|
Patter Song posted:Typical Eurocentism. The Sokoto caliphate in northern Nigeria has been going strong since 1803 and is still the voice of tens of millions of Muslims today. Shouldn't that be Asiacentrism?  Fake edit: is that even a thing?
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:10 |
|
|
The Chinese name for itself even today translates literally to "Central Kingdom/Country," so draw your own conclusions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Twelve hundred horse including mounted archers is pretty vague. Is there any other mention of mounted archers after that? Athens was policed by scythians, so they could refer to them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Tomn posted:The result is that trimeres usually didn't carry too much water, and needed to lay up on shore on a very regular basis (off the top of my head I'm tempted to say "daily" but I'm not sure) to find supplies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Typical Eurocentism. The Sokoto caliphate in northern Nigeria has been going strong since 1803 and is still the voice of tens of millions of Muslims today. drat it Pattersong, I really want to hear about this but that'd be a bigger derail in an already tenuous derail of an ancient history thread. Also this is shameful because I totally did an essay on the Sokoto Empire in undergrad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Athens was policed by scythians, so they could refer to them. Well, they were policed by guys who at least called themselves the Scythian Archers. Who knows what they actually were.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
How cynical were the proscriptions of Sulla and of the Second Triumvirate? Wikipedia sez that both were undertaken to get rid of enemies and replenish the treasury. I recall (possibly incorrectly) Suetonius mentioning Octavian adding people just for the second reason. How "enemy of the state" would you have had to been to be proscribed? Are we talking "DEATH TO SULLA!" or "Eh, Sulla's okay but he's no Marius", or would that depend on your bank balance?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Typical Eurocentism. The Sokoto caliphate in northern Nigeria has been going strong since 1803 and is still the voice of tens of millions of Muslims today. That's practically current events, not ancient history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Elissimpark posted:How cynical were the proscriptions of Sulla and of the Second Triumvirate? Wikipedia sez that both were undertaken to get rid of enemies and replenish the treasury. I recall (possibly incorrectly) Suetonius mentioning Octavian adding people just for the second reason. Sulla had a personal secretary who basically turned it into a giant moneymaking scheme (even moreso than it had already been), and people both took advantage of it for financial reasons as well as to settle personal feuds. People were added to the list because they were rich or because they had a great estate that somebody wanted to buy at auction for rock-bottom prices or because their granddad pissed of somebody else's granddad etc. When Sulla found out he was not pleased, to put it lightly, but the whole thing was designed initially to remove political impediments to Sulla's reforms/political way of thinking. So guys who had even potential power and influence that could be used to rally support around an anti-Sulla group might have been added even if they showed zero desire to actually rock the boat, and RICH guys in that boat were even likelier to be targeted. The Second triumvirate was a way to make money, settle political scores AND draw the three closer together by proving their loyalty by throwing some of their own favorites under the bus (Antony insisted on Cicero being added to the list and Augustus was forced to accept).
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
Finally, an authentic experience where you can Fight For The Glory of Rome
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Finally, an authentic experience where you can Fight For The Glory of Rome this is fun
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Finally, an authentic experience where you can Fight For The Glory of Rome
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
sarmhan posted:This is absolutely hilarious And historically accurate. Rome fell once Christianity took away its guys-kissing-guys checkpoints.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Finally, an authentic experience where you can Fight For The Glory of Rome I was going to complain about my name being Praetorius until I saw the source. quote:“Welcome to the battle training grounds. I am the battle trainer,” says the battle trainer. “I can teach you battle moves that will be useful in battle.”  I'm dying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 20:30
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I for one am glad to see the historically accurate depiction of the testudo chant that you chant when you form the testudo: “SHAPE OF TURTLE. SAFE LIKE TURTLE. HARD SHELL. FOUR LEGS. EATS LETTUCE. VERY SMALL. VERY SLOW. HARD WORKER.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Finally, an authentic experience where you can Fight For The Glory of Rome That was amazing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Sulla had a personal secretary who basically turned it into a giant moneymaking scheme (even moreso than it had already been), and people both took advantage of it for financial reasons as well as to settle personal feuds. People were added to the list because they were rich or because they had a great estate that somebody wanted to buy at auction for rock-bottom prices or because their granddad pissed of somebody else's granddad etc. When Sulla found out he was not pleased, to put it lightly, but the whole thing was designed initially to remove political impediments to Sulla's reforms/political way of thinking. So guys who had even potential power and influence that could be used to rally support around an anti-Sulla group might have been added even if they showed zero desire to actually rock the boat, and RICH guys in that boat were even likelier to be targeted. While I can understand Sulla's view, I'm having trouble picturing the Senate - a bunch of politically interested and rich guys - wanting to draw up a list of politically interested and rich guys to be murdered for their estates. Would proscription have come as a particular surprise to those proscribed? I'm imagining the scene in the Senate:  : You there, take a list of proscribed persons! : Yes, dictator! : First name - Gnaeus Blogius. : Uh, that's me.... : *coughs awkwardly*Would there have been any official justification provided for proscription? Perhaps the Roman Bugle said Gnaeus had been charged with sedition and anti-Sulla writings even though everyone knew it was because he had the finest vineyards this side of the Rhone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
It's not a perfectly apt comparison, but psychologically I think of it as like living during Stalin's reign. Some people were probably totally shocked to get the knock on the door, but I think most people in a position to be made victims understood what was happening and hoped someone would Do Something before it got around to them. Political executions probably weren't new in Rome with Sulla, except maybe scale. My understanding is what was genuinely new about proscription was that it put the victims' property up for auction and that it denied rights of inheritance to the victims' children, both of which had been off the table previously.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 06:49
|
|
Using political office to expropriate people you don't like is the oldest trick in the book in any time and place before the modern era and probably one of the best reasons to become politically powerful if you're rich. Elissimpark posted:Would there have been any official justification provided for proscription? Perhaps the Roman Bugle said Gnaeus had been charged with sedition and anti-Sulla writings even though everyone knew it was because he had the finest vineyards this side of the Rhone. The trick is to target a group of people who have a ton of money but limited political capital. Take what happened to the Knights Templar as an example - they essentially got put on the gas oven because the papacy and the King of France were getting tired of their poo poo, and they had flipping great wodges of cash. Sulla did a lot of it to the knights, who, likewise, did not have the political power of major senators. But latterly it just became something like witch-burning: a vehicle for greed and rivalry. People evidently petitioned to have rivals proscribed so that they could take a portion of their property, with the rest being given up to the state. Lastly, if there is a struggle for power, people do sort of expect you to take it out on the loser, which Sulla obviously did. But essentially it was a reign of terror. It's not like the senate can do much about it. The way any dictatorship works is very simple - it inspires so much fear that it makes you a co-conspirator. You know that if you speak against the dictatorship yours will be the next door that receives a knock in the night. So you don't just not speak out - you actively encourage the dictatorship in hope of survival while cursing it in to your pillow at night. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 10:20 on Apr 3, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 10:18
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:But latterly it just became something like witch-burning: a vehicle for greed and rivalry. People evidently petitioned to have rivals proscribed so that they could take a portion of their property, with the rest being given up to the state. My understanding is that this isn't quite how it works. Lucius, who owns a poo poo ton of prime property is proper a traitor. Sulla proscribes him, the state seizes his assets and sells them yielding a fair market value in the bidding frenzy (who doesn't want prime property?) Gaius, who owns a poo poo ton of also good property pisses off Sulla. Sulla proscribes him, the state seizes his assets and sells them. Problem is, there's just been a civil war so everyone is a bit strapped for cash, and Gaius' estate doesn't fetch its full worth because everyone spent their money on Lucius'. But okay, the state got something. Now we need to find more money for the state. Money isn't coming into the treasury as expected. Hmm. Marcus wasn't enthusiastic enough during the civil war, so Sulla proscribes him. His estate sells for basically nothing because there is no money left in private hands. The last bidder standing walks away with a real screamer of a bargain. Now, I never really liked my uncle Titus since he gave me a poo poo present for my VIII-th birthday. I go to Chrysogonus, whisper that Titus "might have Marian leanings", and either offer him a few thousand denarii to add his name to the next list, or maybe just tell him that my uncle has 30 estates, and I'm only going to bid on 18 of them - he can buy the rest for almost nothing. Titus is proscribed, his millions in property come on the market, Chrysogonus and I are the only bidders and get them for a few thousand. It's very much witch-burning, greed and personal vendetta, but at no point after Lucius does the state benefit. Obviously the oligarchs who were on the winning side and were smart enough to not bid on Lucius' or Gaius' estates all make off like bandits, but it's about transferring wealth to the winning side, not to the state. Sulla is cool with all of this because he's the dictator for as long as he wants to be, and already has more money than both the state and God, but plenty of political enemies that he can legally eliminate. He can only do it if the rest of the power families play along. Which they do for obvious reasons. Someone correct me if any of this is wrong, but the core of it is that there wasn't enough available cash in the economy for proscriptions to benefit the state to the full amount that they should have. Everyone else benefited mightily though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 13:03
|
|
|
Well sure, it's primarily a source of enrichment for the individuals. Then again, rich individuals quite often spent private money in ways that mirror state uses of money today. But it did somewhat replenish the public coffers.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
Second point: senators weren't elected in Rome, but determined purely by land ownership. Take enough land from one senator and not only is he done, his sons and whole family are done unless they can get more land. Conversely, sell enough land to one person and he will become a very grateful new senator.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
Senators were appointed. You could have a ton of land but if you were new money, so to speak, you still wouldn't become a senator unless someone wanted you to be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 14:23
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:Senators were appointed. You could have a ton of land but if you were new money, so to speak, you still wouldn't become a senator unless someone wanted you to be. E.g. a lot of the people Sulla shat on. Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdzUOCqYU0Y
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:Senators were appointed. You could have a ton of land but if you were new money, so to speak, you still wouldn't become a senator unless someone wanted you to be. True I was overbroad, technically it was under the control of the censors. Certain moral qualifications, not engaged in commerce, etc. But the point I was making was that proscriptions served the dual purpose of cash farming, and of potentially tossing an entire bloodline out of the Senate, since the censors wouldn't wink at someone falling beneath the property requirement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Everyone's favorite Roman alt-history movie just got put on Netflix, Gladiator. Let's talk about all the inaccuracies in the first battle scene.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Everyone's favorite Roman alt-history movie just got put on Netflix, Gladiator. Let's talk about all the inaccuracies in the first battle scene. It's been on there for ages, though...?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Everyone's favorite Roman alt-history movie just got put on Netflix, Gladiator. Let's talk about all the inaccuracies in the first battle scene. Pretty sure you can see someone wearing jeans in part of it
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
Whoever linked that Rome clip has me watching that again. Curse/Bless you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Well, the whole proscription makes much more sense, especially the idea of transfer of wealth to the winners - thanks for the responses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:Pretty sure you can see someone wearing jeans in part of it 2. The Roman line collapses utterly, but an Alexandrian cavalry charge saves the day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Everyone's favorite Roman alt-history movie just got put on Netflix, Gladiator. Let's talk about all the inaccuracies in the first battle scene. What we post in life echoes in eternity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
I love Gladiator and make no apologies for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
I saw Gladiator when I was 10 years old and it sparked an interest in Roman/ancient history for me so guess what, I like the movie
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:What we post in life echoes in eternity. New thread title. Please. Grand Fromage posted:I love Gladiator and make no apologies for it. It's fun, and I've always enjoyed it, but goddamn it's a bit dull at times. And the plot holes. And the inaccuracies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I love Gladiator and make no apologies for it. Just a remake of this, which has Sophia Loren in it and is thus intrinsically better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ-sPXgSWCs
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 12:25
|
|
|
Dalael posted:And therein lies the problem. People are still trying to connect non-existant dots. There's no point to it. Sit back, relax and enjoy the show. lmbo
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 12:27
|
|
|
Elissimpark posted:Well, the whole proscription makes much more sense, especially the idea of transfer of wealth to the winners - thanks for the responses. https://youtu.be/RUcDdUG22JU This is worth watching if you're interested in the proscriptions. It also has a young, hugely Cicero in it, which makes it even better. I believe it's based on one of his actual cases.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 12:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:10 |
|
|
Zopotantor posted:Just a remake of this, which has Sophia Loren in it and is thus intrinsically better. They don't make trailers like that any more. "We made not just 2 or 3 sets, but 14!" "All known emotions!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 13:10
|
|
