|
Phobophilia posted:its definitely an authentic roman sword, because people have been making replicas of it and selling them on ebay lol thats great
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:59 |
|
|
I read it on the internet so it must be true~
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 08:14
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:I read it on the internet so it must be true~ I guess I should say something to my mom then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:9,700 BC, once you correct for the phantom time hypothesis. Phantom time is great, one of my favourite conspiracy theories for sure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
sebzilla posted:Phantom time is great, one of my favourite conspiracy theories for sure. I've never heard of it - what is it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
You know how not much seems to happen between the 7th and 10th centuries? And how Roman architecture sticks around for so long? Obviously it was a conspiracy between the pope, the holy roman emperor, and the byzantinian emperor to skip a couple centuries in the calender so they could be at year 1000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_hypothesis edit: The best part is, it's a theory that actually would rewrite all the history books. Most of the time when people say that, it's just hyperbole. Regardless of who wound up getting to America first, it was still columbus and his fellow explorers that popularized the knowledge of the new landmass. SlothfulCobra fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
So where did the Tang Dynasty go? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So where did the Tang Dynasty go? "Tang sucks." - Buzz Aldrin
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Obviously they were part of the conspiracy too, duh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:You know how not much seems to happen between the 7th and 10th centuries? And how Roman architecture sticks around for so long? Obviously it was a conspiracy between the pope, the holy roman emperor, and the byzantinian emperor to skip a couple centuries in the calender so they could be at year 1000. Hahaha, what the hell is Islam?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
It's true, I can barely see any differences between 600 and 900 AD
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
I did not know the Tang dynasty fought against the Abbasids, or that the Abbasids sent troops to help the Tang dynasty fight rebels in the An Lushan rebellion. Neat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
The origin of the theory is that the Gregorian calendar is ten days off from the Julian, but it should be thirteen to properly sync back up with the solar year. Of course, the calendar reform was actually just trying to get back to the council of Nicaea in 325, so lol. There's Occam's Razor and then there's whatever's going on here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:You know how not much seems to happen between the 7th and 10th centuries? And how Roman architecture sticks around for so long? Obviously it was a conspiracy between the pope, the holy roman emperor, and the byzantinian emperor to skip a couple centuries in the calender so they could be at year 1000. My favourite phantom time hypothesis is the one that says the 16th century doesn't exist
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:I did not know the Tang dynasty fought against the Abbasids, or that the Abbasids sent troops to help the Tang dynasty fight rebels in the An Lushan rebellion. Neat. The Abbasids were involved in the An Lushan rebellion?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Personally I believe in the phantom time conspiracy. How else do you explain the gaps in CK2's start dates?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The Abbasids were involved in the An Lushan rebellion? And they gave Charlemagne an elephant who he loved very much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So where did the Tang Dynasty go? Bielefeld. P-Mack posted:The origin of the theory is that the Gregorian calendar is ten days off from the Julian, but it should be thirteen to properly sync back up with the solar year. Of course, the calendar reform was actually just trying to get back to the council of Nicaea in 325, so lol. There's Occam's Razor and then there's whatever's going on here. They're using Occam's razor, just to make a nice line to snort.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:And they gave Charlemagne an elephant who he loved very much. Whom, Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The Abbasids were involved in the An Lushan rebellion? Seems so, to a mild extent. What I read said that the caliph al-Mansur sent 4,000 Arab mercenaries to assist the Tang in 756.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Bielefeld. I just want you to know that at least one person appreciated this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I just want you to know that at least one person appreciated this. It's me. I'm a 2005 German from the internet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 11:23
|
|
|
So is Justinian's Flea pretty dope or what? Justinian's Flea: The First Great Plague and the End of the Roman Empire https://www.amazon.com/dp/014311381X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awd_af6Fwb0QSY7ZS
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 09:30
|
|
|
Yeah I enjoyed it a lot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
How is the kindle version more than paperback
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 09:37
|
|
|
So, I'm listening to the Rome-podcast by this dude who also made the Revolutions-podcast and I'm at the point where horrible plagues ravage the Roman Empire. The worst of them so far in the 2nd century, killing about 30% of the population. Now I know some things about how the plague was fought in the middle ages (badly), but how did the Romans react to the plague? Do we have any info about how the Romans tried to fight the Antonine Plague?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Dicks posted:How is the kindle version more than paperback Because: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yeah I enjoyed it a lot. Just wanted to second this, Justinian's Flea is pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Obliterati posted:Just wanted to second this, Justinian's Flea is pretty good. The subject looks really interesting, and I'm always curious about ecological history and history of diseases but then: Publisher's Weekly posted:Thus, the "shock of the plague" would remake the political map north of the Alps by drawing power away from the Mediterranean and Byzantine worlds toward what would become France, Germany and England. Specialist historians may certainly dislike the inevitable reductionism such a broad-brush approach entails, but readers of Collapse and Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond's grand narratives, will find this a welcome addendum. ughhh... Tell me that is a misrepresentation of the book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
I read the book and I have no idea what that paragraph is supposed to mean. What I remember the argument as is: the Romans were doing well under Justinian and reacquired a lot of their former territory, but then things stalled a bit when internal conflict began (Justinian was convinced by an rear end in a top hat that Belisarius was going to usurp the throne and etc). Then when that was starting to get back in order, the empire had 1) a gigantic plague 2) a death war with the Persians and then right when that had brought everyone to their knees the Arabs showed up. And that combination was what finally, permanently broke any hope of the empire's recovery. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
It's not supposed to mean anything, it's supposed to get you to buy the book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
I'm not sure how much the book goes into it but the Romans were never going to hold on to Africa and the Italian provinces for long. They "reacquired" those areas purely by landing a large-ish army, fighting a few skirmish battles, and declaring the area for Rome again. I get that at this point in history, the guy with the biggest army is in control of as much territory as he can cross before coming upon another army, but this was putting a token force in a power vacuum. The maps look much more impressive than Roman power actually was and it shows when these areas fall quickly to other lesser powers. Fake Edit: It's possible these areas (Africa, Italy) could've been held and re-consolidated had it not been for the one-two punch of the plague and the final war against Persia. If the empire still had the pre-plague population to expand in the provinces or the pre-Persia war military might to fend off the Arabs and retain Syria/Egypt, it would've been a very different history. Thwomp fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Not to mention there is like almost a century between Justinian's plague and Arab conquests (and a recovery in between), plus there is no way to accurately know the impact of the plague on population numbers. Does the book address these?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
So you would define Roman control of Southern Italy/Sicily for five centuries, until the Normans showed up, as not holding those provinces for long? They held North Africa for over a century between reclaiming it and before the Muslim conquests got that far as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
I should've been more specific. The northern half of Italy (including the eternal city itself) were never going to be held if a serious threat showed up. It wasn't as easily accessed by sea and they never really had the manpower to create a defense around the alps. In fact, Rome only really had control of Ravenna and Rome and a corridor to connect the two. The Lombards controlled most of remaining peninsula on and off. So you first get the Lombards and then the Franks moving in. And since the empire was drained of manpower and military resources (plague and persian wars, respectively), this land was conceded/treaties signed to keep the peace in the west. So yeah, they took back all of Italy but gave it up piecemeal from the north down as more powerful entities encroached on Roman territory. You're right that Southern Italy remained in Roman hands for quite a while. I suspect quick resupply has something to do with this (mainly due to the currents in the Mediterranean. I believe it only took a few days to a week to travel from Constantinople to Naples/Sicily). And North Africa was regained in 534 (wasn't properly under full Roman control until 548. See Moorish attacks and mutinies). They held this by virtue of there being no other rivals. Once another major power decided to show up (70 years later), Rome lost Egypt (EGYPT! The personal property of the Emperor and the breadbasket of the empire!). I'd say control of Africa during this period was tenuous and only by virtue of there being no other powers to challenge the Romans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:And North Africa was regained in 534 (wasn't properly under full Roman control until 548. See Moorish attacks and mutinies). They held this by virtue of there being no other rivals. Once another major power decided to show up (70 years later), Rome lost Egypt (EGYPT! The personal property of the Emperor and the breadbasket of the empire!) That personal property thing wasn't really the case I don't think, any more so than it was for the multitude of other Imperial provinces (which was most of them). And by the time of Justinian the political structure in Egypt had been completely remodeled relative to where it was in Augustus' time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:44
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Thwomp posted:I should've been more specific. The northern half of Italy (including the eternal city itself) were never going to be held if a serious threat showed up. It wasn't as easily accessed by sea and they never really had the manpower to create a defense around the alps. In fact, Rome only really had control of Ravenna and Rome and a corridor to connect the two. The Lombards controlled most of remaining peninsula on and off. It wasn't inevitable that the Lombards would take Italy, if the Gothic War had played out differently they may have never become a player. Given a slightly different course of events I think Italy could have even become a profitable province. I don't think control of Roman Africa was any more tenuous than in any other part of the Empire after Justinian's reign, in fact it was from Africa that Emperor Heraclius built up enough power to usurp Phocas. Rome territory throughout the empire was extremely vulnerable to foreign attacks, Africa wasn't unusual in that regard. Compared to the eastern provinces it was actually pretty stable and secure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
The Romans did still control enough of Italy to depose Pope's pretty much at will till the coming of the Franks. Til Charlemagne Empire, Rome was always the big kid on the block everywhere in Western Europe
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:I'm not sure how much the book goes into it but the Romans were never going to hold on to Africa and the Italian provinces for long. They "reacquired" those areas purely by landing a large-ish army, fighting a few skirmish battles, and declaring the area for Rome again. I think it's also worth adding that Justinian's acquisitions weren't just held through sheer force and intimidation, most of the people in Italy, Spain, and Africa still thought of themselves as Roman, and supported the reassertion of Imperial authority. And reasserting wasn't hard because most people continued to live under pre-barbarian Roman institutions, for example the Roman Church. This meant even when armies were away doing things other than keeping the provincials in line the Imperial system kept trucking, because everyone wanted it to. It took a lot of disasters for that to finally change.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:59 |
|
|
Squalid posted:. And reasserting wasn't hard because most people continued to live under pre-barbarian Roman institutions, for example the Roman Church. This meant even when armies were away doing things other than keeping the provincials in line the Imperial system kept trucking, because everyone wanted it to. It took a lot of disasters for that to finally change. Ehhhhhh. . . that depends on what "Roman institutions" you are talking about and in what form. Rome in 400AD looks very, VERY different as far as that stuff goes than Rome in 100AD and a lot of what made it kind of fade away in the west was the decay of a lot of those institutions, changes in the way taxation was handled, and a lot of pressures that made moving to the countryside (and thus away from the more immediate grasp of the government) attractive for wealthy elites. It's absolutely true that "Rome" doesn't just disappear from Italy in the 5th century, but it's also a bit hard to argue that by Justinian's time it was still there ready to be set back up again if only someone with authority would wander by and do so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 03:21
|
|