|
Cyrano4747 posted:someone with a PhD in murderous nomads I hear West Point has an entire department for this.
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:16 |
|
|
Chichevache posted:I hear West Point has an entire department for this. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Yeah. Pretty much this. I'm only about 30 episodes into it, but the British history podcast is pretty good at the second point. Since so much of early British history is poorly documented, the author will often go over several theories about what happened and his opinions upon those theories. In addition, the author's pro-British bias is easy to spot and digest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:I hear West Point has an entire department for this. Nah, we got rid of mandatory riding classes after WW2.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:I'm only about 30 episodes into it, but the British history podcast is pretty good at the second point. Since so much of early British history is poorly documented, the author will often go over several theories about what happened and his opinions upon those theories. In addition, the author's pro-British bias is easy to spot and digest. i was going to recommend the same podcast for the same reasons
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Animal posted:Other than the subjectively annoying cartoon voice, can someone explain what is wrong with Extra Credits? Well I'd never heard of them before yesterday, but they stole my vague idea of something it would be cool to do eventually at some point down the road when I had the time and inclination to weakly take a stab at it! To make matters worse, the crafty bastards even went back in time so it would look like they came up with it first!  In all seriousness though I think it's a pretty cool thing they're doing, and if some people choose to take it at surface level gospel truth then that is their problem, not the creators. I'm glad it's been such a success for them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
If my math is right (which it probably isn't) today marks the 2047th year since the Battle of Actium, which I guess was technically kinda sorta the end of the Roman Republic too? Or would that be when Octavian officially became Augustus?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Given that they still had a Senate into like the 600s I'm pretty sure there's no technical end?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
MATTEO ORSINI, was twice senator in Rome. His wise and energetic uncle, Nicholas III, to show that papal rule was once more dominant in Rome, deprived King Charles of Anjou of the senatorial dignity, and in 1278 published the decree that thenceforth no foreign emperor or king could become a senator, a Roman being alone eligible for the dignity, and then only with the consent of the pope and for one year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:MATTEO ORSINI, was twice senator in Rome. His wise and energetic uncle, Nicholas III, to show that papal rule was once more dominant in Rome, deprived King Charles of Anjou of the senatorial dignity, and in 1278 published the decree that thenceforth no foreign emperor or king could become a senator, a Roman being alone eligible for the dignity, and then only with the consent of the pope and for one year. they seem like the kind of people who'd've developed birthers
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:they seem like the kind of people who'd've developed birthers There is definitely a beautifully sarcastic speech (IIRC from Constantine to one of his rivals?) along the lines of 'I would praise you as a noble exemplar of your people if anyone could actually work out where you drifted in from'  .
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Τι ένα έγκαυμα!
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:hello Would you describe your guys as being nomadic? Did they do something along the lines of thinking 'hey, it's been awhile since we went to place X, by now the survivors have gotten things together well enough to grow crops we can head back there and loot stuff'. Like actual, animal grazing nomads?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:Would you describe your guys as being nomadic? Did they do something along the lines of thinking 'hey, it's been awhile since we went to place X, by now the survivors have gotten things together well enough to grow crops we can head back there and loot stuff'. Like actual, animal grazing nomads? more "peripatetic." i've seen them move toward places that haven't "known war" for a while, securing food and quarters is an important strategic aim, and logistics is more of a thing for them than any other factor. but i haven't seen anyone explicitly close the gap and say what you just said. although i have no doubt people thought it edit: clauswitz looks a little different in a world like this:   HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Sep 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:I'm only about 30 episodes into it, but the British history podcast is pretty good at the second point. Since so much of early British history is poorly documented, the author will often go over several theories about what happened and his opinions upon those theories. In addition, the author's pro-British bias is easy to spot and digest. Website working for you? is it down or just me says it's OK, but I haven't been able to get to it for a few weeks. Around the date there was a server change from what I read on his facebook page. I've done all I can with dns on my PC, but no browser or device works, so he must have moved to somewhere my ISP doesn't play with well, (I'm out of ideas after reboot, flush DNS etc). Sucks as it is one of my favourite podcasts. E: Never mind, I changed my DNS from my ISPs to google's 8,8,8,8;8,8,4,4 and now I can get there. My stupid ISP's DNS meant I missed out on the last two episodes. Fo3 fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Sep 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Part of it is that the forces that led to the creation of the empire, that after a certain point you really need to win or you will die trying don't go away. Getting the power to become Emperor and walking away would have been supremely dangerous. The one guy who did that (Diocletian) actually turned out fairly well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:The one guy who did that (Diocletian) actually turned out fairly well. Didn't he end up having to stand powerlessly by while his wife and daughter were taken hostage and his attempts to negotiate their release was met with,"gently caress off old man, nobody gives a poo poo about you anymore"? Or was that a different Emperor? Also watching everything he carefully stitched together completely fall apart?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Didn't he end up having to stand powerlessly by while his wife and daughter were taken hostage and his attempts to negotiate their release was met with,"gently caress off old man, nobody gives a poo poo about you anymore"? Or was that a different Emperor? Also watching everything he carefully stitched together completely fall apart? Well yeah, he did get to watch the whole tetrarchy system fall apart faster than a house of cards, but he did so from his giant palace on the Adriatic while growing prize winning cabbages.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Didn't he end up having to stand powerlessly by while his wife and daughter were taken hostage and his attempts to negotiate their release was met with,"gently caress off old man, nobody gives a poo poo about you anymore"? Or was that a different Emperor? Also watching everything he carefully stitched together completely fall apart? On the other hand he lived for six more years in retirement and was mostly influential and respected during that time. In his palace he was still worshiped as deity (don't know about elsewhere in the empire). All that is a much better deal than simply getting killed, which was the fate of many other emperors, who didn't abdicate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
That's true, still Sulla probably got the best deal out of everyone (if you believe Augustus was poisoned by Livia) even if he wasn't one of the Emperors. Takes over Rome, becomes Dictator for like a decade, completely overhauls Rome to his liking then retires to go live in hedonistic luxury till he dies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
And that's why Sulla called himself "Lucky".
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
When first was Aristotle translated into Latin? How accessible was he to the Romans prior to that? Lay persons? Clergy? The greek-speaking population? Why was he translated so much later than Plato? When and why was the Library of Alexandria burned? The Roman Empire was a Republic, right? How much of that was derived from Plato's Republic? Was 'The Republic' /invented/ by Socrates - or was there a common source?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
I don't know anything about Greek literature so I'm skipping all those questions. I'm also not an expert on Rome, just someone interested who reads things about it once in a while.Uglycat posted:When and why was the Library of Alexandria burned? We don't know exactly, but there are several theories that span from Caesar's attack on Egypt during that civil war to the Arab conquest nearly 7 centuries later. quote:The Roman Empire was a Republic, right? How much of that was derived from Plato's Republic? Was 'The Republic' /invented/ by Socrates - or was there a common source? Depends on the era you look at. According to their mythology, they started as a monarchy, but by the time we have written records of Rome it was a Republic. It stayed as one until the various civil that started with Marius and ended with Octavian pulled it towards empire,. and it was one in the second half of its existence. I haven't read Plato or Socrates, but looking at the times they were alive I think the establishment of the Roman Republic predates Socrates' writing. Also, I doubt Socrates knew or cared about barbarians living all the way over there and I don't think that most of the Roman aristocracy of ~400 BC would have cared much about what some dude over in Athens was saying, so my guess is that any similarities are basically convergent evolution. Also, IIRC the early Roman Republic was pretty oligarchic, which I don't think Socrates/Plato would have approved of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 08:41
|
|
Elyv posted:I haven't read Plato or Socrates, but looking at the times they were alive I think the establishment of the Roman Republic predates Socrates' writing. Also, I doubt Socrates knew or cared about barbarians living all the way over there and I don't think that most of the Roman aristocracy of ~400 BC would have cared much about what some dude over in Athens was saying, so my guess is that any similarities are basically convergent evolution. Also, IIRC the early Roman Republic was pretty oligarchic, which I don't think Socrates/Plato would have approved of. Greek commentators who were contemporary thought the city of Rome was kind of shabby and were amazed that they'd let non-Romans be Romans.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
Elyv posted:Also, IIRC the early Roman Republic was pretty oligarchic, which I don't think Socrates/Plato would have approved of. Lol, Plato was pretty pro-oligarchy, after all democracy got his mentor killed. We call it 'the Republic' but the Greek name more roughly translates to 'the city book' (polis, from which we get politics). Other, Latin folks wrote on similar topics and called it the Latin equivalent that translates roughly them same hence 'the Republic.' It's not like there's this Platonic ideal of the republic floating around the med, just various ideas of how public life might best be ordered. You see something similar with other topics. Stuff like [Author's name]'s the [subject]. Like Plato's Apology vs. Xenophon's Apology Tacitus' History vs. Herodotus' History etc. etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 10:24
|
|
|
Elyv posted:I don't know anything about Greek literature so I'm skipping all those questions. I'm also not an expert on Rome, just someone interested who reads things about it once in a while. Just to clarify, Socrates as we know him is just a character in Plato's dialogs. The historic Socrates did not write anything himself, or at least nothing that survived.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
Yeah a lot of the Roman republics history is about the lower classes struggling to get more political power. It's a republic in that the positions of government power arnt directly hereditary, but it's hardly all inclusive. Even at its most open (which by modern standards isnt very open) youre pretty much hosed if your a women.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
The closest equivalent term in English the way the language is used today would probably be "community" for both Plato's book and the Roman state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/heres-how-nasa-thinks-society-will-collapse/441375/
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
That seems like a combination of things that are definitely not in NASA's wheelhouse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
I don't know what researchers actually conducted the study, but more to the point, I don't think that Rome actually "collapsed" in the same sense of the word that NASA is using to predict a worldwide collapse of industrial civilization. I'm sure that many areas suffered a steep decline in safety, distant trade, education, and public services that citizens under Trajan's rule could take for granted, but people weren't scrabbling for weapons or tools or other consumer goods that nobody knew how to manufacture anymore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 19:36
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:The closest equivalent term in English the way the language is used today would probably be "community" for both Plato's book and the Roman state. Commonwealth is the best English language translation available for 'Republic' imo, in the Roman sense.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I don't know what researchers actually conducted the study, but more to the point, I don't think that Rome actually "collapsed" in the same sense of the word that NASA is using to predict a worldwide collapse of industrial civilization. I'm sure that many areas suffered a steep decline in safety, distant trade, education, and public services that citizens under Trajan's rule could take for granted, but people weren't scrabbling for weapons or tools or other consumer goods that nobody knew how to manufacture anymore. Trade networks collapsed across the Mediterranean, which meant complex economic networks built up around export of consumer goods also collapsed: no-one would buy your stuff anymore, and you couldn't buy other cities stuff. Metalworking, as something done everywhere, wasn't hit as hard but alot of consumer goods did disappear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
In any case I don't really think wealth inequality caused the fall of the empire. It was political infighting within the ruling class (and the army, which definitely was not the voice of the poor), combined with Rome's enemies becoming a lot more capable. Which lead to plague, war and crippling manpower shortages. The 'decadence' argument just reeks of moralising. Perhaps if you consider Gothic refugees to be wealth inequality?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 23:48
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:In any case I don't really think wealth inequality caused the fall of the empire. It was political infighting within the ruling class (and the army, which definitely was not the voice of the poor), combined with Rome's enemies becoming a lot more capable. Which lead to plague, war and crippling manpower shortages. The 'decadence' argument just reeks of moralising. If you think about it though, Rome's own conceit of itself was of an empire powered by a civic identity and traditional Roman virtus, so it's unsurprising, given we inherited those attitudes, that both they and we have been tempted to attribute the decline and fall of the Roman empire to moral decay.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Hellequin posted:Well yeah, he did get to watch the whole tetrarchy system fall apart faster than a house of cards, but he did so from his giant palace on the Adriatic while growing prize winning cabbages. Not a lot of entries in those cabbage competitions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
lmao people in rome were bitching about decadence after the punic wars it's pretty much just more KIDS THESE DAYS tier bitching
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
OfficialGBSCaliph posted:Not a lot of entries in those cabbage competitions. I mean I have to assume cabbage-growing was mandatory for crabby old men in Rome, considering Cato and Diocletian, so you might be surprised by the turnout.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:lmao people in rome were bitching about decadence after the punic wars it's pretty much just more KIDS THESE DAYS tier bitching This is true, but they also had some very real problems with the top end of the wealth spectrum not being enticed by civic honors to prop up the finances of the state. A lot of that late complaining about the lack of civic virtues has a bit of truth to it if you consider things like paying for the upkeep of the state a virtue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:16 |
|
|
The reason Rome fell was because its entire economy was based on taking slaves and wealth from new conquests. The limits of technology (transportation, food preservation, communication, logistics, bureaucracy etc) in Roman times meant that Rome simply could not expand any further past roughly what they had under Trajan/Hadrian. They maybe could have expanded a little more on their eastern border but the roughly equally powerful Persian empires had already called dibs. Barbarians or not Rome's economic model had simply reached a point where it could no longer sustain itself because it had run out of places it could loot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 00:49
|
|
