|
Grand Fromage posted:I like the unleaded gasoline hypothesis. I wasn't sure if a worldwide crime decrease was well supported though. I know the US one is. The unleaded gas hypothesis is actually pretty terrible. The causes of criminal behavior simply do not reduce to a single variable with that level of correlation. No human behavior does. It appears to be a massive "correlation is not causation" fallacy. Yes, they have very fine epidemiological data that areas with high lead levels also had high crime, but they have no data whatever on who was actually committing those crimes - whether they had high, low or variable lead exposures. Very likely, high environmental lead levels is a marker for some other factor that matters much more, like poverty. Actual longitudinal studies of lead exposure as infants versus future criminal behavior in actual individuals has shown only a very weak if any correlation between the two. Lead exposure should have a wide variety of symptoms, as well, and the notion that lead exposure would lead to criminal behavior with no other correlated effects is pretty absurd. Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Aug 17, 2015 |
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:15 |
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:a university researcher, not a random nutjob. this implies that these are mutually exclusive
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
This is probably the article Grand Fromage was thinking of: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline Kind of OT unless we want to get into the whole lead-pipes-brought-down-the-empire thing here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
The Romans loved eating and drinking lead, and ultimately it propelled them towards their eventual demise at the hands of the mighty Visigoths, who did not eat lead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:The Romans loved eating and drinking lead, and ultimately it propelled them towards their eventual demise at the hands of the mighty Visigoths, who did not eat lead. Well, by that time the Romans were just a bunch of criminals. They spent all their time stealing from each other rather than defending the empire.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Well, by that time the Romans were just a bunch of criminals. They spent all their time stealing from each other rather than defending the empire. Correct, and eating lead. It was a strange time to be alive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
The romans were the first to discover the poisonous attributes of lead. What a clever and wonderful people!
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Obliterati posted:Tom Holland's is a good one. Persian Fire, I think it's called? Persian Fire was pretty good, though if I remember correctly about half of it was about the Greek city states in the Persian War. It's been a while since I read it so I might be misremembering it. mornhaven fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Aug 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Whorelord posted:thanks for this. anyone know of any good books on the achaemenids that deal with the empire outside of the invasions of greece? Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire 550–330 BCE is a textbook from a couple years ago. Not very exciting, but it's modern and is more than a retelling of Herodotus. I personally don't think much of a book called Persian Fire but many other goons in this thread seem to like it. Achaemenid studies is a difficult field to recommend things in, in my opinion, because it's been rather political for the last few generations. In the earlier parts of the 20th century, it was often used to boost the Pahlavi regime, such as in the episode of the Cyrus Cylinder. Since the Islamic Republic, it's been difficult for western academics to get access to sources - which, coupled with decreased funding in the classics in general, has led to stagnation. (There's also, perhaps, been some cultural interest in focusing on the "democratic Greeks vs. theocratic people from the East" motif, but that goes back to Herodotus.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
homullus posted:Empathy isn't a modern invention. There are more slaves in 2015 than at any year prior, with something like 28-30 million slaves worldwide. Probably much fewer slaves per capita compared to, say 500BC, but you know, that doesn't make the lives of the people who are enslaved any better (and I suspect it makes them worse). I think you could certainly find a road lined with corpses... maybe not a road of crucifixions though. A road lined with hung corpses though, yeah I'm sure there are at least a few stretches of road with some dudes hung on them. If your concern is the torture aspect of crucifixion, sometimes hangings fail and the person slowly chokes to death instead of having a broken neck. So a few of those guys currently being hung from trees or street lamps in Yemen today probably are experiencing a very high degree of pain and discomfort for a prolonged period of time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:I like the hypothesis that when more and more people grow up with something resembling humanitarian values and considering women, foreigners and gays people, they are also less likely to murder each other for petty reasons. That, and there is much less conflict in the world. At least in the west and in east/southeast asia. Violence has a tendency to perpetuate more violence: those who rose to power on the corpses of others will continue that pattern of behaviour. And when violence is acceptable, it becomes one of the first options in any dispute.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
We're all inside all day masturbating and playing video games so who has time to commit crimes?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
mornhaven posted:Persian Fire was pretty good, though if I remember correctly about half of it was about the Greek city states in the Persian War. It's been a while since I read it so I might be misremembering it. Any book that claims that the Greek victory against the Persians saved western civilization is just dumb. Tom Holland is a good writer but not a good historian.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 12:18
|
|
|
homullus posted:Empathy isn't a modern invention. Isis do all this poo poo up to and including crucifixion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 12:20
|
|
|
Charlie Mopps posted:Any book that claims that the Greek victory against the Persians saved western civilization is just dumb. Tom Holland is a good writer but not a good historian.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:There are more slaves in 2015 than at any year prior, with something like 28-30 million slaves worldwide. Probably much fewer slaves per capita compared to, say 500BC, but you know, that doesn't make the lives of the people who are enslaved any better (and I suspect it makes them worse). I think you are right about all of these things, and these disappointing facts about the modern world and ISIS were accounted for in my original statement. We, in the world as a whole -- per capita -- rarely do some things that were quite common in the ancient world. We, in the world as a whole, more commonly recognize each other's basic humanness than those in the ancient world did.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
I'm going through Cyropaedia right now, and I have a bunch of questions: When Cyrus is telling his comrades that they'll have to learn to drink water, he gives this long list of foods with water in them wherein they just have to increase the proportions involved. Wine is specifically left out of that list. Are these people drinking un-watered wine, with every meal? Chariots (scythed / archers) were limited in operations to big flat plains. But those are exactly the sort of plains that Greece is filled with, and they use for their Hoplite formations. The two cultures obviously exchanged a fair deal of information - what was stopping the importation of chariots? IIRC, Romance of Three Kingdoms takes place about a millennia after Cyropaedia (?) and chariots are still (for a given definition of still) in use over there. Did whatever tactics make chariots obsolete (?) just never make the transition, or were those chariots different somehow? On that note: Xenophon and Caesar kinda emphasize how even lowly commanders or individual troops should / do know the basic battle / campaign plan, and are able to use their initiative to pull stupid / brilliant poo poo. Art of War / RoTK emphathetically recommend the opposite - the battle plans should really only be clear to the general himself. Difference in mentalities? Citizen soldiers vs peasant conscripts? Just me overgeneralizing based on limited data? Why did brief exiles never took off in Rome they way they have in Athens / Greece? Seems that might have made their struggles to be the last man standing at the top that much less desperate and damaging to society as a whole. Going on to the latter periods of the Roman Empire - why the hell aren't the various governors and general leaving their families safe and sound in Rome (or wherever the capital is) as they go off to take control of the legions? Wouldn't that limit the constant temptation making a grasp at the... Caesarship(?)?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Chariots (scythed / archers) were limited in operations to big flat plains. But those are exactly the sort of plains that Greece is filled with, and they use for their Hoplite formations. The two cultures obviously exchanged a fair deal of information - what was stopping the importation of chariots? Cost. Greek citizens, like most soldiers of the period, were expected to provide their own equipment, and the maintenance of horses is of course expensive. Greek city-states, whilst possessing rich and powerful families, didn't have a large nobility. Cavalry as a whole doesn't hugely feature in a lot of Greek armies of the period. Conversely, there were lots of Persian nobles, each of whom could afford the stables, grooms, fodder etc. necessary to maintain chariots. On top of this, even flat plains are really hard for chariots! A single bump has them throwing a wheel and disaster. Armies used to pick their fields in advance and then spend a shittonne of time levelling out the ground in order to make chariots at all viable. Greek armies just didn't have the sort of manpower necessary to modify battlefields to support chariots. quote:IIRC, Romance of Three Kingdoms takes place about a millennia after Cyropaedia (?) and chariots are still (for a given definition of still) in use over there. Did whatever tactics make chariots obsolete (?) just never make the transition, or were those chariots different somehow? IIRC Chinese chariots are very different, essentially working like slow but mobile platforms for archers/spears rather than the raw charge of a scythed chariot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
Regarding chariots - when two city states or alliances duked it out in Greece the lines were so absurdly long there wasn't much place for flanking. Or terrain was rocky enough that chariots were impractical outside of tracts/roads.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:On that note: Xenophon and Caesar kinda emphasize how even lowly commanders or individual troops should / do know the basic battle / campaign plan, and are able to use their initiative to pull stupid / brilliant poo poo. Art of War / RoTK emphathetically recommend the opposite - the battle plans should really only be clear to the general himself. Difference in mentalities? Citizen soldiers vs peasant conscripts? Just me overgeneralizing based on limited data? I don't know about the Art of War but I assumed that this was mostly played up for effect in RoTK . It is a novel written over a millennia after the facts, after all. Although keeping the general battle plans restricted to a few trusted people also makes sense with all the backstabbing and turncoats in that time period. Not really a risk to see roman commanders go over to Hannibal/Vercingetorix/whoever, in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Obliterati posted:On top of this, even flat plains are really hard for chariots! A single bump has them throwing a wheel and disaster. Armies used to pick their fields in advance and then spend a shittonne of time levelling out the ground in order to make chariots at all viable. Greek armies just didn't have the sort of manpower necessary to modify battlefields to support chariots. What's the source for this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
I think the most well-known example is Darius preparing the battlefield at Gaugamela. This is from Arrian: "With these forces Darius had encamped at Gaugamela, near the river Bumodus, about seventy miles from the city of Arbela, in a district everywhere level; for whatever ground thereabouts was unlevel and unfit for the evolutions of cavalry had long before been levelled by the Persians, and made fit for the easy rolling of chariots and for the galloping of horses." tho it sort of makes it sound like this was a long-term process, modern write-ups describes as done recently before the battle itself by military engineers. I don't think they are so much literally shifting earth as they are just picking up rocks. Clearing brush, too, maybe?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Kassad posted:I don't know about the Art of War but I assumed that this was mostly played up for effect in RoTK . It is a novel written over a millennia after the facts, after all. Although keeping the general battle plans restricted to a few trusted people also makes sense with all the backstabbing and turncoats in that time period. Not really a risk to see roman commanders go over to Hannibal/Vercingetorix/whoever, in comparison. There have been famous commanders who kept their subordinates ignorant and under tight control, and others who did the opposite. Robert E Lee gave Stonewall Jackson a great deal of autonomy, but Jackson in turn gave his subordinates almost none. In ancient times communication was so bad you had to let forces operate independently. You can't micro manage by two week old notes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Chariots (scythed / archers) were limited in operations to big flat plains. But those are exactly the sort of plains that Greece is filled with, and they use for their Hoplite formations. The two cultures obviously exchanged a fair deal of information - what was stopping the importation of chariots? Scythed chariots were a Persian anomaly invented long after chariots became obsolete. War chariots were all archery platforms, which wasn't very important to Greek warfare. Greece is not filled with big flat plains at all. The biggest stretch of flat land in Greece is monopolized in Thessaly, which is something of a backwater. The Greek used what land they can to raise horses, but that came secondary to growing food. That's one of the reasons that chariots became obsolete. A chariot usually features a single shooter, a driver, and two horses. If a man simply rides on the back of a horse, he's halved the cost of the whole operation. And he doesn't have to worry about his wheels falling off. The only reason chariots were ever used in warfare was because early horses were too small to ride. Chariots are heavily limited by their wheels, so as soon as horses were bred to a rideable state, cavalry were objectively superior. The Chinese stopped using war chariots in number after the Qin dynasty. I'm pretty sure most characters in RotK just ride horses. quote:Going on to the latter periods of the Roman Empire - why the hell aren't the various governors and general leaving their families safe and sound in Rome (or wherever the capital is) as they go off to take control of the legions? Wouldn't that limit the constant temptation making a grasp at the... Caesarship(?)? The governors and generals themselves wouldn't have liked the possibility of somebody in Rome taking their family hostage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Are there any examples of atheism in Rome? I know the concept wasn't embraced until much later but I wonder if there were any authors who at least played with the idea. Maybe somebody noticed that amount of sacrifices doesn't translate into actual favors from gods?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:Are there any examples of atheism in Rome? I know the concept wasn't embraced until much later but I wonder if there were any authors who at least played with the idea. Maybe somebody noticed that amount of sacrifices doesn't translate into actual favors from gods? The Epicureans were practically atheists, since they believed the gods were non-interventionist beings, ones made of atoms and possessing souls in the same way as humans. Lucretius' De Rerum Natura (a Roman summary of Epicureanism, put into poetry to get people to read it and like it) is simultaneously  and  .Coincidentally, it also has a bit about scythe-bearing chariots.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:There have been famous commanders who kept their subordinates ignorant and under tight control, and others who did the opposite. Robert E Lee gave Stonewall Jackson a great deal of autonomy, but Jackson in turn gave his subordinates almost none. In ancient times communication was so bad you had to let forces operate independently. You can't micro manage by two week old notes. Xenophon also dwells on it a lot in Cyropedia because it's his musings on authority and leadership more than it is a history (a counterpoint, almost, to Plato's Republic, as opposed to his Hellenika which is explicitly a Thucydides type history) and so he gets pretty theoretical. Like ideally you're as kick-rear end as Cyrus and have done everything he has to instill loyalty, virtue, and competence in the lower ranks, then as a benefit of that you can trust your subordinates. But that follows after creating the Platonic ideal of proper command. The other thing to remember is that Xenophon is a habitual follower. He takes command of the Ten Thousand reluctantly at best and passes off the reigns to a Spartan the moment they get back to Ionia. Nevertheless he's been hosed so bad by poor command choices (even, sometimes, by people he respects) that he has a great deal to say on the subject of leadership. So that's one thing to keep in mind about his specific perspective on the issue. The only other thing I'll add to the whole chariots/cavalry bit is that a. Greece isn't great chariot country, most strategic locations are on hills or passes. But also scythed chariots and cavalry in Xenophon's time fit very different roles. Cavalry are scouts and skirmishers, there to harass the enemy, keep their skirmishers away from your heavy infantry, and of course they can also pursue a rout or alternatively shield routing allies. The scythed chariots on the other hand were terror/shock weapons sent right at the enemy. Doctor Malaver posted:Are there any examples of atheism in Rome? I know the concept wasn't embraced until much later but I wonder if there were any authors who at least played with the idea. Maybe somebody noticed that amount of sacrifices doesn't translate into actual favors from gods? I think a lot of people had a very different relationship to the gods than what we'd recognize today.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
It is convenient that there be gods, and, as it is convenient, let us believe that there are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
From Philogelos 242. A man with bad breath is constantly looking to the heavens and saying lots of prayers. After a quick, baleful glance at him, Zeus calls down, ‘Have a little mercy! You’ve got gods in the underworld, too, you know!’
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
He wasn't in command of the 10000, he was chosen to be an officer after the original crew got their throats cut. When the democrats took control and started executing officers, he stepped down, but later ended up in charge of some dudes while they messing around by the Black Sea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
homullus posted:The Epicureans were practically atheists, since they believed the gods were non-interventionist beings, ones made of atoms and possessing souls in the same way as humans. Lucretius' De Rerum Natura (a Roman summary of Epicureanism, put into poetry to get people to read it and like it) is simultaneously To expand on this a little, one of the explicit purposes of De Rerum Natura is to persuade its readers that religious superstitions only create fear and anxiety. That is to say, even if there are gods, the Lucretian/Epicurean argument is that they have no power over physics, so all of the ritual pollution that ancient religion was focused on is bunk. (Even if most of the physics in it is empirically wrong, the idea of "an epic poem? about physics?" is enough of a weird literary curiosity that I'm happy it came down through the ages.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Lucretius posted:And since we mark the vital sense to be Lucretius is bizarre and excellent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
i've always been ill-at-ease with the notion that atheism is some modern phenomenon both muhammad, descartes and michel de montaigne seem to feel that it's worthwhile to countermand some group of non-believers (not just heathens or pagans, but non-believers), and de montaigne explicitly calls them atheists
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
There was also the amusing tale of Diagoras the Athiest, a Greek philosopher. After having his island be massacred by the Athenians, he was sold into slavery, and then freed by one of his teachers. One day, he chopped up a wooden statue of Hercules for firewood, saying that Hercules' 13th labor would be to cook him dinner. Eventually he was condemned to death for blasphemy. Hmm, maybe it wasn't such an amusing story after all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Yeah there were definitely Greeks who did not buy any of that poo poo. There are several whose names we know so there must have been a lot more. Also consider the different relationship. There would have been plenty of people in a "The gods are real sure but I don't give a poo poo" vein, since generally your only relationship with the gods was to not make them angry so they'll leave you the gently caress alone. Christianity requires a much more active belief than the Roman or Greek systems. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Greece is not filled with big flat plains at all. The biggest stretch of flat land in Greece is monopolized in Thessaly, which is something of a backwater. The Greek used what land they can to raise horses, but that came secondary to growing food. Anyways, which of these factors did not apply to Chinese chariots? (Which, do in fact participate quite a bit. IIRC, one of Yuan Shao's kids even comes up with improved chariots, for all the good that does them) ... In other (atheist-related) news, I wonder why Xenophon is so drat big on constant sacrifices and omen-taking. Trauma after the execution of Socrates, and suspicion as one of his students? Genuine belief? Also, Cyrus keeps talking about his worship of Zeus. I first assumed it's just cultural shorthand for Ahran Mazda or whatever, but at one point he just sets it down "no, seriously, I worship Zeus in this story. Throws thunderbolts down at people, turns himself into golden showers, fucks a duck - that Zeus". Weird. Edit: Slim Jim Pickens posted:
Xander77 fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Really? Can't say I'm an expert on Greek geography (topography?) but I recall that was the explanation offered for the prevalence of the hoplite style in Greece. As far as I know, Chinese armies stopped using war chariots around the time the Han dynasty began. If you have any sources besides RotK they would be more useful, since its unabashedly historical fiction rather than an accurate description of events. The wikipedia page for Chinese chariots mentions that war chariots eventually evolved into vehicles for to cart generals around. It might be a literary device emphasizing foolishness for Yuan Shao's son to dedicate resources into pimping his ride while Cao Cao invades. So the Chinese stop using war chariots around ~200 BC. That's not really that much later than the rest of the world. Chinese horses were probably the biggest factor. China didn't really get into breeding horses, and the only source of them were nomads who preferred not to arm their victims. quote:Yeah, kinda the point. Besides, they don't exactly have the power to object before they have legions under their command, as they are still supposedly beholden to the Emperor. They technically are, but important Romans weren't really above offing their emperors if they didn't like what they were doing. Or if they could offer the praetorians something better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
sullat posted:He wasn't in command of the 10000, he was chosen to be an officer after the original crew got their throats cut. When the democrats took control and started executing officers, he stepped down, but later ended up in charge of some dudes while they messing around by the Black Sea. Yeah, definitely a position thrust upon him. Though he stayed with them through Thrace and then back to Ionia. He did get really pissy about them going hog wild on a city and he had nothing good to say, e.g. about the jerk who took their boats promising to go get help who never came back, but I don't remember any democratic fragging going down. Can you point me to the chapter?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Really? Can't say I'm an expert on Greek geography (topography?) but I recall that was the explanation offered for the prevalence of the hoplite style in Greece. It's drat hilly, for the most part. Fighting happened on the flatter bits because if some other fucker was on the top of the hill you found a way to not fight him there. quote:In other (atheist-related) news, I wonder why Xenophon is so drat big on constant sacrifices and omen-taking. Trauma after the execution of Socrates, and suspicion as one of his students? Genuine belief? Xenophon by all accounts is just a big believer. He's very much all about the Done Things. At least I haven't been able to find a trace of irony in all his work, and he'll bring up 'and thus x did y which brought the ill will of the gods against him and his efforts came to naught.' He's basically the living breathing embodiment of 1950's dad if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it conservatism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:15 |
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Also consider the different relationship. There would have been plenty of people in a "The gods are real sure but I don't give a poo poo" vein, since generally your only relationship with the gods was to not make them angry so they'll leave you the gently caress alone. Also don't marry too pretty a lady, because then Zeus will try to get it on with her and Hera will gently caress you up for it. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 08:56
|
|
