Phobophilia posted:Someone please post the xbox live screengrab of someone going "your so gay you even kiss girls" I wonder if that person was Greek 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 10:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
Rabhadh posted: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.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 10:59
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Civilians might want to kill one another over this, but mercenaries seem to think that it's your own business what you believe. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 11:07
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Might it be accurate to say that civilians want the soldiers to kill other civilians over religious differences? Well, judging by the Defenestration of Prague, at least SOME civilians were perfectly happy to get their hands dirty (even if it didn't turn out quite the way they planned). Actually, now that the subject has been bought up, I'm kinda curious - HEY GAL, what WAS the popular perception of the 30 Years War by the civilians on the ground? Was there much in the way of popular support for the war, and what sort of folks tended to be more enthusiastic about it than others? I'll post this over in the MilHist thread where it properly belongs, by the way, just wanted to continue the question here since the subject came up. To add a bit of a fig leaf to this post, Roman history question - do we have any idea what the man on the street in Rome thought about war in general? The patricians tended to be all about the martial virtues of their ancestors and so on and so forth, but how far did the plebs buy into that? Were they supportive of Rome going to war, or opposed to dying for a cause they didn't care about, or did they just consider it all a fact of life to be taken as it came? If the answer to those questions is "It depends on the war," then do we know what they thought about, say, the first and second Punic Wars?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 11:19
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:legally punishable by fire Is this a euphemism for shooting or is it literally fire? I mean they both would suck but the latter is pretty much 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 11:38
|
|
Tomn posted:Actually, now that the subject has been bought up, I'm kinda curious - HEY GAL, what WAS the popular perception of the 30 Years War by the civilians on the ground? Gosh, why am I on fire?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 12:02
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Actually, now that the subject has been bought up, I'm kinda curious - HEY GAL, what WAS the popular perception of the 30 Years War by the civilians on the ground? Encyclopedia Britannica posted:In Germany, the Thirty Years’ War (1618–48) may have cost the country, according to different estimates, between 25 and 40 percent of its population.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Not completely separate. They live in your house, whether you want them to or not. (If the soldiers work for your head of state, don't run away when they come calling; that's treason and is legally punishable by fire. If the soldiers work for an enemy power, it doesn't matter what you do.) This certainly explains the 3rd amendment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Is this a euphemism for shooting or is it literally fire? sullat posted:This certainly explains the 3rd amendment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Tomn posted:The patricians tended to be all about the martial virtues of their ancestors and so on and so forth, but how far did the plebs buy into that? Were they supportive of Rome going to war, or opposed to dying for a cause they didn't care about, or did they just consider it all a fact of life to be taken as it came? It's not like Rome had conscription, so probably they weren't worrying about dying for a cause in any circumstance other than 'oh God the Celts/Hannibal/the Goths are about to sack Rome'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Not completely separate. They live in your house, whether you want them to or not. (If the soldiers work for your head of state, don't run away when they come calling; that's treason and is legally punishable by fire. If the soldiers work for an enemy power, it doesn't matter what you do.) You also get to feed them for free and they're probably shagging your daughter/wife.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:You also get to feed them for free and they're probably shagging your daughter/wife.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Technically, if it's a friendly power they're supposed to reimburse you for their food and upkeep. The city council gives the colonel/captain money for this, he takes his cut and gives his soldiers money, and they pay you. So that's about four layers of graft?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:So that's about four layers of graft? Sounds like New Jersey.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:You also get to feed them for free and they're probably shagging your daughter/wife. Earl of Arundel's escapades aside, they probably reimburse the daughter/wife, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Has the US's third amendment ever meaningfully been enforced?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Has the US's third amendment ever meaningfully been enforced? It has never been addressed by the SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:It's setting their poo poo on fire while they're hiding in the woods. People sent to extract contributions don't prefer this, it's inconvenient and if you destroy their livelihood this year you can't get anything from them next year, but it happens. This is actually a relief because I assumed the punishment was being set on fire instead of just having your property burnt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It has never been addressed by the SCOTUS. Once. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
That's not the Supreme Court, that's a lower court of appeals. It could have gone to the SC from there, but was not necessary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:This is actually a relief because I assumed the punishment was being set on fire instead of just having your property burnt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
While reading about Octavian and Antony's civil war today, I discovered the tale of Publius Ventidius Bassus. Dude was a subordinate of Antony's in the east, absolutely devastated invading Parthian armies on three separate occasions, but didn't want to incur any jealousy from Antony, so he played it cool and didn't go trying to invade Parthia. Instead he subdued some rebellious clients, received a triumph in Rome, and presumably retired, as he's never heard from again. A clever duck he.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 00:34
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Martial 3.95 posted:Naevolus, you never say "hello" first, but always say it in reply, even though even crows often speak first. I ask you, tell me, Naevolus, why do you wait for a greeting from me: for I think you are not better or higher than me, Naevolus. I am talked about by many readers, and fame has given me a name in the villages without waiting for my death. There is something in this too: I have been a Roman tribune and I sit in the seat that Oceanus [the manager of Pompey's Theater] makes you get up from. I have made more citizens through Caesar's favor than you have slaves, I suspect. But you get butt-hosed, Naevolus; you shake your rear end prettily. All right, fine, you are better, Naevolus, you win: hello! An 1800s translation of the same: Martial 3.95 posted:You never say, "Good day!" first, Naevolus: but content yourself with returning the salute, though even the crow is often in the habit of saying it first. Why do you expect this from me, Naevolus? I pray you, tell me. For I consider, Naevolus, you are neither better than I am, nor have precedence of me in the eyes of the world. Both Caesars have bestowed upon me praise and rewards, and have given me the rights of a father of three children. I am read by many; and fame has given me a name known throughout the cities of the earth, without waiting for my death. There is something, too, in this, that Rome has seen me a tribune, and that I sit in those seats whence Oceanus excludes you. I suspect that your servants are not even as numerous as the Roman citizens that Caesar has made at my request. But you are a debauchee, Naevolus, and play your part excellently in that capacity. Yes, now you take precedence of me, Naevolus; you have decidedly the advantage. Good day to you. Also regarding oral sex, my understanding is that the Romans thought it was even more un-manly for a guy to do it to either sex than it was for him to take anal, so the "I said you eat pussy" stinger in the other one I've posted is even more pointed. e: The Latin for the line that's obviously shaded is "Sed pedicaris, sed pulchre, Naevole, ceves." -- something like "But you take it in the rear end, but beautifully, Naevolus, you wriggle" and not the more, uh, refined way the 1800s dude rendered it. fantastic in plastic fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:An 1800s translation of the same: Oh the 1800s  Was it Catullus who wrote a poem asking his two buddies to drop in on his ex next time they were in Rome and call her a whore?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
I asked in the military history thread but maybe you guys are better poised to answer. What's the deal regarding Crete dominating the Aegean prior to the Mycenaeans? Did they? How did they do it? I've heard a lot of very vague things about the time. Either they were a relatively peaceful trading culture under Egypt's sphere or they were badasses that extracted tribute from mainland Greece and the story of Theseus is supposed to be a representation of this. If it's the latter do we have any accounts of Minoan battles?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It has never been addressed by the SCOTUS. You'd think it would have come up during the Civil War.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:You'd think it would have come up during the Civil War. I don't think the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over the rebel states.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:You'd think it would have come up during the Civil War. Was billeting even a thing in the ACW? Both sides seem to have preferred to keep their field armies in camp, but of course that leaves tons of smaller forces out in the country I know nothing about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Was billeting even a thing in the ACW? Both sides seem to have preferred to keep their field armies in camp, but of course that leaves tons of smaller forces out in the country I know nothing about. Yes it was, and it was a pretty sensitive topic in and around the major garrisons like Washington, DC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
Funky See Funky Do posted:I asked in the military history thread but maybe you guys are better poised to answer. Sir Arthur Evans desperately wanted the Minoans to be a Thalassocracy when he found their ruins. All evidence seems to indicate that they traded in the Mediterranean and Aegean contexts, but never actually expanded out of Crete itself. Mycenaean Greeks eventually conquered Crete and added it to their sphere, which is where we get the Linear B tablets we can read. The Linear A tablets are presumably in the Minoan language, and are totally undecipherable, not that they would convey much information anyway beyond basic accounting. Some of their artistic tradition is found in Cyprus, Ionia, and Egypt, but not enough to assume they ever exerted military influence over any of those places. EDIT: SCOTUS would never have ruled on garrisoning during the Civil War. They would have at the very least suspended the decision until after the war ended. Jaramin fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
sullat posted:I don't think the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over the rebel states. According to the victors they did. The whole premise was that secession was unconstitutional. Therefore, SCOTUS retained jurisdiction. While not quite ancient history, it's kind of an interesting question: did any Southern plaintiffs successfully make it to SCOTUS during the ACW?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:According to the victors they did. The whole premise was that secession was unconstitutional. Therefore, SCOTUS retained jurisdiction. The closest would probably be any southerners involved with the seized ships of the Prize Cases ruling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_Cases
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:According to the victors they did. The whole premise was that secession was unconstitutional. Therefore, SCOTUS retained jurisdiction. Aha, but even though the secession was unconstitutional and illegal, it still happened, and so the states were required to reapply to the union. Making them weird extraterritorial places like a giant version of Gitmo, or perhaps 1945 Germany.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Everything I was taught about the 30 Years War implied that it was absolute anarchy and hell on earth for the common person. I mean, it went on for decades so there must have been lulls in the fighting, and there must have been times when some popular support was behind this offensive or that one, if only from outrage and desire for vengeance. But the famine, disease, and widespread looting and rape was just a nightmare to the average laborer and certainly many of higher status as well.PittTheElder posted:Yeah, the Milhist thread covers all sorts of stuff, but we love I wonder what the ambient temperature actually would have been in different types of buildings at different times of the year. Without central air on for hours a day, I expect that a lot of indoor spaces would've stayed colder than the outside temperature. On the other hand, they probably weren't nearly as well-ventilated. Burning wood, wax, and oil for light must have made a difference, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:The costumes in many films set from the 13th through the 18th centuries just seem like they'd be really warm. I'm sure the costumes in movies and shows are often more ornate (and cleaner) than what people were wearing on a day to day basis, but only to a point. Woolen hose, brocaded or leather jerkins, layers of slashed-and-puffed fabric, the stuffed hose and ruffs of the Elizabethan period...even with linen undergarments to absorb sweat, lots of historical clothes seem like they must have been intolerably hot in the warmer months in spite of the "Little Ice Age." I've seen from some historical illustrations that lower-class people working in fields, factories, and mines could get away with wearing linen braies or even less, but it seems that a lot of people doing heavy work throughout the year were still wearing layers of wool. Did I post my reenactment stuff in here? This is what I wear, plus armor when something's happening:  (The jacket isn't padded or stiffened, though. It also does not fit me.) And it's not that big a deal. I come from a hot climate though, and the Germans I reenact with always complain horribly when it gets into the 90s. quote:I wonder what the ambient temperature actually would have been in different types of buildings at different times of the year. Without central air on for hours a day, I expect that a lot of indoor spaces would've stayed colder than the outside temperature. On the other hand, they probably weren't nearly as well-ventilated. Burning wood, wax, and oil for light must have made a difference, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Working in a castle day-to-day I can confirm that it is loving freezing all winter even with central heating (installed in a Victorian refit and not especially good). Over the winter we have the radiators (3 in our office), 3 plug-in electric heaters (1 at each desk) and we're all wearing 5 or 6 layers and still completely frozen 24/7. Then July comes around and we all die of heat stroke even up on the fifth floor with all the windows and a side door out on a rampart wall open to get a breeze through. My job is mostly desk-bound, but the brutal cold is the usual topic of conversation even among the staff with active jobs like the maintenance and security guys.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:It's pretty warm, but if you drink lots of water a whole shitton of wool is actually not that terrible in the summer unless you live in Italy or Spain or something. Wool also feels nicer than synthetic fabrics. Since the Early Modern thread has been archived I'll ask it here. Could you tell about smoking in the Early Modern era? I've heard that only the Spaniards and Portuguese smoked cigars and everyone else smoked pipes, is this true?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Since the Early Modern thread has been archived I'll ask it here. Could you tell about smoking in the Early Modern era? I've heard that only the Spaniards and Portuguese smoked cigars and everyone else smoked pipes, is this true?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
One of the biggest innovations in housing was figuring out ways to a) build poo poo with insulation and b) build places that could be well ventilated when wanted and well sealed up when not wanted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Almost certainly most places would have been stuffy in the summer and (because they're poorly insulated) freezing in the winter, even with fires. I've read 18th century things that describe people keeping their coats and poo poo on indoors in the winter because although it was warmer than the outside it was still very cold unless you were right next to a fire or something. Also true in modern East Asia, land of no insulation. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 02:10
|
|
