|
Octy posted:I also took a course on Late Anqiquity and Gibbon was mentioned but not as someone who is really that important to the study of the period these days so we didn't read him at all. I mean, we read some Jacob Burckhardt in my Renaissance history class. Both of them color the public image of the time period, and normal people who don't give a poo poo about history probably believe some version of Burckhardt or Gibbon. It's hard to escape their discourses, especially when classes are named things like "Fall of the Roman Empire"
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:24 |
|
|
Xander77 posted:A note in the Russian translation (during the bit when the Gauls emphasize that many people back in Rome would be very happy to see Caesar dead) implies that much of the action is actually alluding to or satirical of the political situation back in Rome. I don't actually know enough about how things worked before the first Triumvirate to compare - true/false? I don't think it's satirical, but it's a document written attempting to present the best possible case for Caesar's actions and to attempt to persuade the audience not to prosecute him when he returns. I think "informed by" the political situation in Rome makes sense since he would want to attempt to flatter the right people/the right people's clients/etc. That's probably why he gives his subordinates a good share of the glory, too. quote:Germans fleeing into the forests and deserts. The Russian translation just uses "deep forests" here...? Are there deserts in Germany I'm not aware of? The word's probably desertus, which can mean wilderness or any sort of abandoned/uninhabited terrain, not just "place with limited rainfall". Also "Asiatic" was an actual style of speechifying. Plutarch points out that Antony, who's his model for a villain, was fond of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:I mean, we read some Jacob Burckhardt in my Renaissance history class. Both of them color the public image of the time period, and normal people who don't give a poo poo about history probably believe some version of Burckhardt or Gibbon. It's hard to escape their discourses, especially when classes are named things like "Fall of the Roman Empire" To be fair, I'm trying to recall the course I took about four years ago so maybe he was highlighted a bit more, but I have absolutely no recollection of reading more than a paragraph or two. Gibbon isn't really even mentioned much in modern works anyway beyond a 'this is the classic historiography of the period - Gibbon thought such and such... moving on'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:a book like Persian Fire as putting forth a neoconservative "western civilization always been threatened by eastern civilization" argument. Persian Fire did no such thing, though. In fact the author did as much as he could to demystify the Persian Empire and its objectives and ambitions. You're probably thinking of trash like 300 or one of Victor Davis Hanson's book.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:You're probably thinking of trash like 300 or one of Victor Davis Hanson's book. I Hope you're not talking about the 300 movie there, mister... 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
Exioce posted:I Hope you're not talking about the 300 movie there, mister... Whatever its merits as a movie, in terms of history it's utter trash.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 15:42
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Whatever its merits as a movie, in terms of history it's utter trash. Freeeeeedoooooooooooom! Now let me get back to practising killing my serfs.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:I mean, we read some Jacob Burckhardt in my Renaissance history class. Both of them color the public image of the time period, and normal people who don't give a poo poo about history probably believe some version of Burckhardt or Gibbon. It's hard to escape their discourses, especially when classes are named things like "Fall of the Roman Empire" The historiography, especially the "catastrophist" approach to what happens in the fifth century, is definitely shaped by Gibbon and with an infinite amount of time it probably makes sense to read all of Gibbon in a seminar, but there are much more recent and relevant approaches which argue for a collapse of the Roman Empire (Peter Heather and Bryan Ward-Perkins come to mind). I wouldn't assign more than a snippet of Gibbon in a class on Late Antiquity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Are the Romans in habit of calling every shield-wall construction a phalanx? "Animal X can't get up on its own after falling down" is apparently a common myth long before the middle ages. "Uri" are probably Aurochs, right? What are "an ox of the shape of a stag, between whose ears a horn rises from the middle of the forehead, higher and straighter than those horns which are known to us. From the top of this, branches, like palms; stretch out a considerable distance. The shape of the female and of the male is the same; the appearance and the size of the horns is the same."? There's quite a lot "well obviously our valiant soldiers are going to massacre the living poo poo out of your women and children as they run away" stuff. Disconcerting. (It's not so much the massacre as such. More that he's obviously aware on some level that it's "wrong" to kill civilians... and yet.) None of the sieges actually encircle a town properly - they generally camp on one side of the city, and individuals and small groups can fairly easily slip back and forth. Armies can only prevent the entire population from fleeing at once. Is there a specific reason the generals (at any point before the advent of the radio) aren't using flags or something to signal their wing commanders? Romance of Three Kingdoms mentions ensigns signalling various movements, but European battlefields seem to be all about runners (gallopers). Goddamn was this book boring. I swear, if I had to write "and then after the big bad climactic confrontation in which I took down the combined might of Gaul in it's entirety through sheer Roman ingenuity and perseverance... I had to fight those fuckers all over again", I'd go out and get stabbed instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:
There's also that the Great Plains of North America were considered the "great american desert" for a very long time due to being assumed poor quality for farming simply because there weren't any trees. English itself, until really quite recently, less than 150 years ago, used "desert" for both sandy dry wastelands like we typically use it today and merely places that were "empty" or at first glance not suitable for use.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:There's also that the Great Plains of North America were considered the "great american desert" for a very long time due to being assumed poor quality for farming simply because there weren't any trees. English itself, until really quite recently, less than 150 years ago, used "desert" for both sandy dry wastelands like we typically use it today and merely places that were "empty" or at first glance not suitable for use. According to geologically records when it was consider the "great american desert" the Plains where in a very dry period much like the dust bowl but longer. So they may have been must worse then we traditionally understand it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:According to geologically records when it was consider the "great american desert" the Plains where in a very dry period much like the dust bowl but longer. So they may have been must worse then we traditionally understand it. It's still just as dry. The word desert has simply changed meaning in very recent times. The plains weren't a barren landscape when they first started being called a desert, they merely lacked trees and most vegatation besides grasses and some small shrubs here and there. At the same time you would commonly call the plains a "desert" in English, "desert" would also have been used for vast swathes of the Eurasian steppe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
I'm inclined to think that the word 'desert' is translating a Latin word for wasteland which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with dryness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
So here's a question that might be a bit broad - what was political philosophy like in Imperial Rome? I'm roughly aware of the politics of Rome up until the time of Caesar, but after that it's all something of a blank. Did anybody ever seriously call for a return to republican rule after Augustus? If not, why not? Alternatively, how did people justify and accept the rule of the Emperor, particularly the intelligentsia? I'm basically kinda curious how people thought about the institution of the government in their lives, particularly immediately after the end of the Republic and after periods of major chaos where you'd imagine people might start seriously considering alternative forms of government.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
deadking posted:I'm inclined to think that the word 'desert' is translating a Latin word for wasteland which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with dryness. That's also what the English word "desert" meant until the mid-19th century!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:According to geologically records when it was consider the "great american desert" the Plains where in a very dry period much like the dust bowl but longer. So they may have been must worse then we traditionally understand it. The Great Plains are still crazy dry. It's right on the edge of being a desert, and rather similar to the Eurasian Steppes. Steppe is probably an even better word for it than Great Plains.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 22:07
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
deadking posted:I'm inclined to think that the word 'desert' is translating a Latin word for wasteland which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with dryness. Deserters from an army are also not especially dry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Tomn posted:So here's a question that might be a bit broad - what was political philosophy like in Imperial Rome? I'm roughly aware of the politics of Rome up until the time of Caesar, but after that it's all something of a blank. Did anybody ever seriously call for a return to republican rule after Augustus? If not, why not? Alternatively, how did people justify and accept the rule of the Emperor, particularly the intelligentsia? I'm basically kinda curious how people thought about the institution of the government in their lives, particularly immediately after the end of the Republic and after periods of major chaos where you'd imagine people might start seriously considering alternative forms of government. Pro-forma, Rome is still a Republic for centuries after Augustus. Claiming that the Caesar is the de-facto king of Rome is a really great way to get executed. Few (if any) have trouble with the reign of Augustus. By the time he dies, there are few alive who remember the Republic at all - and none who remember a Republic that was at peace, rather than one torn apart by endless civil wars, from which Augustus delivered it. I'm not sure the Republic ever had a strong ideological basis, rather than the force of tradition supporting it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Tomn posted:So here's a question that might be a bit broad - what was political philosophy like in Imperial Rome? I'm roughly aware of the politics of Rome up until the time of Caesar, but after that it's all something of a blank. Did anybody ever seriously call for a return to republican rule after Augustus? If not, why not? Alternatively, how did people justify and accept the rule of the Emperor, particularly the intelligentsia? I'm basically kinda curious how people thought about the institution of the government in their lives, particularly immediately after the end of the Republic and after periods of major chaos where you'd imagine people might start seriously considering alternative forms of government. Xander77 basically said it, but yeah, to most Romans, the "Republic" never really ended - it just grafted a permanent dictatorship to the top of the structure. Elections to the old offices still took place, and even though those positions didn't mean all that much anymore, that was a small price to pay, they reasoned, for leaders who would ideally keep the peace and protect the poor from the depredations of the aristocrats. (which were the two main features anybody remembered from the time before Augustus anyway) That changed, of course, as time went by, particularly during the Third Century Crisis and the establishment of the Dominate. But even during the reign of Theodoric, they still apparently referred to themselves as a Republic. Also, this deserves to be underlined: Xander77 posted:I'm not sure the Republic ever had a strong ideological basis, rather than the force of tradition supporting it. The Roman social/political philosophy was referred to as the Mos Maiorum for a reason: it was, indeed, the way of their fathers, and their fathers before them. Majorian fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Feb 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Well this is the worst. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/02/26/islamic-state-iraq-artifacts/24048865/
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Giodo! posted:Well this is the worst. Could not watch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
It's strange that I find myself more upset watching that than some of the more gruesome ISIS videos.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Not to get too philosophical/moralistic, but the loss of human life is immediately more tragic and serious. I think what makes watching these videos devastating compared to knowing the human atrocities of an organization like ISIL is that all people do eventually die one way or another, whereas these artifacts have survived for thousands of years and could conceivably have continued to enrich human kind for thousands more. The statues are not more important than a human life to me, but the meaning of their destruction is different and enormous.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
You can be outraged by both things guys it's okay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
I mean this isn't the first time something like this has happened The Ottomans melted down ancient Greek sculpture for the bronze
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
I'm not comparing what's worse, just my own subjective emotional reaction, over which I have no power. I suppose there's more of an ordinariness to death; you see that much more in the media, today.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
I wasn't intending to disagree with or criticize you, I was just providing commentary from my own perspective.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Giodo! posted:Not to get too philosophical/moralistic, but the loss of human life is immediately more tragic and serious. I think what makes watching these videos devastating compared to knowing the human atrocities of an organization like ISIL is that all people do eventually die one way or another, whereas these artifacts have survived for thousands of years and could conceivably have continued to enrich human kind for thousands more. I think that's a good way of putting it. This is really awful. I hope the Iraqi people get to rooting these shittards out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:The Great Plains are still crazy dry. It's right on the edge of being a desert, and rather similar to the Eurasian Steppes. Steppe is probably an even better word for it than Great Plains. The funniest thing is that the locals immediately turned into steppe nomads as soon as they got horses. Humans and horses are so well adapted for this particular lifestyle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Are the Romans in habit of calling every shield-wall construction a phalanx? 2. If you spread your army in a circle, it's easier for the enemy to outnumber your soldiers locally. This is one of the reasons Alesia is considered to be a brilliant siege. Caesar couldn't afford to let one man--Vercingetorix--escape, so he surrounded the entire city--which had a significant army inside--while preventing a large army on the outside from getting in. To do this, of course, he had to build a city's worth of fortifications that stretched for miles. 3. One word: dust. Was that a red flag or a blue flag? I don't know: it looks like a tan flag to me. Is he waving it up or to the right? I don't know: a dust cloud got in the way. Stuff like that can be worked around--the Mongols did it, for example, but I imagine a young man on a horse was more reliable on the whole.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Persian Fire did no such thing, though. In fact the author did as much as he could to demystify the Persian Empire and its objectives and ambitions. You're probably thinking of trash like 300 or one of Victor Davis Hanson's book. Well, it's possible I'm confused - it's been a while since I've read the book and I might be misremembering or confusing it with something else since there's no shortage of politically-inspired books about classical history. Just to make sure I wasn't wildly off-base, I glanced at its page on Amazon and it's at the very least marketed as a "heroic Greeks save Western Civilization from proto-Caliphate" type of story. So that's at the very least the way marketing people think the audience wants to think about the subject.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:3. One word: dust. Was that a red flag or a blue flag? I don't know: it looks like a tan flag to me. Is he waving it up or to the right? I don't know: a dust cloud got in the way. Stuff like that can be worked around--the Mongols did it, for example, but I imagine a young man on a horse was more reliable on the whole. (Not even talking about incidents in which the galloper rides in and goes "why, those guns, obviously, you blithering moron")
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 09:42
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Huh. The general and his signalers should be on some elevation
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Ah, I'll be sure to put in a request for one, wherever they might end up
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 10:27
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Huh. The general and his signalers should be on some elevation and by default / ideally, away from the fight, but I see your point. What did the Mongols do, and how is the immediacy of communication not a major advantage? It's been years since I read about it. The Mongol Way of War had details, I believe, though I foolishly didn't pick it up the one time I saw it at Barnes & Noble. If I recall correctly, they had a complex system of flags that they would hang from a cross-pole on top of a large pole. When mounted, it provided the elevation you refer to. Keep in mind, however, that elevation alone doesn't help if the person you're communicating with is in the thick of things. Flags help, but sometimes you still need to send a runner (see: various wars pre-smokeless gunpowder).
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:Well, it's possible I'm confused - it's been a while since I've read the book and I might be misremembering or confusing it with something else since there's no shortage of politically-inspired books about classical history. Just to make sure I wasn't wildly off-base, I glanced at its page on Amazon and it's at the very least marketed as a "heroic Greeks save Western Civilization from proto-Caliphate" type of story. So that's at the very least the way marketing people think the audience wants to think about the subject. The marketing is pretty bullshit, then, since the actual text has no shortage of examples of how the Greeks weren't really the freedom-loving nationalists of popular legend except in a "if anyone's going to kill us, it's going to be ourselves, so gently caress off Persia" sense. Holland in so sense romanticizes the Greeks, and his account of Thermopylae is about as dispassionate and unromantic as you can get while still respecting the Spartans decision to fight a hopeless fight to the death (and really, how can you not?). Most importantly, IIRC he makes the point that Greece was a lovely little backwater in Persians eyes and they eventually decided that they weren't worth the blood at treasure it would take to subdue them. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:I mean this isn't the first time something like this has happened To be fair, the Greeks chopped up Athena Parthenos for it's valuable metals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:To be fair, the Greeks chopped up Athena Parthenos for it's valuable metals. I'm sorry but that statue is loving ugly. All painted ancient statues are hideous. Gold and ivory statues are the worst because neither of the materials are good for statuary
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
On the desert being more akin to wilderness or wasteland in English up until recently: The Desert of Wales
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:24 |
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:I mean this isn't the first time something like this has happened The context is quite different though. People giving an actual drat about ancient artwork for the sake of it being ancient is quite a modern phenomenon. ISIS is no different, they are just approaching it from a hostile and completely idiotic standpoint, whereas the Ottomans (and the ERE) just didn't care. Which is how you end up with stuff like this:  We need a marble base for this column? Eh, no biggie, stick this thing I found upside down. Good as new. fspades fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:26
|
|