|
The best way to look at the Senate and the fact it keep existing is it was basically the upper nobility of Rome.
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:00 |
|
|
the JJ posted:Okay, so there's a very Persian poet who called himself 'the Roman' because he lived in Rome. Yo, this is from a page back but I want to emphatically note that you're wrong here.Besides the fact that it's doubtful whether Rûmî ever called himself that, you're confusing naming conventions with issues of cultural identity. For famous people, it was common to see them called after their place of origin (consider for example, al-Razî or Shirazî). Rûmî was called that because he was from what was called Diyar-i Rûm, land of the Romans. That "-î" is a bit important here; the word Rûm, when it referred to people, specifically meant the Christian population there, but this usage was popularized a bit later. Nine out of ten, Rûm referred to a place where (formerly or otherwise) Roman Empire ruled, and Rûmî referred to people or things from that region. Nothing more. Same deal with the "Seljuks of Rûm." The dynasty was called that to distinguish them from their cousins in Damascus and Hamadan. I'd say you're reading way more ambiguity to this period than there was. Nobody, including the Muslims, was disputing which state was the Roman Empire and who were the Romans, properly speaking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted: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. There’s a number of Egyptian queens who may have ruled in their own right prior to Hatshepsut – the best recorded is Merneith during the First Dynasty. Of course, more than fourteen hundred years separate her from Hatshepsut, so she probably didn’t have much relevance as a precedent, especially after the cultural disruptions of the Hyksos invasion that preceded the Eighteenth Dynasty. If Thutmose III had intended to prevent a woman ever again taking the throne, he was unsuccessful; there’s a fair bit of evidence a woman ruled as Pharaoh again less than a hundred years later, between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun’s reigns – probably either Akhenaten’s wife Nefertiti or one of their daughters. There seems again to have been a deliberate campaign to erase records of her reign, though whether this was because she was a woman or just part of the broader campaign to undo the effects of Akhenaten’s reign is unclear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 09:30
|
|
|
And there were plenty of female regents, which isn't that different from being pharaoh in their own right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
Hatsepshut was quite different in the sense that actually ruling in your own right was unheard of, femal rulers had always taken the authority of the male regent. Additionally she took to portraying herself in the guise of male pharoahs with all the distinctly masculine dress and appearance. Also it was apparently 25 years after her reign before there was an effort to erase evidence of her reign so it seems that the Egyptians of different social levels weren't especially unhappy or ashamed of her rule. If you're interested in the first femal pharoah there's actually an In Our Time episode about her.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
was reading r/badhistory (yeah yeah yeah), someone mentioned "hannibal rome's worst nightmare" being a decently accurate movie, is it worth a watch? I didn't realize there was a Hannibal movie outside of the History channel one
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
How did people in the Ostrogothic Kingdom feel when some huge army comes from the east and starts "reconquering" the land they live on?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:How did people in the Ostrogothic Kingdom feel when some huge army comes from the east and starts "reconquering" the land they live on? The people were still Roman. Their fathers and grandfathers served in the civil service and the legions. The Ostrogothic Kingdom's authority derived from Constantinople's in theory if not in practice. So, as far as what you are referring to, it was not a big deal that the Emperor was coming in to get rid of the Goths. Some regions and cities like Sicily and Mediolanum actively supported the Justinian reconquest, even. The war itself dragged on for twenty years and contributed greatly to Italy's transition from its classical wealth and population density to its medieval state (that is, it was absolutely ruinous) so I would say that the average person was not very enthusiastic about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:was reading r/badhistory (yeah yeah yeah), someone mentioned "hannibal rome's worst nightmare" being a decently accurate movie, is it worth a watch? I didn't realize there was a Hannibal movie outside of the History channel one Yeah, I liked that one a lot. Assuming it's the one I'm thinking of with Alexander Siddig as Hannibal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
So I'm in Rome this week and I've already been to both Ostia Antica and Pompeii and they were both incredible. The ruins of each covered an enormous area and pictures and documentaries don't do them justice. The ruins in Rome are also incredible but in some cases not as well preserved. There's old Roman stuff everywhere in the city though and I even found a section of the Servian wall in a McDonald's in termini station. If anyone's interested I have a bunch of pictures I can post when I get back home next week. Lots of close ups of mosaics and paintings
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Mustang posted:If anyone's interested I have a bunch of pictures I can post when I get back home next week. Lots of close ups of mosaics and paintings Yes, do post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Angry Salami posted:There’s a number of Egyptian queens who may have ruled in their own right prior to Hatshepsut – the best recorded is Merneith during the First Dynasty. Of course, more than fourteen hundred years separate her from Hatshepsut, so she probably didn’t have much relevance as a precedent, especially after the cultural disruptions of the Hyksos invasion that preceded the Eighteenth Dynasty. It's insane how little we know about Egyptian history.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:It's insane how little we know about Egyptian history. Honestly? The insane bit is how much we actually know of Egyptian history. We've got dynasty lines, pharaoh/king names, dates for when major events happened, etc for a civilization as far removed from the Romans as the Romans are from us now. If the Egyptians didn't write stuff in stone, we'd have nothing but the structures themselves to go on. Imagine trying to piece together Egyptian society/culture in the ways we have to do for the ancient Mesoamerican cultures. It'd be a fraction of what we currently know of Egyptian society.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:Honestly? The insane bit is how much we actually know of Egyptian history. Doing a little reading all of the kings lists are based on lists made during the 19th dynasty, so basically it's as useful as the Geoffrey of Monmouth History of the British Kings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
I find it interesting that there doesn't seem to have been a trend to give the dynasties actual names beyond their numbers. Is there a reason for that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
How good/readable/accurate are Anthony Everitt's books on Augustus and Cicero? They're two of the more fascinating figures in Roman history and his name kept popping up when I looked for books on them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Mustang posted:If anyone's interested I have a bunch of pictures I can post when I get back home next week. Lots of close ups of mosaics and paintings I hope you didn't use flash 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I find it interesting that there doesn't seem to have been a trend to give the dynasties actual names beyond their numbers. Is there a reason for that? Mainly just the weight of history; the first real attempt at a history of Egypt used the numbered dynasties back in the third century BCE, and so every Egyptologist since the time of the Ptolomies has known what, say, the 'Nineteenth Dynasty' is. At this point, trying to rename it the "Ramessesian Dynasty" would just be confusing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:How good/readable/accurate are Anthony Everitt's books on Augustus and Cicero? They're two of the more fascinating figures in Roman history and his name kept popping up when I looked for books on them. They're readable. On the good/accurate book scale, I'd put them around the level of Tom Holland's books and leave it up to you to decide whether or not I mean that as a knock.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
ColtMcAsskick posted:I hope you didn't use flash Nope didn't need too, my phone has a great camera on it. It does some kind of brightening itself so even with the flash off it's still easy to see things in dark rooms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:How good/readable/accurate are Anthony Everitt's books on Augustus and Cicero? They're two of the more fascinating figures in Roman history and his name kept popping up when I looked for books on them. Adrian Goldsworthys biographies about Augustus and Julius Caesar are pretty good. He points out when sources are vague or if scholars aren't sure exactly on some detail. Didn't mean to double post but I'm on my phone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:How good/readable/accurate are Anthony Everitt's books on Augustus and Cicero? They're two of the more fascinating figures in Roman history and his name kept popping up when I looked for books on them. Everitt's very readable, though a bit softer on Cicero than I'd like. The Augustus bio is probably the better of the two and focuses on all sorts of aspects of Augustus' life, and really emphasizes the importance of his friendships with Agrippa and the oft-forgotten Maecenas, both of whom were instrumental in creating what we think of as the Augustan age (Maecenas' massive patronage of the arts, including Horace and Virgil, was a more invisible factor than Agrippa's military victories).
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
Thanks, won't hurt to read them and then investigate further to see where he is a little too easy or harsh on the subject.Patter Song posted:the oft-forgotten Maecenas Why is that, do you think? I know people still remember him but he doesn't seem to crop up anywhere near as often as Agrippa when people are talking about Augustus. I know they had a falling out later in life, but why is Augustus/Agrippa remembered as one of the most awesome team of bros in history while Maecenas tends to be overlooked/forgotten?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 12:29
|
|
|
Who's the source on the death throes of the western empire, including things like the Kingdom of Soissons and Romulus Augustulus? Like, how do we know anything at all about these things? Someone in the eastern empire?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Everitt's very readable, though a bit softer on Cicero than I'd like. The Augustus bio is probably the better of the two and focuses on all sorts of aspects of Augustus' life, and really emphasizes the importance of his friendships with Agrippa and the oft-forgotten Maecenas, both of whom were instrumental in creating what we think of as the Augustan age (Maecenas' massive patronage of the arts, including Horace and Virgil, was a more invisible factor than Agrippa's military victories). Was Maecenas that weasely kid from HBO's Rome? I had figured he was cruising for a proscription, good to know he survived, prospered, and shaped Western culture for centuries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:I know they had a falling out later in life, but why is Augustus/Agrippa remembered as one of the most awesome team of bros in history while Maecenas tends to be overlooked/forgotten? Forgotten as in, being the namesake for the term describing a patron of the arts in many European languages?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
quote:I know they had a falling out later in life, but why is Augustus/Agrippa remembered as one of the most awesome team of bros in history while Maecenas tends to be overlooked/forgotten? Augustus/Agrippa had action-movie bro-coins, where they're like standing back to back fighting off crocodiles. How do you compete with that? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
speaking of Rome, there were historical references to a Vorenus and Pullo in the XIII that the characters were loosely based on though from what I remember it was just a note of their exemplary soldiering. Was there any other written records about them beyond that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Thanks, won't hurt to read them and then investigate further to see where he is a little too easy or harsh on the subject. Agrippa was co-emperor basically. Maecenas was more like a cabinet member, someone who was highly important and well-known during his life but whose actions tend to be rolled into "what Augustus did" in less detailed histories - for example it's often said that Augustus supported Virgil and Horace when really Maecenas was the one behind that. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Nov 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:speaking of Rome, there were historical references to a Vorenus and Pullo in the XIII that the characters were loosely based on though from what I remember it was just a note of their exemplary soldiering. Was there any other written records about them beyond that? Vorenus is never mentioned again, but Pullo fought for Pompey during the Civil War.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
sullat posted:Was Maecenas that weasely kid from HBO's Rome? I had figured he was cruising for a proscription, good to know he survived, prospered, and shaped Western culture for centuries. drat. Since no one else mentioned this, I'll chime in to confirm this. According to Wikipedia's list of characters in HBO's Rome, that was indeed Gaius Maecenas. I believe I've watched that series at least six or seven times, and while they might have dropped his name at some point, I never caught it--or remembered it, if I did. I believe at some point he was writing poetry or a letter, or asked if some line he was writing either sounded right or rhymed. Maybe I'm remembering something else, but there's a reference of his to the arts at some point, and now it's kind of blowing my mind. The attention to detail and references to this or that peppered throughout that series is pretty cool sometimes. Kinda like the forum newsreader's advertisements being either based on real ads, supposedly some being read verbatim from ancient sources.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
ColtMcAsskick posted:I hope you didn't use flash This isn't really a thing unless you somehow took the UV filter off your flash and then fire it a million times from 3 feet away. http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/mhe1000/musphoto/flashphoto2.htm
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:Doing a little reading all of the kings lists are based on lists made during the 19th dynasty, so basically it's as useful as the Geoffrey of Monmouth History of the British Kings. We also have fragments of the Palermo Stone which was made in the Fifth and the South Saqqara Stone from the Sixth. Of course, the first kings listed on the Palermo stone are still roughly seven to eight hundred years removed from the time they actually reigned, but that's better than the seventeen hundred of the other king lists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Armacham posted:This isn't really a thing unless you somehow took the UV filter off your flash and then fire it a million times from 3 feet away. http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/mhe1000/musphoto/flashphoto2.htm Yeah it's not like I'm taking a million pictures so what's the big deal? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Are there any good books that deal with the Social War and the throwdowns between Marius and Sulla? Moderately entry level, but I understand that the subject, especially a book that wove the two together, might not have a lot of non-academic work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
ThatBasqueGuy posted:Are there any good books that deal with the Social War and the throwdowns between Marius and Sulla? Moderately entry level, but I understand that the subject, especially a book that wove the two together, might not have a lot of non-academic work. If it doesn't need to be academic, there's Colleen McCullough's historical fiction, starting with The First Man in Rome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
homullus posted:If it doesn't need to be academic, there's Colleen McCullough's historical fiction, starting with The First Man in Rome. Some of the best incestuous orgies in the literature of the pre-Game of Thrones era.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Game of Thrones borrows heavily from them stylewise was well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:00 |
|
|
homullus posted:If it doesn't need to be academic, there's Colleen McCullough's historical fiction, starting with The First Man in Rome. These books are a great read but do keep in mind it is heavily dramatized stuff (and it is extraordinarily biased towards Caesar). I do credit the series as being what reignited my interest in Ancient Rome and got me to actually delve deeper and find out more about the period. I have to admit that before reading them I basically didn't have a clue who either Marius or Sulla were.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:49
|
|