|
Grand Fromage posted:A general who uses the same tactics in every battle is probably a lovely general. Well actually it works in my historical battle sim Total War 
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 16:17 |
|
|
Wellington did alright. Depends on your opponent's ability to learn.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:A general who uses the same tactics in every battle is probably a lovely general. I think it was Goldsworthy who said that for a long time, Roman consuls commanding armies could get away with this since the Roman army as a system just was that good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
I think what was meant was that the Roman manipular system was designed so that mediocre generals could achieve relatively successful results because most of the onerous for success was on the guys in the middle and bottom of the system rather than the top. edit: for example, Pydna Ithle01 fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Nov 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Sorry to barge in guys, but does anyone have any good ideas for decent books on faith and ritual in the roman/celtic world that aren't irredeemable fluff about "cosmic rays" and "crystals". Like a scholarly book? That or one about faith in pre imperial/ early imperial china? Or just any decent books on the subjects of religion in a pre-Christian setting. Layouts of temples and so on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:I think it was Goldsworthy who said that for a long time, Roman consuls commanding armies could get away with this since the Roman army as a system just was that good. When your army is better fed, better equipped, and better trained than your opponent you get quite a bit of wiggle room when it comes to actual strategy and tactics I would imagine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
I just finished watching Rome: Reign of Blood. I'm going to say that its not bad. Its obviously not 100% accurate but it is a great introduction to Commodus. I liked the way they humanize him and show him as a man with flaws and not just as some monster who immediately started loving up the Empire when his father died.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
How would a Celt put on a torc? I've seen a few that had hinges at the back, but most seem to be solid metal. Too solid to fit around one's neck, unless I'm greatly underestimating the flexibility of these things. How the heck did they put these things on? Boron_the_Moron fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Boron_the_Moron posted:How would a Celt put on a torc? Bent them out of shape. quote:This type of torc is put on and taken off by being bent out of shape. You can see that one of the terminals of this torc has been pulled slightly forward compared to the other one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Whoops, posted to the wrong thread first http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/roman-mosaic-discovery Apparently they've found more stuff around the Lod Mosaic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
It looked impressive at first, but it's loving amazing once it's cleaned up 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
I desperately wish Volusius's Annals weren't lost to history. The only record of their existence is an amusing Catullus poem in which he absolutely trashes them, and that just fills me with burning curiosity. I know it's unlikely, but are there any surviving examples of bad (or notably criticized) ancient literature?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
Rollersnake posted:I desperately wish Volusius's Annals weren't lost to history. The only record of their existence is an amusing Catullus poem in which he absolutely trashes them, and that just fills me with burning curiosity. The Augustan History? We don't have any examples of its being criticized in the ancient world, but it is awfully written and contains a great deal of complete bullshit: false attributions, forged documents, made up emperors, lies, an invented revival of the censorship in 251 (by a guy who was dead at the time), and a mythical emperor called Firmus who ate an ostrich everyday. It's also the only coherent source we have for a substantial part of the third century AD.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
Rollersnake posted:I desperately wish Volusius's Annals weren't lost to history. The only record of their existence is an amusing Catullus poem in which he absolutely trashes them, and that just fills me with burning curiosity. The most famous Roman Epicurean poet was named Titus Carus Lucretius, who wrote a poem called "The Nature of Things" which defends the proposition that Epicureanism can instill inner peace because it alone can explain scientific phenomena without relying on divine power as a cause. A lot of his contemporaries liked it as a poetic achievement, even if they didn't buy the argument, but later philosophers and Christians trashed it constantly. Jerome wrote of the events of a particular year: "Titus Lucretius the poet is born. Later he was driven mad by a love potion, and when, during the intervals of his insanity, he had written a number of books, which were later emended by Cicero, he killed himself by his own hand in the 44th year of his life." ("Love potion" here means a folk cure for erectile dysfunction, not something out of Tristan & Isolde. So the slander isn't just "all of the parts people like were really written by Cicero," it's "the most famous Roman Epicurean wasn't even a ~real man~".) Arcesilaus, a famous Platonic philosopher, once fielded a question that was something like "Why do so many philosophers from various schools eventually become Epicureans, while no Epicureans ever seem to leave their school?" He answered with "Men may become eunuchs, but no eunuch can ever again become a man." We have The Nature of Things; a lot of people I've talked to who've read it tend not to like it because it gives the wrong answer to a lot of questions which our modern science has answered and/or relies on questionable premises. Most of the things that Lucretius's contemporaries liked were innovations in the language, mixing Latin and Greek, and so on, which are lost in the translation and not so interesting to general readers two thousand years later. fantastic in plastic fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
That's a major loving hot take you've got going on there. De rerum natura is an undisputed classic and one of the most important works of classical philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:That's a major loving hot take you've got going on there. De rerum natura is an undisputed classic and one of the most important works of classical philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Islam is the light
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
fantastic in plastic posted:The most famous Roman Epicurean poet was named Titus Carus Lucretius, who wrote a poem called "The Nature of Things" which defends the proposition that Epicureanism can instill inner peace because it alone can explain scientific phenomena without relying on divine power as a cause. A lot of his contemporaries liked it as a poetic achievement, even if they didn't buy the argument, but later philosophers and Christians trashed it constantly. Lucretius is excellent. If you rate ancient philosophy (i.e. science) according to its conformity to modern science and all its achievements, it is all varying degrees of terrible. quote:Therefore death to us
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:That's a major loving hot take you've got going on there. De rerum natura is an undisputed classic and one of the most important works of classical philosophy. In the reign of Consuls Trump and Pence, only hot takes matter
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
fantastic in plastic posted:Arcesilaus, a famous Platonic philosopher, once fielded a question that was something like "Why do so many philosophers from various schools eventually become Epicureans, while no Epicureans ever seem to leave their school?" He answered with "Men may become eunuchs, but no eunuch can ever again become a man." How freaking salty does this guy sound about people leaving his club.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
I've read ancient sources that say Caligula also went mad from a "love potion". So what were these things and how do you become insane from taking them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
bean_shadow posted:I've read ancient sources that say Caligula also went mad from a "love potion". So what were these things and how do you become insane from taking them? Lots of natural substances contain narcotics. Could be almost anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Lots of natural substances contain narcotics. Could be almost anything. Yeah it was pretty much the same as taking 1890s patent medicines from a traveling salesman who came through town. Maybe you got a big name normal thing like cocaine or just a shitload of alcohol in there, maybe it's just stuff from random plants he found, maybe it's just food coloring and some flavoring. You couldn't tell what you'd get until you took it, and often not even after you did. Now obviously you wouldn't get cocaine itself back in ancient Roman times, but it could be just about any other drug you could find in a plant or animal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Sulla fascinates me. What sort of guy seizes control of the state, makes himself dictator for life, kills hundreds of his political opponents, reshapes the constitution...and less than three years in just gives it all up to live in a luxurious-yet-quiet retirement?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Maybe he wept, for there was no more world to conquer?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Someone who thought they were getting too old for that poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Now obviously you wouldn't get cocaine itself back in ancient Roman times, but it could be just about any other drug you could find in a plant or animal. Opium was an option, mind you, and had been for a long time before the Romans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Sulla fascinates me. What sort of guy seizes control of the state, makes himself dictator for life, kills hundreds of his political opponents, reshapes the constitution...and less than three years in just gives it all up to live in a luxurious-yet-quiet retirement? Someone extremely cynical I think, but I can understand it, the two things he enjoyed the most in life was vengeance and parties, and by that point he didn't have any enemies left, so retiring to live the good life was kinda kinda logical in his own way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Sulla fascinates me. What sort of guy seizes control of the state, makes himself dictator for life, kills hundreds of his political opponents, reshapes the constitution...and less than three years in just gives it all up to live in a luxurious-yet-quiet retirement? A very smart and frankly very lucky guy. When you've made your new rules and killed anyone you expect would go against them during your lifetime, you don't need to personally rule anymore if the attraction of power hasn't gone too much to your head.b
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Sulla fascinates me. What sort of guy seizes control of the state, makes himself dictator for life, kills hundreds of his political opponents, reshapes the constitution...and less than three years in just gives it all up to live in a luxurious-yet-quiet retirement? A disgrace to the Roman people. Very low energy. A disaster. Sad!
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Sulla fascinates me. What sort of guy seizes control of the state, makes himself dictator for life, kills hundreds of his political opponents, reshapes the constitution...and less than three years in just gives it all up to live in a luxurious-yet-quiet retirement? A legendary cynic, because he was always on the side of the old stoic types who insist on a weird sense of Roman decorum where you talk a long game about disliking power but then doing absolutely everything to concentrate it once granted to you. After he'd basically lopped the heads off anyone likely to oppose him or his legacy, rigged the law to block out anyone who might organically come up with the idea of challenging the old guard, he lays it all down and retires because naturally everyone he left alive would be utterly starry-eyed over him doing so. I mean he didn't count on that one Gaius Julius Caesar guy showing his face around Rome later on or anything so it was just a matter of endearing the remaining people to his story and dying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
Is there any information on Roman drug use besides alcohol? It's such a curious thing, nothing was forbidden, yet I don't remember reading about any large scale epidemic of opium addiction like we see today. I guess maybe it was just too expensive to transport or farm all that poo poo to potential markets before artificial fertilizers and latin drug mules.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Not quite a recreational drug in the sense you're talking about, but the Romans harvested silphium until it went extinct because it was an effective method of birth control
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Is there any information on Roman drug use besides alcohol? It's such a curious thing, nothing was forbidden, yet I don't remember reading about any large scale epidemic of opium addiction like we see today. I guess maybe it was just too expensive to transport or farm all that poo poo to potential markets before artificial fertilizers and latin drug mules. It's more that historians have not focused on drug use. For a counterpoint: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0...&tag=suburra-20
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
ulmont posted:It's more that historians have not focused on drug use. For a counterpoint: Huh, thanks. I'll add it to the list.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:A legendary cynic, because he was always on the side of the old stoic types who insist on a weird sense of Roman decorum where you talk a long game about disliking power but then doing absolutely everything to concentrate it once granted to you. After he'd basically lopped the heads off anyone likely to oppose him or his legacy, rigged the law to block out anyone who might organically come up with the idea of challenging the old guard, he lays it all down and retires because naturally everyone he left alive would be utterly starry-eyed over him doing so. I mean he didn't count on that one Gaius Julius Caesar guy showing his face around Rome later on or anything so it was just a matter of endearing the remaining people to his story and dying. Caesar was Marius's nephew, right? How did he escape the poo poo list?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
sullat posted:Caesar was Marius's nephew, right? How did he escape the poo poo list? He was doubly on the poo poo list, being Marius' nephew and also son-in-law of Marius' colleague Cinna. Sulla was inclined to spare him as long as he paid up and divorced Cinna's daughter, but Caesar refused to divorce. His maternal uncle, however was the orator Aurelius Cotta. Cotta had gone into exile, used Sulla's dictatorship as an opportunity to return, and argued persuasively for clemency. Suetonius says that Sulla's son-in-law Mamercus Aemilius Lepidus Livianus and the Vestal Virgins also spoke on Caesar's behalf. Sulla eventually gave in with the line about "in this Caesar I see many a Marius".
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
sullat posted:Caesar was Marius's nephew, right? How did he escape the poo poo list? By being Julius Caesar who defied the odds his entire life. Suetonius posted:Resisting all the efforts of the dictator Sylla to induce him to divorce Cornelia, he suffered the penalty of being stripped of his sacerdotal office, his wife's dowry, and his own patrimonial estates; and, being identified with the adverse faction, 5 was compelled to withdraw from Rome. After changing his place of concealment nearly every night, 6 although he was suffering from a quartan ague, and having effected his release by bribing the officers who had tracked his footsteps, he at length obtained a pardon through the intercession of the vestal virgins, and of Mamercus AEmilius and Aurelius Cotta, his near relatives. We are assured that when Sylla, having withstood for a while the entreaties of his own best friends, persons of distinguished rank, at last yielded to their importunity, he exclaimed-either by a divine impulse, or from a shrewd conjecture: "Your suit is granted, and you may take him among you; but know," he added, " that this man, for whose safety you are so extremely anxious, will, some day or other, be the ruin of the party of the nobles, in defence of which you are leagued with me; for in this one Caesar, you will find many a Marius."
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Is there any information on Roman drug use besides alcohol? It's such a curious thing, nothing was forbidden, yet I don't remember reading about any large scale epidemic of opium addiction like we see today. I guess maybe it was just too expensive to transport or farm all that poo poo to potential markets before artificial fertilizers and latin drug mules. I've heard Sarpa Salpa ("Dream Fish") were sometimes consumed for their hallucinations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 16:17 |
|
|
skasion posted:Sulla eventually gave in with the line about "in this Caesar I see many a Marius". Ironically, the one Caesar ressembled the most was Sulla himself, both were extremely loyal to their friends, believed they were protected by a powerful goddess, and were extremely confident in their own luck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:28
|
|