|
So here's a question - one of the more iconic images of Rome is the whole chariot-racing scene. But chariot-racing seems like one of those things that would have arisen out of ancient necessity, like how a lot of Olympic sports had their basis in some form of military training. So aside from racing, what DID Romans use chariots for? Were they common in everyday use, or were they considered cool but kind of archaic? Did the Romans ever use chariots in warfare? So, wait, was cunnilingus considered unmanly or something?
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
Tomn posted:So here's a question - one of the more iconic images of Rome is the whole chariot-racing scene. But chariot-racing seems like one of those things that would have arisen out of ancient necessity, like how a lot of Olympic sports had their basis in some form of military training. So aside from racing, what DID Romans use chariots for? Were they common in everyday use, or were they considered cool but kind of archaic? Did the Romans ever use chariots in warfare? Well, I would direct you toward the social mores of the closest known descendants of the Romans, the Italian-American mafiosos of New Jersey, and the attitudes toward cunnilingus demonstrated in the well-known documentary series "The Sopranos" 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
Martial is loving gold:quote:2.51
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:Sort of. Roman slaves had their natio (origin; whether it connoted race, tribe, region, whatever) displayed on a sign at the market, and there were definitely connotations between certain natios and certain types of activity. Cicero makes a remark to his friend Atticus in a letter that the new slaves from Caesar's invasion of Britain are completely untalented in the ways of literature or music (presumably there were bagpipes, even then). The poet Martial has a passage where he is evoking the ideal dreamy -- male, naturally -- sex-slave and picks an Egyptian.  There were, but more likely in Rome, not Scotland! Bagpipes appear to have originated in the middle east somewhere, and were apparently quite popular in the Roman Empire in the 9th century. Their introduction to Britain was quite possibly by the Romans themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 08:05
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Tomn posted:So here's a question - one of the more iconic images of Rome is the whole chariot-racing scene. But chariot-racing seems like one of those things that would have arisen out of ancient necessity, like how a lot of Olympic sports had their basis in some form of military training. So aside from racing, what DID Romans use chariots for? Were they common in everyday use, or were they considered cool but kind of archaic? Did the Romans ever use chariots in warfare? No, the Romans never used chariots for anything but sport. Cavalry had taken the place of chariots in warfare centuries before the Romans got them, and they probably got chariot racing from the Greeks - chariot races were part of the Olympic games. The Greeks were never big charioteers either - Greek terrain's not good for them - so it's entirely possible the Romans were two civilizations removed from actual war chariots. Some of the Celtic nations were still using chariots in battle during Roman times, but, well, what do you expect from barbarians?! More seriously, even they didn't really use chariots much once combat begins - Julius Caesar says the Britons would charge enemies in chariots but then the warriors would dismount and attack on foot. They didn't seem to use them as archery platforms like the Egyptians or Assyrians did.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 09:07
|
|
|
Hargrimm posted:Martial is loving gold: More of this please.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Slaveowners were mandated to provide certain living conditions for their slaves. You would need to be rich to feed and house a living breathing person that you owned. That wealth was probably impressive enough on its own. Being a pleb didn't preclude you or your family from being rich though, it just meant you weren't a member of the established patrician lineages. Sorry, just meant "pleb" as common person, not specifically as in Roman terms! Do we know of any writings that outline the expenses for a slave? Grand Fromage posted:The social class thing depends on the time period. At one point slaves were so cheap that slaves owning their own slaves was a thing. I can't recall if this has been brought up previously, but do we have an idea of the price of slaves over the centuries? I presume slaves being cheap would coincide with Roman conquests of new territory - Gauls were probably a dime-a-dozen after the Gallic wars. Tao Jones posted:Sort of. Roman slaves had their natio (origin; whether it connoted race, tribe, region, whatever) displayed on a sign at the market, and there were definitely connotations between certain natios and certain types of activity. Cicero makes a remark to his friend Atticus in a letter that the new slaves from Caesar's invasion of Britain are completely untalented in the ways of literature or music (presumably there were bagpipes, even then). The poet Martial has a passage where he is evoking the ideal dreamy -- male, naturally -- sex-slave and picks an Egyptian. Wikipedia has a theory that the Romans introduced bagpipes to Britain, and that Nero possibly played them. If so, surprised he lasted as long as he did. e:beaten like a bagpipe playing Roman... Elissimpark fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Apr 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 09:20
|
|
|
I don't know any price lists for slaves, I'd be interested in that too. I do remember it specifically mentioned that Caesar's conquests bottomed out the slave prices hard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 09:27
|
|
|
Sports! What's the athletic training / exercise regime expected of the average Greek citizen? Or of the average Athenian / Spartan, if that information is more available? Do they have specific exercises that are more "appropriate" for a soldier than for an average citizen that they engage in while on campaign? (Like when the Xerxes' messenger tells him the 300 are all oiled and and stretching for him) Same question re: Romans. I understand they put a bit less of an emphasis on athleticism than the Greeks. Is the average Roman citizen into exercise? The average Legionnaire? Oh yeah - what's the Roman version of bootcamp like?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
I recall for sure that exercise for Romans is a much more stoic, disciplinarian virtue than it is for Greeks. Obsession with your body and your outward appearance is definitely to be distrusted and regarded as vain and superficial.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 11:50
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:
Now we know why the Empire fell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
Elissimpark posted:Sorry, just meant "pleb" as common person, not specifically as in Roman terms! Do we know of any writings that outline the expenses for a slave? Grand Fromage posted:I don't know any price lists for slaves, I'd be interested in that too. I do remember it specifically mentioned that Caesar's conquests bottomed out the slave prices hard.   "For statistical reasons, the average ‘social life expectancy’ of slaves (i.e., the amount of time spent in slavery, allowing for episodes of freedom before and/or after enslavement) must have been relatively close to 20 years regardless of the sources of slavery. Therefore, if there were somewhere between 5 and 8 million slaves in the Roman Empire, some 250,000 to 400,000 new slaves were required every year to maintain numbers." So even the massive slave captures didn't drop the slave prices that much. Slaves got cheaper when the demand for slaves diminished. And that happened when the price of free labour got lower. Both sources are from articles by Walter Scheidel from Stanford university. Edit: How much did American plantation slaves cost? Hogge Wild fucked around with this message at 13:03 on Apr 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I recall for sure that exercise for Romans is a much more stoic, disciplinarian virtue than it is for Greeks. Obsession with your body and your outward appearance is definitely to be distrusted and regarded as vain and superficial. To add to this, from what I've read the Greeks regarded physical exercise as very much analagous to mental education. Ideal men would not only be learned but should spend time making themselves physically fit as well, the Olympics was very much a religious dedication (in the form of training) to the gods in the same way drama and poetry festivals would be dedicated to the gods as different citizens of (or entire city states) would compete to show who had basically been most pious in dedicating their minds and bodies. The Romans were definitely into exercise but more in the sense that physical fitness demonstrated hard work and discipline. You got fat and unhealthy from lying around eating honeyed shrews all day long and good Romans were meant to exhibit all the classic martial virtues of their yeoman farmer forebears. At least looking at the early-late Republic and early Imperial periods. I'd imagine as long as the army was where power was, politically powerful Romans would be expected to be in good shape. Of course putting that impression I have out there sounds quite a lot like the Greek ideal was a more ritualised, locally minded affair, while the Roman attitude was more one of what was required by an 'industrialised' nation state (there are no quotation marks big enough to imply the level of fudge those terms need here). So it could be simply a factor of the different sociological and developmental situations or just as easily be a historiographical artifact of the way we usually view the two societies. It is interesting to consider whether the way we view our bodies and healthiness could be just as affected by how we view our role in society as it is by our understanding of medicine, etc. though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 13:34
|
|
|
The Romans used chariots for parades (triumphs) and also for transportation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:How much did American plantation slaves cost? MeasingWorth has a nice long article about this particular issue, but in simple terms, taking the rapid market fluctuations into account, the price of an American slave in the 1800s was about $400. How to adjust that for inflation and actual value is a complex discussion, but in simple terms it would be about $80,000 in today's money. http://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php Comparing this price to the Roman ones that were posted earlier is also a good example of how difficult it is to compare prices across eras. Wheat in the 1800s cost a little over $1 per bushel, or ~$40/ton. So that would put the Roman prices (~4 tons of wheat = 1 slave) at approximately $160 in the American 1800s, or less than half the price of an American slave. But it's also important to remember that the price of wheat had fallen drastically after the invention of the grain thresher in 1786, as did bulk transportation costs due to widespread use of trains and efficient bulk commodity transport over water. So it's a complex issue. Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Apr 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Kaal posted:MeasingWorth has a nice long article about this particular issue, but in simple terms, taking the rapid market fluctuations into account, the price of an American slave in the 1800s was about $400. How to adjust that for inflation and actual value is a complex discussion, but in simple terms it would be about $80,000 in today's money. Looks like it was about 1.25 years wage for an unskilled worker in 1860s, or 5 tons of wheat. So in wheat it would have been the same as in the Roman era.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Contrary to what a lot of people think, slaves you don't literally starve or work to death (which was not the way they were used, primarily) are expensive to maintain at peak efficiency. When treated like a pure economic investment (not uncommon) they can be incredibly profitable as well, but it takes a certain amount going in to continue to get a lot out over a long period.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Contrary to what a lot of people think, slaves you don't literally starve or work to death (which was not the way they were used, primarily) are expensive to maintain at peak efficiency. When treated like a pure economic investment (not uncommon) they can be incredibly profitable as well, but it takes a certain amount going in to continue to get a lot out over a long period. On the other hand, there's modern-day slaves that sell for less than $100. The price of a person is essentially a fiat sum.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 16:51
|
|
Kaal posted:On the other hand, there's modern-day slaves that sell for less than $100. The price of a person is essentially a fiat sum. Of course, but $100 is nothing compared to the monthly cost of housing and feeding slaves in many localities, which you're going to do if you want to maximise returns most of the time. That's why most $100 slaves are owned by people who have money to start, which is the problem this discussion started on.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:One thing that I've always found interesting about Greek temples is that they're often where much of the city's treasury was kept. I've heard this in an off handed manner a few times. It seems that temples were sort of proto-banks/ lending institutions which is odd but I kind of get it. They have a spiritual edge (Caesar got into trouble for robbing a temple who had a store of cash that was supposed to be used only for when the Gauls came back, perhaps it was more like stealing from the local credit union) they have people who are somewhat educated and in the center of communal life so a lot less dodgy in terms of trust. If someone has a good book besides Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, on how these sort of things happened I would be grateful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Finally, an authentic experience where you can Fight For The Glory of Rome I love this. quote:The men raise their shields in a standard turtle formation. As they advance, they shout the turtle formation chant: “SHAPE OF TURTLE. SAFE LIKE TURTLE. HARD SHELL. FOUR LEGS. EATS LETTUCE. VERY SMALL. VERY SLOW. HARD WORKER.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
statim posted:I've heard this in an off handed manner a few times. It seems that temples were sort of proto-banks/ lending institutions which is odd but I kind of get it. They have a spiritual edge (Caesar got into trouble for robbing a temple who had a store of cash that was supposed to be used only for when the Gauls came back, perhaps it was more like stealing from the local credit union) they have people who are somewhat educated and in the center of communal life so a lot less dodgy in terms of trust. It's not all that odd. In addition to the secure location/somewhat learned guys angle, robbing a religious institution was extremely taboo (still is today to some extent) so your money is pretty much guaranteed to be safe unless someone doesn't care about being cursed by the gods/shunned by everyone they know. Another thing to remember about the Greco-Roman world is that everyone believes in the same pantheon more or less. So say your tiny polis foolishly decides to go to war with Athens and gets stomped, your money is still safe because the Athenians aren't going to loot a temple dedicated to the same gods they worship. Your loot is really only at risk if a bunch of foreigners show up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:It's not all that odd. In addition to the secure location/somewhat learned guys angle, robbing a religious institution was extremely taboo (still is today to some extent) so your money is pretty much guaranteed to be safe unless someone doesn't care about being cursed by the gods/shunned by everyone they know. Another thing to remember about the Greco-Roman world is that everyone believes in the same pantheon more or less. So say your tiny polis foolishly decides to go to war with Athens and gets stomped, your money is still safe because the Athenians aren't going to loot a temple dedicated to the same gods they worship. Your loot is really only at risk if a bunch of foreigners show up. For instance, one of the few times I've ever read of the Greeks refusing to turn over the bodies of their enemies* was a case where the Spartans were accused of futzing with an Apolline temple and the folks at Delphi (Apollo's big spot, and a big deal in general) had the bodies held hostage until the Spartans paid them back. *Non-literary. In plays/epics it comes up, and I think the modern reader really needs to get how the Greeks felt about this particular issue to get, for instance, what a big deal the Hector/Achilles feud is or like the whole plot of Antigone. Angry Salami posted:No, the Romans never used chariots for anything but sport. Cavalry had taken the place of chariots in warfare centuries before the Romans got them, and they probably got chariot racing from the Greeks - chariot races were part of the Olympic games. The Greeks were never big charioteers either - Greek terrain's not good for them - so it's entirely possible the Romans were two civilizations removed from actual war chariots. Fun fact, the first female victor at the Olympic games won through the chariot races. She couldn't compete, but as with horses today, it's a rich man's sport and the jockey's didn't get the win, the owner did. (This also led to some other incidents, for instance the Spartans were banned from the games for violating the Olympic truce, and a Spartan lent his chariots to a citizen from another city to race... but still tried to go out and accept the accolades after 'he' won.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
I do always love in docudramas when the Bad Emperor loots the temples to fund whatever while the soldiers push around the horrified priests. The temple was half treasury for the very purpose of funding stuff and the priests were probably the same magistrates who drew up the plans 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:I do always love in docudramas when the Bad Emperor loots the temples to fund whatever while the soldiers push around the horrified priests. (Something that actually matters a great deal more to Christian tradition then it does to Judaism)
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:They might be thinking about poo poo like Pompey looting the Temple in Jerusalem. Ehhh, it only doesn't matter much to Judaism because it's not even in the top 5 bad things to happen to Jerusalem in that 200 year span, up to and including final and utter destruction of the center of ritual worship.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:I do always love in docudramas when the Bad Emperor loots the temples to fund whatever while the soldiers push around the horrified priests. Yeah, the "soldiers pushing around horrified priests" is really more of a thing that happens during the Reformation with the dissolution of the monasteries, etc. On the other hand, sometimes money in a particular temple treasury is basically earmarked for a particular purpose by being stored there and taking it is an act kind of similar to, say, raiding the Social Security trust fund, with a dash of sacrilege (see: Caesar, Julius).
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
I did like the story in Wedgewood's book where a particularly benevolent Protestant general melts down a bunch of reliquaries from a Catholic church and then leaves the actual relics behind labeled for the church to store.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:I did like the story in Wedgewood's book where a particularly benevolent Protestant general melts down a bunch of reliquaries from a Catholic church and then leaves the actual relics behind labeled for the church to store. Compare that to Ferdinand II, who said that if putting his head on the block would convert the heretics of his dominions he'd do it, and then promptly proceeded to put his money where his mouth was and almost singlehandedly start the war up again after it was over and he'd won. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Apr 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:More of this please. Reminds me of my favorite translation of the first line of Catullus 16: quote:I'll sodomize and clintonize you,
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:We know Montecuccoli was personally extremely pious, for instance, but one of his manuals has a thing in it about how to exhort soldiers of different religions (or none at all!) to be brave in combat. That sounds really interesting, do you remember the broad strokes of some of the specific instructions?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
Kellsterik posted:That sounds really interesting, do you remember the broad strokes of some of the specific instructions? HEY GAL posted:So, suppose you are a 17th century commander and you need to inspire courage in your men. What do you say? Times being what they are, Raimondo Montecuccioli (Sulle Battaglie, 1640) divides his advice according to the religion (or lack thereof) of the recipient.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Given the whole predestination thing, I don't really get why Calvinism didn't just descend into a breathing pile of debauchery. I probably don't understand predestination either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Given the whole predestination thing, I don't really get why Calvinism didn't just descend into a breathing pile of debauchery. I probably don't understand predestination either. Ah, but if you descended into debauchery, you were never part of the Elect all along.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
The benders of dedicated Calvinists who happened to fall from grace once for whatever reason must have been a hell of a sight to see. "Shiiiit, I had too much to drink and pissed all over the church and blasphemed against God, I guess I'm not part of the Elect after all. Oh well, in for a penny, in for a pound, where the booze and hookers at?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
Tomn posted:The benders of dedicated Calvinists who happened to fall from grace once for whatever reason must have been a hell of a sight to see. I think this happened to Geneva as a whole once they got tired of Calvin's shtick and ran him out of town.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 09:22
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Given the whole predestination thing, I don't really get why Calvinism didn't just descend into a breathing pile of debauchery. I probably don't understand predestination either. Tunicate posted:Ah, but if you descended into debauchery, you were never part of the Elect all along. Yep. HEY GAL posted:So, suppose you are a 17th century commander and you need to inspire courage in your men. What do you say? Times being what they are, Raimondo Montecuccioli (Sulle Battaglie, 1640) divides his advice according to the religion (or lack thereof) of the recipient. Thanks! It's striking how it suggests a culture of tolerance in the ranks, believe what you want as long as you're doing your job. It sort of reminds me of how the US military has chaplains for so many different religions, even ones like Buddhism that presumably don't have a lot of American adherent soldiers. The content of the justifications makes me think of the Bhagavad Gita and "killing people in battle is okay because they're just transitory phantoms, and you don't have a choice anyway" which, not having been raised with it, I always thought was sort of a weird message.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 10:08
|
|
|
Kellsterik posted:Thanks! It's striking how it suggests a culture of tolerance in the ranks, believe what you want as long as you're doing your job. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 10:21 on Apr 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 10:17
|
|
|
Tomn posted:So, wait, was cunnilingus considered unmanly or something? Someone please post the xbox live screengrab of someone going "your so gay you even kiss girls"
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 10:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
HEY GAL posted:I've been studying these dudes for a while and yesterday I found my first religious insult, for a grand total of one. Peter Burschel and Maren Lorenz, who also study 17th century mercenaries, never found any. Civilians might want to kill one another over this, but mercenaries seem to think that it's your own business what you believe. Learning from you the huge differences between the soldier and civilian worlds was a really big eye opener actually, so many things make sense when you learn they live almost completely separate and in many ways competing lives. People often have this nationalistic view of the whole deal (brave soldiers defending the innocent civilians) when it isn't applicable at all, everyone had to eat and soldiering was a career choice that put you at odds with the people growing the food.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 10:29
|
|