|
The long s written as f hurts so much to read. It is not an f, why are you putting down an f.
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 21:23 |
|
|
You get ufed to it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:The long s written as f hurts so much to read. It is not an f, why are you putting down an f. It's a scanned copy where the program chose an f, I assume.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
It's a long S.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:It's a scanned copy where the program chose an f, I assume. Probably, but I'm impressed nobody working with old docs has ocr or the inclination to fix it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
I thought "will and testament" was a Legal Doublet, like "law and order" and "breaking and entering" and "cease and desist", where medieval English law scribes paired up an English/Saxon word with a French/Latin one to make sure everyone understood what they were talking about, because of the Normans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Yes that it exactly right, though scrivening went through a phrase beyond doubling even.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Obligatory Dinosaur Comic
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
rocket_350 posted:I saw a personalized license plate that said "PRINCEPS" yesterday.  sighting!
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
The couple of times I've seen it it was near a condo under construction, so maybe he's one of the local builders. "I found a city of brick and left one of two by fours and particle board"
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:I was thinking about it and I can't recall any Republican generals who were executed solely for losing a battle. Were there any? That seems like a difference between the Romans and the Athenians, who would practically turn on their generals while the battle was still going on. Quintus Servilius Caepio (ancestor of Caesar's assassin, Brutus) completely hosed up the Battle of Arausio when he refused to work with or follow the orders of his fellow general because he was a "new man" - when it looked like the other General was actually going to do well on his own, Caepio jumped the gun and launched into battle and his army was utterly smashed. He was tried, convicted and exiled for life from Rome, with all peoples within 800 miles of Rome forbidden from providing him any shelter or resources, he also lost his citizenship and was charged a ridiculously huge fine (the equivalent of saying,"You are fined a millionty, billionty dollars" basically) because his gently caress-up was so huge it basically put all of Rome at risk until Marius saved the day. Of course, Caepio also pulled off perhaps the biggest gold heist in history (unless Augustus stripping Egypt's treasury is a true story) so it's not like he didn't live the rest of his life in exorbitant luxury. Edit: I guess technically Cassius was executed after he screwed up in his final battle against Antony. It's just that he was the one who sentenced himself to death! xthetenth posted:That's why baths exist. Poor Selius is in for a shock, he just wanted a dinner invitation 
Jerusalem fucked around with this message at 09:27 on Jul 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Didn't that tradition evolve into the medieval funeral fellowship society? I don't know the name in English, but I recal there was a tradition among the well-to-do to put aside a fund a feast for however many (usually poor) men to gather and... I dunno, pay their respect to their patron or something. It isn't just an ancient Roman or old English thing. Burial societies are amongst the most widespread financial institutions in the world. You see them all over the place from the Islamic world to India, South Africa and so forth. These are community organised societies with no or very little tie to the formal financial system. I was going to link the Wikipedia article but it is remarkably poor and indeed only mentions the English link. Did I miss another term which these institutions are filed under in Wikipedia?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 09:52
|
|
|
Munin posted:It isn't just an ancient Roman or old English thing. There was an article recently about how the Jewish society in Mumbai is basically bankrupt and they are going to have to sell the whole thing off. It was really interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Anyone know any good book on the social war?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
I'm looking for a comprehensive overview of the Ancient Levant/Ancient Near East from the Early Bronze Age through the Iron Age (4000BCE - 0 BCE). The cultures I'd like to get educated about are: Sumer, Akkad, Amorites, Assyria, Babylonia, Canaanites, Hitte Empire, Sea Peoples, Neo-Hittite, Neo-Babylonian, Neo-Assyrian, Arcahemenid Empire. Any source of information would be great whether it be a book, podcast, youtube video, etc... Ideally I would prefer a single source that provides a broad overview of the above time period and civilizations I listed above, but I have no idea if such a thing exists. I suspect I will have to find multiple sources, but if anyone could point me in a good direction to start that would be great. Man I would kill for a History of Rome quality podcast that covered these topics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Megasabin posted:I'm looking for a comprehensive overview of the Ancient Levant/Ancient Near East from the Early Bronze Age through the Iron Age (4000BCE - 0 BCE). The cultures I'd like to get educated about are: Sumer, Akkad, Amorites, Assyria, Babylonia, Canaanites, Hitte Empire, Sea Peoples, Neo-Hittite, Neo-Babylonian, Neo-Assyrian, Arcahemenid Empire. You might try http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Ancient-Near-Revised-Edition/dp/0393316890 It's about the Bible, but largely about its historicity in light of all the surrounding civilizations and everything we know about them. I've found it to be an extremely useful summary of all the civilizations you mention.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
I really enjoyed George Roux's book on ancient Iraq. It is showing it's age, but it is a good overview.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Megasabin posted:Man I would kill for a History of Rome quality podcast that covered these topics. try "The Ancient World Podcast" if you just want a really broad overview.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Megasabin posted:I'm looking for a comprehensive overview of the Ancient Levant/Ancient Near East from the Early Bronze Age through the Iron Age (4000BCE - 0 BCE). The cultures I'd like to get educated about are: Sumer, Akkad, Amorites, Assyria, Babylonia, Canaanites, Hitte Empire, Sea Peoples, Neo-Hittite, Neo-Babylonian, Neo-Assyrian, Arcahemenid Empire. The Ancient World podcast covers that time period, or at least the beginning of it. It stops around 500 BC if I remember right. It isn't HoR quality but what is. They're up to other things now but the first 36 episodes are what you're looking for. I'd appreciate a good book recommendation too though on that topic. Edit: Haha beaten
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
1177 is a good book for the end of the Bronze Age. I need to read up on earlier though, especially Assyrians because Assyrians are awesome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
The makers of my school history textbooks decided that the most essential thing about Assyrians, the one thing that everyone needed to know about this ancient civilization, was an excerpt from an Assyrian general talking about how many people he has flayed while suppressing a rebellion. They sound awesome indeed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Yeah they were villified by my teacher too, it was odd. They made a special point of highlighting all these awesome achievements in architecture and science the Babylonians had developed while saying the Assyrians had done pretty much nothing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Yeah they were villified by my teacher too, it was odd. They made a special point of highlighting all these awesome achievements in architecture and science the Babylonians had developed while saying the Assyrians had done pretty much nothing. Well, everybody in the ancient world hated the Assyrians. A bunch finally ganged up on them in 625 BC and wiped them out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Well, everybody in the ancient world hated the Assyrians. A bunch finally ganged up on them in 625 BC and wiped them out. Yeah, it's kinda a reflection of everyone else in the area (no strangers to the occasional massacre themselves) going 'whoa, hold on there.'
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
The Assyrians were basically genocided more thoroughly then anyone else would be until some of the native american groups over a millenium later. All for being such big dicks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What was the Roman attitude towards bastards? I haven't run into this. I remember reading they had no status or even acknowledgement, as their existence was seen as leading to untidy, divisive inheritance situations. One theory for the Roman's strict ban on polygamy was that the numerous children which could result from such marriages would engage in violent disputes over their patrimony. Limiting everybody to one partner just kept everything neater. There are other theories for their practice though, like that monogamy in Greece and Rome was institutionalized as a Republic populist measure, something to make sure everyone could find a partner. Unusually for the Romans, they also compelled most foreign subjects to adhere to monogamy, despite their normally laissez faire attitude towards local customs. Like human sacrifice, it was one of the few things they could tolerate and vigorously sought to stamp out. The modern Christian tradition of strict monogamy has only the most tenuous basis in biblical texts. It's simply that old Roman revulsion at polygamy justified in the language of their new religion. Sephardic Jews living in the Muslim world continued to practice polygyny before their 20th century migration to Israel, where they were forced to abandon the practice by the European Ashkenazim controlled government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The makers of my school history textbooks decided that the most essential thing about Assyrians, the one thing that everyone needed to know about this ancient civilization, was an excerpt from an Assyrian general talking about how many people he has flayed while suppressing a rebellion. To be fair like half of Assyrian writing is kings talking about how they skinned their enemies alive and built a pillar of skulls as high as the city gate and poo poo. Sculpture of people being flayed also was the decoration in the lobby while you waited for an audience with the king. Not so subtle implications abounded.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Letters to the king of mari is a pretty fun skim. Just a big pile of ancient tweets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Do we know which Assyrian king built the largest skull pile?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
Oh, a memory finally came back. When a child was born, the pater familias either accepted or rejected it (picked it up or refused it) and his decision was final. That was in the context of determining the father of a slave girl's baby. Since the Romans also killed or sold unwanted newborns, it would seem that anybody accepted into the family would have been a legitimate part of the family.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
I'm sure the answer is yes, but googling "greatest rulers" likes to list Hitler who wasn't really the type of great I'm looking for. Were there any rulers in history that weren't colossal dickbags? Like, Alexander the Great is the Great because he tore rear end across the continent. Were there any kings or queens or any sort of leader at all I suppose going back from the feudal era who just sort of chilled and did cool + neat stuff for their subjects or were they all sociopaths/insane because that's what it took to keep from getting assassinated five minutes in?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 12:10
|
|
|
Alfred the Great was pretty cool
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
Robo Reagan posted:I'm sure the answer is yes, but googling "greatest rulers" likes to list Hitler who wasn't really the type of great I'm looking for. Frederick II was pretty cool. He managed to conduct a crusade where not a single drop of blood was shed for example. Of course this meant that rest of Europe loving hated him (especially the pope) and Dante put him in the sixth circle of hell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
Robo Reagan posted:I'm sure the answer is yes, but googling "greatest rulers" likes to list Hitler who wasn't really the type of great I'm looking for. most of the Electors of Saxony just got extremely drunk  look at this fucker
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 13:03
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Frederick II was pretty cool. He managed to conduct a crusade where not a single drop of blood was shed for example. Of course this meant that rest of Europe loving hated him (especially the pope) and Dante put him in the sixth circle of hell. Frederick II was a pretty cool and interesting ruler, but let's face it, he was a ruthless autocrat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Robo Reagan posted:I'm sure the answer is yes, but googling "greatest rulers" likes to list Hitler who wasn't really the type of great I'm looking for. Emperor Pedro II of Brazil was pretty awesome. Wikipedia posted:Inheriting an Empire on the verge of disintegration, Pedro II turned Portuguese-speaking Brazil into an emerging power in the international arena. The nation grew to be distinguished from its Hispanic neighbors on account of its political stability, zealously guarded freedom of speech, respect for civil rights, vibrant economic growth and especially for its form of government: a functional, representative parliamentary monarchy. He did eventually get tossed out by a coup though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Frederick II was a pretty cool and interesting ruler, but let's face it, he was a ruthless autocrat. Why would you say that? quote:[Salimbene] goes on to enumerate several specimens of the Emperor's "curiosities" or "excesses," though for sheer weariness he will not tell them all. Frederick cut off a notary's thumb who had spelt his name Fredericus instead of Fridericus. Like Psammetichus in Herodotus, he made linguistic experiments on the vile bodies of hapless infants, "bidding foster-mothers and nurses to suckle and bathe and wash the chidren, but in no wise to prattle or speak with them; for he would have learnt whether they would speak the Hebrew language (which had been the first), or Greek, or Latin, or Arabic, or perchance the tongue of their parents of whom they had been born. But he laboured in vain, for the children could not live without clappings of the hands, and gestures, and gladness of countenance, and blandishments. " quote:Sixthly, he fed two men most excellently at dinner, one of whom he sent forthwith to sleep, and the other to hunt; and that same evening he caused them to be disembowelled in his presence, wishing to know which had digested the better: and it was judged by the physicians in favour of him who had slept. '
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Why would you say that? ..loving hell, man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Robo Reagan posted:Were there any rulers in history that weren't colossal dickbags? Cyrus the Great was supposedly OK.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 21:23 |
|
|
Augustus was pretty good once he finally had all the power he wanted, getting there was a bit rough though. Claudius turned out better than everyone expected and seemed to be more concerned with stable government than conquest or drunken hedonism, too bad about his wife though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 18:56
|
|