|
fantastic in plastic posted:Pontius Pilate. appreciate the congrats
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
fantastic in plastic posted:Diocletian? That's statist fiat money bullshit. Leading ancient economists understood that salt is an intrinsic store of value and exchange. End the aerarium! The only true form of money is cowrie shells.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:It is valuable, it's just exaggerated a lot in modern history myths. Related to this, I took a look at Diocletian's price edict and he says salt should be at most the same price as wheat: 100 denarii the modius. That's reasonably expensive but then again, a modius is a lot of salt and you won't go through it as quickly as wheat. So it's not like he conceived of it as some insanely valuable poo poo worth its weight in gold. Then again, the edict on prices is dumb as hell so take it with a grain of salt 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:The only true form of money is cowrie shells. Small, easy to transport items? Bah! Real currency is giant limestone disks, some of which we haven't seen for a couple of generations, but we're pretty sure are still on the seabed!
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Grevling posted:You're probably right, but then they might have been mostly to hold for balance balance while you hold them underneath taking most of the weight, not so you could lift them directly off the ground by the handle. It would be interesting to see some experiments with that. I'm no expert, but if I was on a rickety ship in the middle of the mediterranean sea, and was carrying a cargo of those, I'd probably loop some rope through those handle holes just to secure the cargo even more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
I'm going Fabius the Delayer as my favorite Roman. Defensive attritional warfare forever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
fantastic in plastic posted:Diocletian? That's statist fiat money bullshit. Leading ancient economists understood that salt is an intrinsic store of value and exchange. End the aerarium! I don't understand. This is from 18 years ago and it agrees with the VintageNews article: "Roman soldiers were at certain times, partly paid in salt [salarium] and from which the word is derived." So this paper is also incorrect?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:I don't understand. This is from 18 years ago and it agrees with the VintageNews article: "Roman soldiers were at certain times, partly paid in salt [salarium] and from which the word is derived." So this paper is also incorrect? Yes. As best as I can tell looking into the etymology, a salarium was originally a cash benefit intended to be used to buy salt with, in lieu of commanders actually providing the salt ration directly. In the Imperial era, the usage expanded to refer to the entire cash wage of a soldier, and from there eventually into civilian usage. This is just speculation, but military wages expanded prodigiously in the late Republic and early Empire as commanders spent extravagant sums to persuade their men to stick with them. The salarium may have been a minor perk that expanded over time as generals and emperors agreed to ever-more-generous military compensation into a large proportion of a soldier's pay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Yes. We have comparable sayings in the modern idiom - eg "beer money."
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
I mean once the soldiers are inland you'd potentially be doling out salt rations but it turns out salt deposits are in the ground too, with places like Salzburg (evident to have been inhabited since pre-roman Celtic times, later part of the Empire of course) being literally named after the stuff. I can't imagine any situation in which salt would be synonymous with money outside barter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Modern people also call money "bread," which is as abstract as calling it "salt." Maybe the Romans called it "salt" precisely because it was so pedestrian - here's your default staple, you know, that thing that you deserve and you shan't be without. That actually makes more sense to me than "they called it salt because salt was valuable." I don't think this really needs any kind of deep explanation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:Modern people also call money "bread," which is as abstract as calling it "salt." Maybe the Romans called it "salt" precisely because it was so pedestrian - here's your default staple, you know, that thing that you deserve and you shan't be without. That actually makes more sense to me than "they called it salt because salt was valuable." Someone should write a graduate thesis on this hypothesis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:Modern people also call money "bread," which is as abstract as calling it "salt." Maybe the Romans called it "salt" precisely because it was so pedestrian - here's your default staple, you know, that thing that you deserve and you shan't be without. That actually makes more sense to me than "they called it salt because salt was valuable." There's also "pin money", which was awarded to separated women from their husband's estates in early modern English court cases. Or the way bribes in China were called "tea money".
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
It could be a kind of synecdoche (mentioning a part for the whole). Over time, the term for a soldier's salt allowance becomes the term for their entire pay. Just guessing, mind you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Someone should write a graduate thesis on this hypothesis. I'm too busy for the next three weeks
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
A few pages back, but:Jamwad Hilder posted:Maybe not around the empire as a whole, but the city of Rome itself absolutely did have a police force. The vigiles were tasked with patrolling the streets (especially at night) and keeping the peace in general/apprehending petty criminals, as well as serving as firefighters. There were also the urban cohorts founded by Augustus that would do more of the heavy duty police work like stopping riots or going after gangs and violent criminals. You'd also occasionally have the Praetorian guard called in, but that was pretty rare I think. Huh, so Augustan Rome developed the first riot police and SWAT teams?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Firefighters too, I think. At least by the time of Nero there was one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Canemacar posted:Firefighters too, I think. At least by the time of Nero there was one. They couldn't have been very good
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
The vigiles were both firefighters and watchmen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:They couldn't have been very good In a world without modern special effects, how else are you gonna have a bitchin heavy metal lyre session?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:They couldn't have been very good Wasn't the usual complaint leveled at Nero that he bought up all the burned land, not that he was incompetent at fighting the fire? (Plus conspiracy theories that say he set the fire but that isn't inconsistent with him fighting it competently since he only wanted part of the city to burn in that scenario).
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Wasn't the usual complaint leveled at Nero that he bought up all the burned land, not that he was incompetent at fighting the fire? (Plus conspiracy theories that say he set the fire but that isn't inconsistent with him fighting it competently since he only wanted part of the city to burn in that scenario). No the complaint is that he fiddled
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
How would say "only when/if it's funny" as in "I will/would only do X when/if it's funny" in Latin?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Wasn't the usual complaint leveled at Nero that he bought up all the burned land, not that he was incompetent at fighting the fire? (Plus conspiracy theories that say he set the fire but that isn't inconsistent with him fighting it competently since he only wanted part of the city to burn in that scenario). Fire can't melt marble bricks! #loosedenarii
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
We will build a great limes and the germans will pay for it
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Canemacar posted:Fire can't melt marble bricks! #loosedenarii Thousands of Zoroastrians celebrated when Rome burned.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Wasn't the usual complaint leveled at Nero that he bought up all the burned land, not that he was incompetent at fighting the fire? (Plus conspiracy theories that say he set the fire but that isn't inconsistent with him fighting it competently since he only wanted part of the city to burn in that scenario). He bought land in the center of the city to build his palace which fueled speculation that he was responsible, but he wasn't in Rome at the time the fire started. Basically, Nero never did himself any favors by indulging in his whims at the expense of everything else and he was constantly undermining his own relative popularity. It's very unlikely that he himself started the fire, but that didn't stop people from placing the blame on him. He in turn placed the blame on the Christians, all of them, and set to work prosecuting them. This also backfired because while Romans thought Christians were weird, they weren't in favor of religious persecution to the extreme levels Nero took it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
Never forget 8/2 !!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:Thousands of Zoroastrians celebrated when Rome burned. That was an honest mistake. They thought a mass conversion was happening.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:He in turn placed the blame on the Christians, all of them, and set to work prosecuting them. This also backfired because while Romans thought Christians were weird, they weren't in favor of religious persecution to the extreme levels Nero took it. Christians were also famously stoic in the face of it and especially in public executions, which feeds the whole martyr thing for the believers plus was considered very admirable in the Roman value system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:How would say "only when/if it's funny" as in "I will/would only do X when/if it's funny" in Latin? Someone in the classicist thread is going to know. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2868373 ed. nvm didn't notice you already asked there. Vincent Van Goatse posted:That was an honest mistake. They thought a mass conversion was happening. Many more mourned as the sacred fire was profaned by Roman filth! Grevling fucked around with this message at 08:51 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
I was looking at a list of the wealthiest historical figures and Marcus Licinius Crassus often tops the list at, according to Pliny the Elder, 200 million sesterces or $169.8 billion in today's money ("This would place Crassus's net worth equal to the total annual budget of the Roman treasury."). But underneath is listed Augustus at, supposedly, $4.6 trillion because he personally owned all of Egypt. So if Augustus was actually that rich, why is Crassus considered the richest (besides Musa I of Mali in the 14th century at $400 billion)?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 09:07
|
|
|
so ive been reading machiavellis discourses on livy and its interesting how he sort of implies that christians make worse soldiers than the romans because romans fought for their own life but christians are less inclined to fight hard because they just want a spot in heaven.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 09:22
|
|
|
bean_shadow posted:I was looking at a list of the wealthiest historical figures and Marcus Licinius Crassus often tops the list at, according to Pliny the Elder, 200 million sesterces or $169.8 billion in today's money ("This would place Crassus's net worth equal to the total annual budget of the Roman treasury."). But underneath is listed Augustus at, supposedly, $4.6 trillion because he personally owned all of Egypt. So if Augustus was actually that rich, why is Crassus considered the richest (besides Musa I of Mali in the 14th century at $400 billion)? The "literally owns Egypt" thing might be overstating it a bit. The place was there for him to run, but he would have owned it in the same sense that a king owns his country rather than in the sense of Crassus' personal real estate and wealth portfolio being huge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 10:34
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
bean_shadow posted:I was looking at a list of the wealthiest historical figures and Marcus Licinius Crassus often tops the list at, according to Pliny the Elder, 200 million sesterces or $169.8 billion in today's money ("This would place Crassus's net worth equal to the total annual budget of the Roman treasury."). But underneath is listed Augustus at, supposedly, $4.6 trillion because he personally owned all of Egypt. So if Augustus was actually that rich, why is Crassus considered the richest (besides Musa I of Mali in the 14th century at $400 billion)? Crassus' wealth is sort of what he's known for, beyond dying ironically. It's just about the time after his death that you see the rise of strong men assuming autocratic power so those guys were almost all certainly wealthier than Crassus, but they also had massive debts at the same time and their money was bound up in ways that aren't really liquid such as armies or entire kingdoms. And most importantly, they were known for things beyond being rich. Pompey became obscenely wealthy during his campaigns to clean up affairs in the Mediterranean and the East after dissolving the Seleucids, but no one remembers Pompey for that because of all the other important things he did. edit: another example of what I mean is Alexander the Great, who captured an estimated 200,000 talents of silver from Darius' empire. That's about six thousand tons of silver. Alexander had lost almost all of it ten years later. Ithle01 fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 12:10
|
|
|
"Personal" ownership of Egypt isn't really all that accurate even though it's often how we express that arrangement. Augustus's wealth was basically tied to his office (and so was Musa's  ) rather than his person, whereas Crassus amassed his fortune more or less entirely as a private citizen. That's a better comparison to a modern conception of a "wealthy person" than Augustus, who was wealthy as a function of being a head of state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
Yep, that's the key point. Even if you personally did own Egypt it's not like that's a liquid asset and you can just use it to buy stuff. Crassus is more like if Bill Gates' personal wealth were equal to the United States GDP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
Gotcha! Thanks everybody!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
So if we open the list of Historical Rich Persons to include heads of state, at least in monarchical governments, who would be the richest?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
Canemacar posted:So if we open the list of Historical Rich Persons to include heads of state, at least in monarchical governments, who would be the richest? Probably Victoria.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 20:49
|
|