|
Didn't Scipio Africanus become supreme military commander at an unprecedented early age? Primarily because everybody else had either died or was too scared to take on the Carthaginians and he was the only one who stood up? But it was unusual in that you were expected to be older and more experienced before getting really serious responsibilities?
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 22:28 |
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Didn't Scipio Africanus become supreme military commander at an unprecedented early age? Primarily because everybody else had either died or was too scared to take on the Carthaginians and he was the only one who stood up? But it was unusual in that you were expected to be older and more experienced before getting really serious responsibilities? It wasn't just that, it's that Scipio's father and uncle had been leading the army in Spain and had both just been killed by the forces of Hannibal's brother. Scipio wasn't fishing for supreme military commander at that point, he was fishing for command of the Spanish theater of the war, to take up the fight his uncle and father had lost.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Iirc all the top military commanders were in Italy, trying to corral Hannibal.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:When did Greek start becoming the dominant language of the Roman upper class? IIRC Rome as a society (take that as a very broad and loose term) generally had a thing for Greek culture as they saw it dragged back from the various military encounters between Rome and Greece. Greece influenced a lot of Roman culture and systems, and the schools of Greece were where everyone wanted to send their kids, for a pretty long period of time. Greek language was sort of a poetry/academics thing until the Eastern empire really got up and running though, so I'd guess around Augustus?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
Surely far earlier. Anyone who wanted to be anything in the public eye went to get oratory lessons by the famous greek teachers during the last 100 years of the Republic. Studying Greek was a prequeste for anything of higher learning, like being able to read and write Latin up to the first half of the 20th century. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing started right after Rome conquered the Greek peninsular and simply ramped up over time, with all the loot and slaves coming in from Greece, but sources are simply far fewer and less reliable than the last few decades of the Republic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 12:44
|
|
|
Greek was the language of arts and letters long before Rome sacked Corinth or whatever. The Romans may have known about, and been influenced by, the Greeks since their time under Etruscan rule.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
But the question is about dominant language. Educated Romans learned Greek for a long time, but I wouldn't say it was the dominant language until around the time of the last Latin speaking emperors, which would beeeeeee the 600s I believe. It also depends where you are. The primary language of the eastern empire was always Greek, and people had to learn Latin as their second language to function. Until the Latin speaking parts of the empire were no longer in the empire, then the motivation went away pretty quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:But the question is about dominant language. Educated Romans learned Greek for a long time, but I wouldn't say it was the dominant language until around the time of the last Latin speaking emperors, which would beeeeeee the 600s I believe. Good point, for all of the views of Romans that the empire was a single thing ruled by one/two/four administrators, the Western and the Eastern empires were very different and got more and more separated as the Western empire started doing that thing in the third and fourth centuries AD. Naturally, Greek would mean something different to a Roman in Rome (that language I use when I'm saying something special) from what it meant to a Roman in Constantinople (that language I use when I say something). Granted, it wasn't Constantinople until Constantine but Antioch wasn't anything to sneeze at before that, and Egypt was run by the Ptolemys before Rome took it over. So yeah,  it had more to do with where you, a classed-up Roman, were than when you were.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
I think that it's provable that, from when Caracalla extended citizenship to all inhabitants of the Roman Empire in 212, there were numerically more Roman citizens that natively spoke Greek than Latin. There were definitely more Greek speakers than Latin ones in the Roman state from the reign of Augustus at the latest. It was a bilingual Empire at the very least, from the beginning. The original question was asking when Greek started being the dominant language of solely the upper class, and I'd say that the process started very early.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Sorry if this is a derail but I did see the "other" in the thread title and there wasn't a thread specifically for Meso-American/Pre-columbian history Does anyone happen to know if Olmec architecture/art specifically has been found in Mayan ruins? Either direct influences or taken from their civilization and reappropriated
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:Are there any movies or other recordings with actors speaking Latin? Proper Latin, like what we think it sounded at the time the movie takes place. How about news in Latin: http://areena.yle.fi/1-1931339 ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I think that it's provable that, from when Caracalla extended citizenship to all inhabitants of the Roman Empire in 212, there were numerically more Roman citizens that natively spoke Greek than Latin. There were definitely more Greek speakers than Latin ones in the Roman state from the reign of Augustus at the latest. It was a bilingual Empire at the very least, from the beginning. The original question was asking when Greek started being the dominant language of solely the upper class, and I'd say that the process started very early. I dunno I'm skeptical. I'm not even sure Greek become the majority language of the Roman Empire until after the Arab conquest. The Eastern Empire was a very big and diverse place, and while Greek was the language of administration and literacy most people would have continued speaking the many local languages. Remember that the liturgical language of the Syrian Orthodox church, which was based in the supposedly Greek Antioch, was actually Syriac Aramaic. The vast majority of Egyptians continued speaking Coptic regardless of what the Ptolemy's wanted, and much of the Balkans was Latinized. Although Greek was clearly common throughout Asia it may have been more of a lingua franca outside a few urban areas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I dunno I'm skeptical. I'm not even sure Greek become the majority language of the Roman Empire until after the Arab conquest. The Eastern Empire was a very big and diverse place, and while Greek was the language of administration and literacy most people would have continued speaking the many local languages. Remember that the liturgical language of the Syrian Orthodox church, which was based in the supposedly Greek Antioch, was actually Syriac Aramaic. The vast majority of Egyptians continued speaking Coptic regardless of what the Ptolemy's wanted, and much of the Balkans was Latinized. Although Greek was clearly common throughout Asia it may have been more of a lingua franca outside a few urban areas. Dominant language of the upper class was the question, though. Not the language of the upper class' sermons, not the language of their field workers at their families' dinner tables, not the language of the rural communities of hill-dwelling goat herders, the upper class. Dominant language. When did it start being fashionable to be a trading merchant?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Aramaic would have been the lingua franca of large parts of the near east, since the Assyria days.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I dunno I'm skeptical. I'm not even sure Greek become the majority language of the Roman Empire until after the Arab conquest. The Eastern Empire was a very big and diverse place, and while Greek was the language of administration and literacy most people would have continued speaking the many local languages. Remember that the liturgical language of the Syrian Orthodox church, which was based in the supposedly Greek Antioch, was actually Syriac Aramaic. The vast majority of Egyptians continued speaking Coptic regardless of what the Ptolemy's wanted, and much of the Balkans was Latinized. Although Greek was clearly common throughout Asia it may have been more of a lingua franca outside a few urban areas. I never said majority language of the Roman Empire, I said more native speakers of Greek than Latin. I absolutely agree Coptic and Aramaic had many native speakers. Also, Koine was way more than a language of administration and literacy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
A lot of amateur Roman historians seem to think of the Greek-speaking members of the Roman Empire, during what they believe to be its heyday, as just another one of the many ethnic minorities present in a majority Latin-speaking state. That makes what happens after 300 A.D kind of confusing to some people and it contributes to the otherization of the "Byzantine Empire". I think it's important to consider that once the Republic started its massive eastward expansion, it was an irrevocable step that changed the composition of the Roman state at a very basic level. I also think it's important to recognize how early the Greek language permeated all levels of Roman life and how early the Greek-speaking portions of the Empire became the center of that state. It's important to view the founding of New Rome by Constantine the Great as a culmination of trends that were extant by the time of Augustus or before, and, really, an acknowledgement of realities that had existed for quite some time. Greeks were Romans and Romans were Greeks way before the 6th century.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
We're also all oversimplifying because there were a lot more languages back then and a huge amount of the empire likely maintained their local languages + learned something more universal like Latin or Greek to use when necessary. If you're including everyone from every class we're probably talking about hundreds of languages.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
For the benefit of anyone not up on pop archeology, turns out that King Tut bore with him a dagger forged from a meteorite. Guardin posted:In 1925, archaeologist Howard Carter found two daggers, one iron and one with a blade of gold, within the wrapping of the teenage king, who was mummified more than 3,300 years ago. The iron blade, which had a gold handle, rock crystal pommel and lily and jackal-decorated sheath, has puzzled researchers in the decades since Carter’s discovery: ironwork was rare in ancient Egypt, and the dagger’s metal had not rusted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 11:41
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:We're also all oversimplifying because there were a lot more languages back then and a huge amount of the empire likely maintained their local languages + learned something more universal like Latin or Greek to use when necessary. If you're including everyone from every class we're probably talking about hundreds of languages. And not just the aristocracy. Just look at the New Testament - the people who wrote it spoke Aramaic, as did Jesus, but wrote in Greek (and except for John, a very basic Greek) because that's what reached the most people in the East of the time. And this was (obviously) not long after 0 AD.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 11:58
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:And not just the aristocracy. Just look at the New Testament - the people who wrote it spoke Aramaic, as did Jesus, but wrote in Greek (and except for John, a very basic Greek) because that's what reached the most people in the East of the time. And this was (obviously) not long after 0 AD. Consider also the intended audience: not exactly the elites.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:For the benefit of anyone not up on pop archeology, turns out that King Tut bore with him a dagger forged from a meteorite. Tsoukalos must be having a field day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I never said majority language of the Roman Empire, I said more native speakers of Greek than Latin. I absolutely agree Coptic and Aramaic had many native speakers. Also, Koine was way more than a language of administration and literacy. I should specify that I'm skeptical of the idea there were more Greek speakers by Latin speakers within the empire by 212. Mostly because while Greek was spreading slowly in the cultured Eastern Provinces, Latin was rapidly replacing languages in all directions. I'm not saying it isn't true, just that I don't think it's clear.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Also remember our source bias. We're getting government documents and the odd thing written by the elite for the elites. Even saying there was one "Latin" or one "greek" is highly problematic. I'm willing to bet a walk from the po valley to the top of the boot would involve a lot of regional dialects.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Even saying there was one "Latin" or one "greek" is highly problematic. I'm willing to bet a walk from the po valley to the top of the boot would involve a lot of regional dialects. There's always many X's of any given language X, but I doubt the dialectal division of Latin within Italy in the 200s were all that massive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Also remember our source bias. We're getting government documents and the odd thing written by the elite for the elites. Even saying there was one "Latin" or one "greek" is highly problematic. I'm willing to bet a walk from the po valley to the top of the boot would involve a lot of regional dialects. Is it possible to know how big the regional variation could potentially be, and how far off that would be from what was written down? My only experience with this is I'm decently fluent in Mandarin Chinese, but if I were to speak to a local, my actual ability to understand them would vary a lot depending on where they're from since despite the best efforts of the communist party and the KMT there are still a lot of regional dialects, and some of those are practically a different language compared to "standard" Mandarin that only share basic grammar and the writing system, while some are basically just a funny accent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Crossposted from the mil hist thread, because it is both ancient history and military history. Some time ago, I started a series of posts about the long and violent conflict which lead to the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. Then my lazyness reigned supreme and I forgot about it. If you're interested, I went back and collected my old posts: Arminius' War Chapter 01 Chapter 02 Chapter 03 Chapter 04 Today I want to restart my series with a new  effortpost! Chapter 05: Roman armies and how Marcus Lollius lost one of them  For a start, have this picture. I wanted to show this off for a while now, but I needed a working scanner first. (And time to actually finish this post.) These are some of the Germanic tribes the Romans had to deal with. And they dealt with them mostly by using diplomacy or this The Roman Army at the Rhine After the Roman conquest of Gaul, the region was still rather unruly for a while, even the mighty Caesar couldn't change that. In fact, the uprising he had to squash around 52 BC was just the precursor to more unrest in the decades after his victory over arch-rebel Vercingetorix. This lead to the Romans stationing strong contingents in Gaul and the Germanic border permanently. The Proconsul (governor) of a province was also the military leader of its stationed troops and since the Roman Empire only had a small core of public servants, he was also expected to take an extensive staff of family, friends, slaves and tons of other people as his personal household when taking over a province. Taxation wasn't done by either of those groups: Instead, the Roman Empire gave the licence for raising taxes to private traders. They dealt with everything tax-related themselves. Imperial officials only came into the equation if something happened to the taxes those guys were supposed to raise. Immensely important to Roman rule was also the cooperation with local elites. Without locals accepting Roman laws and serving the Empire, administrating a polity that large would have been impossible. The Roman Army in this time didn't spend their entire time fighting, they also helped building infrastructure like roads, bridges and buildings. Even the construction of entirely new settlements was sometimes part of the program. The Proconsul even used Roman soldiers to help in his civilian administration of the province. Of course from our modern view point, it is kind of hard to distinguish civilian and military matters from each other. He combined both military and civilian leadership on his person, after all. Core of the troops was the Roman Legion: A military unit with an authorized strength of about 6000 soldiers, recruited solely from Roman citizens at least during the time we're talking about here. After 13 BC, official regulation of service terms, pay and discharge conditions transformed the Roman legions from professional-in-practice to an even legally professional army. The people ending up in the legions during the Germanic Wars were prominently from regions who had been given the Roman citizen rights only recently: Northern Italy, Gauls from the Provence and Iberians. Even some North Africans, Greeks and people from Asia Minor turned up in them. The latter ones mostly because the Romans weren't above giving individuals the Roman citizenship, especially as a reward. Roman citizenship not only allowed someone to join the legions, it also came with additional rights like exemption from taxation, legal protection and of course prestige. In the ancient world, becoming a civis Romanus was a sweet deal. Especially the poor and destitute flooded into the legions, attracted by regular pay and the faint possibility of moving up through the ranks. Helping the legions were the auxilia: Auxiliary troops. Auxiliary troops of the Republican Era included mercenaries payed with money and troops raised by Roman allies. Over time, the auxilia evolved from actual armies just marching side by side with Roman legions into actual auxiliary forces. Caesar himself for example raised tons of Gaulic warriors to help his forces and at the same time deny them to his enemies. In the beginning, those kind of auxilias were raised by Roman dudes basically just walking up to some random tribe and asking their warriors if they wanted to get lots of money fast, then organizing the new units under their own leaders (at first). Over time, auxilias morphed into real Roman military units, just units payed less than the real legions and open to non-citizens. They got standardized troop strengths, a unified structure, service terms and other poo poo the “real” Roman soldiers had. An auxilia was a combat unit of either 500 or 1000 men, fighting either on foot, as cavalry or mixed. They were used as tactical flexible, lightly armed forces. Sometimes to great effect, since they additionally could often rely on their knowledge of local places, thanks to being raised from them. Marcus “the Loser” Lollius One would think all those formidable forces on the other side of the Rhine, and the beatings administered by both Caesar and Aggripa would have pacified the Germanic tribes somewhat, but for a multitude of reasons, including some I explained back in chapter 3, that didn't happen. The Gaulish-Germanic border remained unruly. The Romans slowly started upgrading their forces at the Rhine, including a great legion camp on the Hunerberg in Nijmegen, which has been dated to the years 19 and 18 BC. Later another legion camp was raised at Neuss. Today its assumed the Romans send some allied Gaulish tribes first into the region near the Rhine's estuary. Roman soldiers only followed after Marcus Lollius adventures in Germanic Land made it clear more armed forces were needed to hold the border. The clades Lolliana started when some Roman Centurions for completely unknown reasons showed up on the wrong side of the Rhine and got captured by Sugambrers, Usipeters and Tenkterers. The Germanics then proceeded to crucify the centurions. For unknown reasons. Horaz claims in a short Scholion to this case that the centurions were tasked with levying tributes, while the later author Iulius Obsequens claims they were recruiting locals for the army. What they really did however, is still unknown. After enacting an ironic death on those random centurions, Germanic forces crossed the Rhine and started looting their way across the Roman side of the Rhine. A Roman cavalry unit tried to drive them away, but got lured into a trap and destroyed. Now with the situation spinning out of control like mad, Roman Legate Marcus Lollius decided to take action. He took a sizable force of legionnaires and confronted the marauding Germanics at Sueton. The battle ended in a devastating defeat. For the Romans. The battle went so badly for the Romans, even their field sign was lost to the tribes attacking them. This defeat was not only unexpected, it was an incredible blow to Roman morale, since the lost field sign had be the famous eagle of the 5th Legion. Only four years before the battle, the field signs lost at Carrhae against the Parthians had been regained and a wave of propaganda had used this to celebrate the start of a new era. So the sudden loss of another, incredibly famous field sign to some random barbarians in the north didn't look good. Strategically, the battle at Sueton was as unimportant as it can get, but the Romans weren't like us: Matters of honor were something the Romans could obsess over to no end. Cassius Dio, a Roman historian from the 2nd century, saw the defeat of Lollius as a sign: For him, the great war the Romans were fighting at the time, was a great war against the Germanics. 16 BC Emperor Augustus personally traveled to Gaul to deal with this crisis. After three years of crisis diplomacy, the Germanic tribes agreed to go back behind the Rhine and even agreed to give the Romans some hostages as a guarantee. Peace had returned. Or had it? In the years after the clades Lolliana, huge bodies of troops moved from the Gaulish interior to the river Rhine. The places at Nijmegen, Xanten, Moers-Asberg and Neuss got occupied by legions, maybe even Mainz. (According to my source, Mainz was still unconfirmed by 2009.) Apparently while the Germanic tribes had already forgotten the small skirmish at the Rhine mouth, the Romans hadn't. The new fortified places were connected to streets and rivers leading both back to Gaul's interior and deep into Germanic territory on the other side. Roman legions could be easily supplied from Gaul, while at the same time they were able to either move back into Gaul or into Germania as the situaton demanded. When the strategic readjustment was finished, a full quarter of the Roman military strength was suddenly stationed at the Rhine. The Germanic Tribes were entering troubled times. Libluini fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Jun 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:For the benefit of anyone not up on pop archeology, turns out that King Tut bore with him a dagger forged from a meteorite. If he was buried around 1300 BC it would have to be meteoric iron, right? I know time compression makes it seem unimportant but that was like two hundred years before the first evidence of iron smelting in Egypt. That's like the difference between present day and before steam power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:If he was buried around 1300 BC it would have to be meteoric iron, right? I know time compression makes it seem unimportant but that was like two hundred years before the first evidence of iron smelting in Egypt. That's like the difference between present day and before steam power. One of the better ways I get the whole time compression thing discussed is measuring the years between the construction of the great pyramid of Khufu (2560 BCE) and the moon landing (1969 CE) and then point out that not only was Cleopatra's death (30 BCE) closer to the moon landing than the pyramid, there's enough of a gap that you can fit in the entire interval between Columbus' landing and now (1492-2016, so 524 years) with a little shy of a cold war's worth of time (45 years) to spare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
I'm going to Tuscany later in the year: what's peoples' recommended reading on the Renaissance in northern Italy? I'm particular interested in Florence and Genoa but wider views are cool too, as would be anything focusing on the politics between the Italian states.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 11:55
|
|
|
The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy is old but a terrific read.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:One of the better ways I get the whole time compression thing discussed is measuring the years between the construction of the great pyramid of Khufu (2560 BCE) and the moon landing (1969 CE) and then point out that not only was Cleopatra's death (30 BCE) closer to the moon landing than the pyramid, there's enough of a gap that you can fit in the entire interval between Columbus' landing and now (1492-2016, so 524 years) with a little shy of a cold war's worth of time (45 years) to spare. This reminds me of something I've been thinking about recently. How much information transfer between the pyramid building Egyptian civilisation and the Greeks do we have evidence for?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
rock rock posted:This reminds me of something I've been thinking about recently. How much information transfer between the pyramid building Egyptian civilisation and the Greeks do we have evidence for? AFIK there wasn't much happening in Greece proper ca. 2500 BC. Minoan civilization was getting going about then on Crete, at least. It seems likely that coast-hugging ships would have kept them in touch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
rock rock posted:This reminds me of something I've been thinking about recently. How much information transfer between the pyramid building Egyptian civilisation and the Greeks do we have evidence for? I'm not sure Greek civilization as we think of it existed at the time of the pyramids.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
I saw this post in the milhist thread too but it had moved way past by that time so I just wanted to say thanks for this. Also, do we have any names on the Germanic side by this point, maybe from Roman records of negotiations or something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I'm not sure Greek civilization as we think of it existed at the time of the pyramids. Yeah but we read Caesar's writings. Like that guy Solon, if he was a real dude, was he talking to dudes that knew what was up with those weird pyramid things? Other than the Bolivians of course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
Elyv posted:I saw this post in the milhist thread too but it had moved way past by that time so I just wanted to say thanks for this. Also, do we have any names on the Germanic side by this point, maybe from Roman records of negotiations or something? Thanks for your interest! On the names, well it could be the translated original sources have more Germanic names, but in the book I'm using itself Germanic names are somewhat rare. It's full of Roman people you probably never heard of before though, like the unlucky Marcus Lollius. The best I could find before Arminius starts rebalancing the name scales was the king of the Bastarnae, Deldo. King Deldo got stabbed by Marcus Licinius Crassus in 29 BC, which is why he is fondly remembered by Roman historians. And the Bastarnae lived between the Carpathian mountains and the river Dnieper, they only count as "Germanic" because of archaeological evidence. Those guys apparently migrated together with some Celts during the 2nd century BC into the region and got into conflict with the Roman Empire when they allied with the Dacians and some other guys during the 1st century BC. But after that things between the Bastarnae and the Romans were mostly peaceful until the empire started to disintegrate. Libluini fucked around with this message at 10:13 on Jun 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 10:10
|
|
|
For anyone interested in the mediterranean bronze age and its collapse, I found this site fascinating: http://luwianstudies.org/ They argue that a whole bronze age civilization of petty states in western Anatolia has so far been ignored in favour of the greeks and hittites. Lots of interesting and plausible stuff about Troy and the sea peoples. Apparently there's hundreds of untouched bronze age mounds and ruins to dig in western anatolia, including the buried lower city of Troy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 12:01
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I'm not sure Greek civilization as we think of it existed at the time of the pyramids. Well teeeechnically the newer ones (not counting a couple of Nubian attempts at revival) coincide with the start of the Mycenaean period, which we now know was a Greek civilisation since Linear B got deciphered. And we know for a fact Mycenae and Egypt were trading a few centuries later - http://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/foreignrelations/greecenk.html . It's not quite as far fetched as you might think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
So I randomly started reading about Carthaginian history last night when I couldn't sleep and I was wondering: why do they appear to have a total of 5 different first names? It's really confusing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 22:28 |
|
|
Elyv posted:So I randomly started reading about Carthaginian history last night when I couldn't sleep and I was wondering: why do they appear to have a total of 5 different first names? It's really confusing. The Romans barely had any more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 22:14
|
|