 'canon' dynasty order is pretty poo poo, news at eleven. It's a shame because the period of the Southern Song (when you get all these bits poking around up north as well) gets super interesting. Oh! And my favorite: (some) Korean nationalists like to point out that they're the real China because the Manchu's are dirty barbarians. They did have a sort of 'last bastion of civilization' thing running post-Ming.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Just finished the first of the Marcus Didius Falco stories. It left me wondering if there were actually people like Falco in the days of the Roman Empire post-Augustus (the books are set in the 70s with Vespasian and Co. wearing the purple, so the current Caesar is about as competent at being an emperor as you're likely to find) who said they wanted a republic again. Were there, or more specifically, are there actual people like that who we know about? Republic nostalgia of a sort was a thing, but mostly in the Senate in the "things were better when we were running the show" way rather than any serious drive. If J.J. wanted a new rant, he could pick how the word Respublica was used to refer to the Roman state well into the Byzantine era.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Can you recommend a book on Caligula?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I don't see how the Chinese dynasty canon sheds light on the problem of legacy. It's just as contentious and arbitrary as the Romes really. Why Sui but not Former Jin? Why Southern Song but not Northern Jin? I don't think it does, just another interesting example of a number of different states of varying origins over the ages all claiming to be Legitimate Real China and trying to figure out what, if any, value there is to it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Just finished the first of the Marcus Didius Falco stories. It left me wondering if there were actually people like Falco in the days of the Roman Empire post-Augustus (the books are set in the 70s with Vespasian and Co. wearing the purple, so the current Caesar is about as competent at being an emperor as you're likely to find) who said they wanted a republic again. Were there, or more specifically, are there actual people like that who we know about? It probably wasn't an uncommon sentiment among ambitious members of the upper classes, since they were the ones who lost out. For instance, the historian Tacitus, who died around 117, has a critical view of the Empire and criticizes the Senators in the days of Augustus for rushing headlong into servitude, giving up liberty, and so on. He also compares the Germans of Augustus' era as being a more free people than the Romans, with the implication that if things were that bad when people were just getting used to the rule of the Emperors, imagine what it's like now. Suetonius, who wrote a biography of Julius Caesar and the first eleven Emperors, is (in my view) also critical of the situation, though his critique is more along the lines of observing what happens to a guy who gets absolute power rather than a political one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
euphronius posted:What is Rome. Rome is a state of mind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
No. I'm
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Did Rome even have modern-style serial killers? Locusta?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
The Senate did get back into brief power a time or two during the early empire. Read the story of Maximinus Thrax, the Gordians, and Pupienus and Balbinus for a fun example of the Senate doing their best to screw everything up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:The Senate did get back into brief power a time or two during the early empire. Read the story of Maximinus Thrax, the Gordians, and Pupienus and Balbinus for a fun example of the Senate doing their best to screw everything up. The fates the Gordians suffered always make me sad.  :
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:The Senate did get back into brief power a time or two during the early empire. Read the story of Maximinus Thrax, the Gordians, and Pupienus and Balbinus for a fun example of the Senate doing their best to screw everything up. The Senate also came back into its own after the emperor in the West was deposed, and Pope Symmachus was elected with the backing of the Roman Senate against the will of both the gothic king and the eastern emperor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Why did they keep the senate around, even in the east, for many centuries after it stopped having any power?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Why did they keep the senate around, even in the east, for many centuries after it stopped having any power? Patronage networks and the vanity of old men.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Why did they keep the senate around, even in the east, for many centuries after it stopped having any power? Also, human's are weird, man.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
Origin posted:Patronage networks and the vanity of old men. Tradition can be tough to break too. Why does the British parliament still have a House of Lords? Kind of the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Canada has a Senate that's also just for show.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Why does the British parliament still have a House of Lords? The original function of the Lords has decayed, especially since the hereditary Peers lost their right to a seat, but it's adapted and evolved to take on new uses. It remains an active and powerful part of Parliament, far more than a vestigial rump to be dismissed as merely traditional.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Upper houses with power only really make sense in the context of a federal government where the members are elected by the state/provincial legislatures. After the US got rid of that with the 17th Amendment the only countries I'm aware of that work like that are Germany and Austria  . I don't see much point in having on besides, it only serves to make it harder for the government to operate
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Upper houses with power only really make sense in the context of a federal government where the members are elected by the state/provincial legislatures. After the US got rid of that with the 17th Amendment the only countries I'm aware of that work like that are Germany and Austria. I don't see much point in having a body that can only delay legislation, or even worse, actually block it, but is separate from the lower house It makes it so that populist sweeping reforms can't completely overhaul the system every two years
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Upper houses with power only really make sense in the context of a federal government where the members are elected by the state/provincial legislatures. After the US got rid of that with the 17th Amendment the only countries I'm aware of that work like that are Germany and Austria They work pretty great in most of the individual states. Especially since it was ruled that state upper and lower houses had to have equal population representation rather than regional representation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
Speaking of transitioning, does anyone know what happens to all the quasi-religious offices that existed in Roman government? Do they kind of just fade away or what? I'm thinking of all the stuff that young men would go into as stepping stones into a political career. By the time the Empire becomes Christian it seems like they're just kind of never mentioned anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
You mean the College of Pontiffs? By the time Christianity became the state religion the Cursus honorum was pretty irrelevant. The title of Pontiff in particular pretty much came to be synonymous with "bishop," it is still one the Pope carries though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
Jaramin posted:You mean the College of Pontiffs? By the time Christianity became the state religion the Cursus honorum was pretty irrelevant. The title of Pontiff in particular pretty much came to be synonymous with "bishop," it is still one the Pope carries though. It sort of still exists in the College of Cardinals. The Pope is Pontifex Maximus
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
The Roman Catholic church is in some ways a surviving remnant of the Roman government. I don't know enough about the Eastern Orthodox church to say if it is similarly an outgrowth of the Roman state or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 11:23
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:Just to be clear, I'm talking about identify, not nationalism. A "German" in 1 AD would have identified himself with a tribe, not a nation, and certainly not as a German. I would say that, considering there are no Germans in 1 AD. (Not even Germanics, that was the Roman identification for the people living there, not what the Germanic tribes called themselves.) On that order, time for the next chapter of Arminius' War: Chapter 04: In Which the Rhine gets Crossed It's 55 BC, Julius Caesar is still in the process of conquering Gaul, but pesky Germanics make this hard by always trying to settle/fight on the wrong side of the Rhine. So Caesar did something about it. Since the Sugambrer weren't stupid, they didn't try to fight the Roman army which had just annihilated hundred-thousands of people. The Sugambrer retreated with everyone deeper into their lands and Caesar, not being dumb either, didn't even try to aimlessly march around the woods trying to find them again. He burned down empty houses and villages and eighteen days later, he left again and marched back over the Rhine. The impressive bridge at what is today near the city of Bonn and which was ordered built by the proconsul himself at his first crossing as a symbol of Rome's might was torn down again. Presumably the wasted effort of his incursion really ticked Caesar off. For two years, the Germanics were left alone. But then the Germanics just couldn't help themselves: The Gaulish tribe of the Treverers recruited Germanic mercenaries to fight the Romans. Caesar immediately rushed back over the Rhine, at the Neuwieder basin. The Suebi and their allies, freshly arrived on Caesar's shitlist, retreated deeper into their own lands and again Caesar didn't take the bait and just burned down empty villages and fields. To make a sign he was prepared to come back, this time he didn't break down all of the bridge. Instead he just demolished a small part just short of the eastern bank and had a huge, threatening tower build on that end, looming over the Germanics living close by. But not everything was doom and gloom with Caesar: He relatively soon noticed he couldn't just stem the tide of an entire people all alone, so he tried to direct the migration movements a bit. The Ubier, mentioned back in Chapter 3, were actually given Roman protection against the Suebi, another Germanic tribe raiding them from the interior of the Germanic lands. And even though he had no qualms in slaughtering them all, he also gave the Usipeters and Tenkterers the opportunity to settle among the Ubiers, hoping to strengthen them. After Caesar the Ubier even got the permission of Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, another famous Roman, to settle in the lands of the Eburons, a people living west of the Rhine which had been systematically exterminated by Caesar years earlier. Agrippa suddenly turned up at the Rhine about ten years after Caesar's adventures in Germania. There was unrest in Gaul and of course, the unrest had attracted Germanic mercenaries yet again. In either 39 or 38 BC, Agrippa was the second Roman military leader forced to cross the Rhine to deal with this poo poo. Next time, we will take a closer look at the Roman armies and we will learn about Marcus Lollius, a Roman legate who will then demonstrate to us what happens when the Germanic tribes don't just retreat. Also he will make Caesar and Agrippa seem that much better at their jobs in contrast. Crosspost in the military history thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 14:04
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The Roman Catholic church is in some ways a surviving remnant of the Roman government. I don't know enough about the Eastern Orthodox church to say if it is similarly an outgrowth of the Roman state or not. It's odd. It's decentralized, so the bishop of a place is the top ecclesiastical figure. He can only be challenged by a synod of bishops or a patriarch. So there is no grand centralized church apparatus. People say that St. John Chrysostom's liturgy is based on Byzantine court ritual, but I think it's a chicken and egg thing
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Keep those comming!  Always a blast to read!From my limited knowledge of Rome, it seems to me that once Gaul was pacified, it was a relatively calm province compared to others. I often read about a bunch of rebellions here and there, but Gaul didn't seem to go through that crap nearly as much as other provinces. I assume it has its share of malcontent, but am I right to assume that it was relatively peaceful for a long time?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The Roman Catholic church is in some ways a surviving remnant of the Roman government. I don't know enough about the Eastern Orthodox church to say if it is similarly an outgrowth of the Roman state or not. Depending on your feelings of the Greek Church under Ottoman rule yes, I would say they qualify just as much. Really if the Roman Catholic Church can claim ties the Greek Orthodox are probably just as legitimate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 08:37
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Depending on your feelings of the Greek Church under Ottoman rule yes, I would say they qualify just as much. The Bishop of Rome took over the city government as the Imperial army/social influence gradually removed itself from the city. Nothing like that happened with the Orthodox Church. The Roman church isn't claiming ties itself actually- it just kept trucking when everyone else left (and is still going).
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
Obliterati posted:It's not uncommon in the Ancient world for rulers to try and 'erase' predecessors like this, especially if their own ascent is on shaky foundations. My favourite example is Hatshepsut, the female Pharaoh: her son and successor  Context: Thutmose II died in 1497, leaving his Great Royal Wife/Sister Hatshepsut as regent for his son, Thutmose III (2 yr. old at the time). Thutmose III ruled as king from 1479-1425 and Hatshepsut ruled as king from 1479-1458 (21 years). Hatshesput made herself co-regent [of Egypt] when Thutmose III was 3 or 4 and eventually pharaoh - Hatshepsut was the first Egyptian female to rule in her own right. During their co-reign, Hatshepsut served as senior king (depicted forward of Thutmose III in their shared art), while Thutmose III was her junior and, rather successfully, commanded the military. Hatshepsut was not Thutmose III's mother - he was her nephew and the son of Thutmose II and a lesser wife, Iset. Okay, technically, Thutmose III was her stepson. However, upon Hatshepsut's death there was no question of Thutmose III's succession. The only 'shaky foundations' were perhaps from the phenomenon of previously having a female king. Obliterati posted:he destroys a bunch of her obelisks and literally chisels her name out of genealogical/pharonic records in tombs and the like. Removing a previous ruler from memory also allows you to point at their accomplishments and claim them for yourself. Actually, in almost every instance of Thutmose III carving over Hatshepsut's cartouches, he replaced it with his father, Thutmose II's, cartouche and rarely with his grandfather's, Thutmose I. Therefore, he could claim those accomplishments and monuments as part of his legitimate heritage. See: Raised representations at Inner Anubis Chapel, Hathor Chapel at Deir el-Bahri, and sunk-relief representations on the walls of the Chaelle Rouge at Karnak. Thutmose III's proscriptions weren't a damnatio memoriae. Rather, he sought to erase the memory of her as king. He left alone most, if not all, statues of her depicted prior to her ascension, e.g. as Thutmose II's Great Royal Wife/Queen/Sister. This was because her statuary prior to her ascension depicted her as female, whereas after her ascension her monuments depicted her as a man. Prior to 1449, emptying of some of Hatshepsut's temples/statuary occurred, but without destruction of the statuary - 2 instances of her name being erased occurred, iirc. Between 1449 and 1438, year 30 and 42 of Thutmose III's reign respectively, the destruction at Deir el-Bahri occurred, which consisted of the removal of the uraeus from her crowns, smashing to pieces of statues and and more limited erasure of her name (discussed further below). The remnants were all dumped in two locations, Senemut's Quarry & Hatshepsut's Hole. In his 42nd regnal year, Thutmose III ordered the systematic erasure of her name from statues, etc. - this was 20 years after her death - so it seems unlikely he was doing this out of spite. As the public stage of Egyptian politics was the temple, one possible reason for his destruction of Hatshepsut's memory as king was in response to a royal power struggle. One theory is that Thutmose III's son, Amenhotep II's, ascension was unsure as a result of Thutmose III's intended heir & Amenhotep II's older brother Amenemhat dying in 1455 and that supporting a succession dispute between the Thutmoside & Ahmoside bloodlines. The Ahmoside line wanted a scion of their family to be crowned, which challenged Thutmose III and his heir. The Ahmoside line was claiming legitimacy through Hatshepsut, as Hatshepsut's mother & Thutmose I's Great Royal Wife, Queen Ahmose, was an Ahmoside. This theory is supported by evidence that erasures of Hatshepsut's name were originally limited to 'Maat' from her name 'Maatkare', Maat being the goddess of justice, right order, balance, etc. By removing this component, Thutmose III discredits/called into question her legitimacy, and thus that of the Ahmosides. The main arguments against this is that there is no proof there was a contender from the Ahmoside bloodline seeking the crown and whether or not this distinction actually mattered at the time. Another possibility is that this was just an attempt to erase evidence that the phenomenon of a female king ever occurred, although prior instances of female regents, albeit not pharaohs/kings, are known. It's pretty late & i'm super tired, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 11:25
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Keep those comming! That depends on how you define "long" and "peaceful". We have a lot of Roman sources talking about how peaceful the conquered province Germania was and we'll see how well that goes in a few chapters. (I know next to nothing about Gaul, since I guess knowledge gained from Asterix-comics won't count here.) It even gets more retarded when there are suddenly two provinces Germania and then the Romans claim they've pacified both, anyhow.  But this is all in the future right now. We still have 38/39 BC right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Old Hatshepsut chat To be honest you seem like you know more about this than me? If we're using damnatio memoriae this specifically then yeah, fair enough. quote:Another possibility is that this was just an attempt to erase evidence that the phenomenon of a female king ever occurred, although prior instances of female regents, albeit not pharaohs/kings, are known. Ultimately all I was going for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:18 |
|
|
Obliterati posted:To be honest you seem like you know more about this than me? If we're using damnatio memoriae this specifically then yeah, fair enough. Yeah, I remembered seeing your post a while back and now that I have access to my books again, I decided to sperg a bit. What you posted is essentially what any textbook on the matter will say. I might be wrong about Hatshepsut being the first female ruler, though I can't be bothered atm to double check.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 14:03
|
|