|
"Alexander the Great" has 10 million and "Julius Caesar" has 11 million for me, the question is whether Alex's name being more popular offsets Caesar himself being better known.
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
But Julius Ceasar was part of every Emperor's name. Nero, for instance, would also qualify under that search
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:"Alexander the Great" has 10 million and "Julius Caesar" has 11 million for me, the question is whether Alex's name being more popular offsets Caesar himself being better known. That's because Decius was talking about the number of unique searches for the name, not the number of hits/results after you search it (which is what everyone else is posting).
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
Sorry to be the bearer of terrible lovely no-good awful news, but Isis is almost at Palmyra 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
Wow, the Iraq War really is the gift that keeps on giving. 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
Did Roman emperors have pets? like cuddly cats  or funny dogs  or weirder things.
Kurtofan fucked around with this message at 10:53 on May 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Did Roman emperors have pets? like cuddly cats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Favourites_of_the_Emperor_Honorius
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 11:40
|
|
|
Good job cleaning up the birdshit after that.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
Can they not just turn it into a mosque like ever other loving society does with its ancient ruins? 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 12:02
|
|
|
Who destroyed the Library of Alexandria?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 12:13
|
|
|
God willing, when the black flag of the Caliphate flies over Washington, future humans will look back on ISIS destroying ancient ruins as the same level of mildly interesting historical trivia as Rome sacking Carthage. You're living through history! e: Kurtofan posted:Who destroyed the Library of Alexandria? We don't know for sure because it was heavily damaged on a few occasions over a period of centuries, but popular answers include Julius Caesar, "the Christians", or "the Muslims" depending on the agenda of the writer. Kellsterik fucked around with this message at 12:22 on May 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 12:17
|
|
|
I remember an anecdote about the Roman Republic during (I believe) Cicero's time, possibly around the Milo / Clodius feud, about a leading citizen who was travelling through the streets of Rome at night with torches in a group. He gets a bit ahead of the group, turns a corner into another street, and disappears from the face of the earth. I can't find this for the life of me though; anybody know what I'm talking about?
|
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
Did he fall into a manhole?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
Sulla-Marius 88 posted:I remember an anecdote about the Roman Republic during (I believe) Cicero's time, possibly around the Milo / Clodius feud, about a leading citizen who was travelling through the streets of Rome at night with torches in a group. He gets a bit ahead of the group, turns a corner into another street, and disappears from the face of the earth. I can't find this for the life of me though; anybody know what I'm talking about? Pretty sure this is the story you're thinking of.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
It matches pretty well except for a few minor differences
|
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Sulla-Marius 88 posted:It matches pretty well except for a few minor differences Funny, that's what happened to Ambrose, too. Just... Vanished.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Romulus, too. Just vanished into a cloud one day. Certainly wasn't murdered by envious aristocrats, that's just crazy talk.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
What if Remus founded Rome? "Reman Empire" just doesn't have the same ring to it. "Reman Republic", on the other hand…
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:Romulus, too. Just vanished into a cloud one day. Certainly wasn't murdered by envious aristocrats, that's just crazy talk. That's one of my favorite Livy stories, because you can just tell he wrote the entire thing while muttering "this is such bullshit" under his breath.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Noctis Horrendae posted:"Reman Empire" just doesn't have the same ring to it. 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
This is exactly why there should never be a Reman Empire.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Who destroyed the Library of Alexandria? Related to the Library of Alexandria: There existed a rival library in Pergamum and at one point Ptolemy Egypt refused to sell them papyrus. To replace it they began using parchment or, as it's also called, pergament.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Kellsterik posted:God willing, when the black flag of the Caliphate flies over Washington, future humans will look back on ISIS destroying ancient ruins as the same level of mildly interesting historical trivia as Rome sacking Carthage. You're living through history! That's three of the most famous four answers. The other one is that it was wrecked during Aurelian's retaking of Alexandria from Xenobia. One common assumption, given that there are four conflicting stories, is that the Library had been rebuilt and then redestroyed. Either way, whether it existed after Julius Caesar or not, it's status as a major Hellenistic research institution was done with the end of the Ptolemaic period.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Sorry to be the bearer of terrible lovely no-good awful news, but Isis is almost at Palmyra http://news.yahoo.com/dozens-dead-fighting-ancient-syrian-city-palmyra-082617643.html
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:Good news Syrian forces were able to push them back It's still a pretty hosed up situation over there, but that's at least one bright spot in the whole sorry affair.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:That's three of the most famous four answers. The other one is that it was wrecked during Aurelian's retaking of Alexandria from Xenobia. It used to confuse me how often world famous libraries and storehouses of knowledge got burned down but when I stopped to think about it I realised these a buildings filled with rolled up, extremely dry paper with plenty of air pockets added in. Any kind of conflict could end up with things getting set on fire and it doesn't take a lot to get what amounts to an entire building filled with kindling blazing with a fire you're not going to be able to extinguish, especially if anyone who would try is currently being stabbed in the gut and having some hairy arsed soldier rifling through their coin purse.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Alright I have a question on where the Gauls came from for the most part? How did they end up in Anatolia and how come they spread so far throughout the ancient world, because they seemed to span from Ireland to turkey (Galicia) to Spain which is pretty impressive and do we know anything about who they displaced/assimilated. My other main question is where did Scandinavians come from? I.E vikings etc. the entire region up until the 800's or so seems like a giant dead zone history wise. Mainly I have been finding the flow of people in the ancient/early medieval world fascinating. Also how much of this migration was displacement or was more of it intermixing? I feel the best documented example we really have is the Anglo-Saxons and Normans becoming the English ,but was that really the rule or the exception? Are French people from the early middle ages significantly different from the Gallo-Romans of the 400's etc. Sorry if this is really broad ,but these thoughts have been nagging at me and I recently got a library card for the summer so I am interested in reading about this stuff. Jack2142 fucked around with this message at 08:13 on May 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
Rhe answer to all of your questions is: Atlantis, New Jersey.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
Is there an ask/tell thread about ancient Rome where people know what they are talking about and actually answer questions, TIA
|
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 08:54
|
|
|
Regarding Scandinavia, the short answer is we really don't know. The Romans referred to the area as the 'womb of nations', one of a couple of recorded areas with the same basic description, because it seemed like every few generations some brand new peoples just emerged from there as a whole tribe and went pillaging and rampaging until they got wiped out or displaced people and managed to settle down. Similar thing to the Steppe peoples and China. Those cultures tended to be oral tradition and so nothing of their history got preserved outside of random bits of hearsay that make it into Tacitus or other historians. Regarding disaplacement/intermixing, really the best evidence we can get for that is modern genetic testing which shows an interesting combination of variation combined with, from the records we have, typically stable communities. That is people move around when bad things happen but otherwise don't travel very far. The variation is more that there seems to be more that in the UK for example, the vast majority of the population has genetics from all the different ancestor peoples. Even in places where there has been cultural distinctiveness we still have similar genetics which seems to suggest that no-one showed up and just massacred the previous people or fully displaced them. Instead we had lots of intermingling and 'breeding' (in quotations just because that sounds a little too dehumanising, maybe I should have just gone with loving like rabbits?) with certain communities maintaing parts of the previous culture and others where the newer culture became dominant and all the variations in between. Sadly I am far too amateur hour to recommend any articles or reading on this, most of it's been gleaned from things I've read in this thread or random pop-sci articles, so it's entirely possible some of my impressions are incorrect. That's the idea I've gotten on this subject though, I'm sure there are other posters here that'll be able to give you way more to go on.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 08:58
|
|
|
I recently read a book that was mainly focussed on the viking age, but suggested that they were largely doing similar activities as they were centuries later on. Ie. trading up and down europes major river systems, gaining prestige roman items etc. I seem to recall that some Gotland chieftain had a full roman silver dining set that he received from some general or other. Of course this post has been horribly vague but hopefully it can be a jumping off point for you. I was surprised by how similar the 'viking' peoples were across time.The heathen Jutes invaded Britain, which is mirrored by the later Danish invasions.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
You can also look at linguistic information, too. All the Scandinavian countries speak Germanic languages (except for the Sami way up north and the Finnish) so it's safe to assume that they're related to other Germanic speakers. The Scandinavian languages are also reaaaaallly close to each other, their definition as languages rather than different dialects is partly political rather than a reflection of their actual differences. This could be because the people all across Scandinavia historically shared a broadly similar culture with a lot of interchange between them. So, it seems pretty likely that pre-Germanic speakers settled somewhere up North when the Indo-Europeans arrived in Northern Europe, the ones living in Scandinavia had a lot of interchange between each other and less with the Germanics down south, who probably got there via later migrations, displacing Celts or whoever else was there at the time. At least, that's what I've gathered as a layperson.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Why was late Republican Rome never taken over by the bourgeoisie despite the completely insane amount of money wielded by the top bourgeois families in Rome? Why couldn't Crassus have bought, bribed, and schemed his way into becoming the effective ruler of Rome with a more charismatic aristocratic man like Caesar as a puppet? Or the bourgeoisie could have raised their own armies, bought the allegiance of the commoners, and partied like it's 1789. Woolie Wool fucked around with this message at 00:22 on May 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Why was late Republican Rome never taken over by the bourgeois despite the completely insane amount of money wielded by the top bourgeois families in Rome? Why couldn't Crassus have bought, bribed, and schemed his way into becoming the effective ruler of Rome with a more charismatic aristocratic man like Caesar as a puppet? Well first of all, bourgeois culture as we know it didn't really exist. Crassus certainly wasn't bourgeois, he was de facto an aristocrat even if he wasn't a patrician. Secondly, Romans didn't really respect money in itself. They respected achievement more, military achievement above anything. And you have to remember that the legions of the Republic weren't the legions of the latter Empire. It took two centuries of bribery to corrupt them. It really boils down to the end of the Republic being an unstable and dangerous time. There are always mercenary-minded people ready to grab at the next biggest offer, but they weren't in control. Accepting bribes was a luxury. Both civilians and soldiers stuck to leaders that they could trust with their lives, not their wallets.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Why was late Republican Rome never taken over by the bourgeoisie despite the completely insane amount of money wielded by the top bourgeois families in Rome? Why couldn't Crassus have bought, bribed, and schemed his way into becoming the effective ruler of Rome with a more charismatic aristocratic man like Caesar as a puppet? I don't think this is really a meaningful question unless you can assert the existence of a bourgeois class clearly opposed to the aristocracy. You look at the Optimates vs. Populares analysis, and I don't think the conclusion you're gonna draw there is gonna be like "but what about the bourgeoisie?". Especially when say Crassus made his money largely by leeching of Sulla's proscriptions.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Why was late Republican Rome never taken over by the bourgeoisie despite the completely insane amount of money wielded by the top bourgeois families in Rome? Why couldn't Crassus have bought, bribed, and schemed his way into becoming the effective ruler of Rome with a more charismatic aristocratic man like Caesar as a puppet? The closest thing to a bourgeoisie class that existed (and honestly a proper one didn't, where did you get the idea they did?) in late Republican Rome was already in charge of the government and state.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Well first of all, bourgeois culture as we know it didn't really exist. Crassus certainly wasn't bourgeois, he was de facto an aristocrat even if he wasn't a patrician. I guess coming from a bourgeois culture it's really hard to wrap my head around this. Here in  it's taken for granted that if you have enough money you can simply buy the support of other people. Don't have achievement? Bribe someone who does!Even though he's banned, I can't help but laugh at Agesilaus when I'm browsing through the earlier pages of this thread. I want to know if he was riding that tour bus wearing nothing but a bedsheet pinned into a Doric chiton, because pants are vulgar low-class barbarian garments fit only for filthy Germanics like me. 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:I guess coming from a bourgeois culture it's really hard to wrap my head around this. Here in Money always did have that sort of power, it's more that in Rome if you were -that- rich it was because you were already in power. The noble families and the like tended to be the most wealthy and they, indeed, had control of the Senate in a way. It was more of a power=money situation than a money=power one, if that makes any sort of sense at all. The earlier two posters explained it far better than I could hope to, but from a fellow American standpoint that is my (very simplistic) understanding of it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
Money got Crassus pretty far (why he kept getting so many chances as he did), but Crassus had little personal charisma (as the world's biggest slumlord inevitably wouldn't) and less military experience (especially since Pompey "the Great" kill-thieved Spartacus). Crassus needed both his wealth and the loyalty and love of the legions if he wanted to make a move for what he really wanted, which is why he angled so hard for the Parthian commission. If Crassus had had Caesar's gift in the field and had won against the Parthians, the combination of his wealth and military glory could've put him in the driver's seat of the Triumvirate for life. He...didn't win.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 03:36
|
|