|
When are they going to finally cough up the Ark of the Covenant? Everyone knows they have it and the world could really use the Nazi face melting powers of the ark.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
It's weird that they're surprised by Roman poo poo in Ethiopia, though, given that trade from Egypt down the Nile and out over into the Indian ocean had been going on for over a thousand years by the time Rome showed up. Cool stuff, though, glad to see good work being done in that area since it doesn't get as much attention as European digsites do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
I know I vaguely mentioned it before, if I ever were to for some reason go to grad school for history degree, I think it would be interesting to do a dissertation digging into the impact of losing North Africa to the Vandals had on the Western Mediterranean, while its obvious this was a big loss my personal thoughts have been it might have been the biggest of the turning points in the late Empire, more than normal Roman bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Well Stilicho was (sort of) half "barbarian" himself. The guy was basically the nemesis of Alaric the Goth and the two spent a lot of time opposing each other despite being fairly similar in a number of ways. For starters Alaric was looking to become more Roman than the current crop of Romans and find a place for the Goths to settle, whilst Stilicho was appointed Magister Militum by first the eastern and then the Western Emperors to prevent that, or any other barbarian attacks, from happening. The thing was Alaric was sometimes employed by the Romans too to do similar things. I think he was even put in charge of Iliriya for a few years. Cool, thanks! I guess this really underlines how people took their allegience to Rome seriously, if I had been Stilicho I'd have told them to eat a dick when they sent me to fight Alaric for like the third time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:I know I vaguely mentioned it before, if I ever were to for some reason go to grad school for history degree, I think it would be interesting to do a dissertation digging into the impact of losing North Africa to the Vandals had on the Western Mediterranean, while its obvious this was a big loss my personal thoughts have been it might have been the biggest of the turning points in the late Empire, more than normal Roman bullshit. Modern commentators disagree on just how important it was, but the disagreement mostly hinges on whether it was merely "extremely important" or "ahhh what the gently caress are you guys doing holy poo poo Rome is doomed". By the 420s it was the only Western region other than Italy that hadn't had barbarians troop in and alienate a bunch of the land from central control, and it had always been the most productive Western province in terms of grain. The Romans knew it was massively important too, they made two very major naval expeditions to retake Africa from Gaiseric in the 460s. The latter was actually an eastern Roman expedition which our more reasonable sources say involved over 1000 ships; they spent tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of pounds of gold and silver on the fleet. Then Gaiseric set all the boats on fire and within fifteen years there was no longer a Roman Empire in the west. Even the more optimistic assessors of the late empire generally agree that once Africa was permanently occupied by the Vandals, Rome was hosed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
sullat posted:It's weird that they're surprised by Roman poo poo in Ethiopia, though, given that trade from Egypt down the Nile and out over into the Indian ocean had been going on for over a thousand years by the time Rome showed up. Cool stuff, though, glad to see good work being done in that area since it doesn't get as much attention as European digsites do. The bit that has scholars excited is the concrete proof of trade a few hundred years earlier than they had previously confirmed. The rest of it is "ROMANS? In my Africa?!? It's more likely than you'd think" window dressing for the typical newspaper article crowd.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Every time archaeologists find something it starts out as ''tomb of Alexander the Great found!' or ''biblical story proved to be right!!'' or ''10 tips to become rich found on ancient scroll, you wont believe number 6!!!'' and after that you hear absolutely nothing about it. Im not sure if its because reporters are terrible or archaeologists are using it to secure funds or what.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 10:00
|
|
|
9-Volt Assault posted:Every time archaeologists find something it starts out as ''tomb of Alexander the Great found!' or ''biblical story proved to be right!!'' or ''10 tips to become rich found on ancient scroll, you wont believe number 6!!!'' and after that you hear absolutely nothing about it. It's the second one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 10:39
|
|
|
So people like to think of the Roman Empire as ending in 476 AD, and if I google "founding of the Byzantine Empire" then Google gives me the year 330, so are people really saying that the "Byzantine Empire" and the Roman Empire existed at the same time? What about the reign of Theodosius? I still have never gotten a specific answer from any thread regulars about what exact year they stop considering the Roman Empire the Roman Empire, despite the fact that even with this modern de-emphasis on dates, people, and places, everyone is ready to trot out 476 like it means anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:14
|
|
|
If there had never been any specifically Western emperors after Theodosius, would his consolidation of Eastern rule be considered by future historians to be the end of the Roman Empire?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:17
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:I still have never gotten a specific answer from any thread regulars about what exact year they stop considering the Roman Empire the Roman Empire, despite the fact that even with this modern de-emphasis on dates, people, and places, everyone is ready to trot out 476 like it means anything. 1453 Or maybe 1922
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:41
|
|
|
sebzilla posted:1453 Yes. quote:Or maybe 1922 No.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:44
|
|
|
Rome still hasn't fallen. It sways from time to time, but it hasn't fallen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:44
|
|
|
This thread loves it some Ottoman propaganda bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:58
|
|
|
If you use 1453 as the end date you miss out on Suleiman, one of the best roman emperors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 12:01
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:This thread loves it some Ottoman propaganda bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:So people like to think of the Roman Empire as ending in 476 AD, and if I google "founding of the Byzantine Empire" then Google gives me the year 330, so are people really saying that the "Byzantine Empire" and the Roman Empire existed at the same time? What about the reign of Theodosius? Because there is no good answer, every one has a counter point you can make against it. 476 is just the one that people are sort of willing to somewhat agree on. You can make cases for many other points as well, the Crisis of the Third Century is one of the earlier ones, but then you also have a bounce back after that albeit in a fractured form. I guess we just go with 476 for the end of the West because there's no real bounce back from this despite Justinian's attempt and the fact that Justinian's attempt at unification didn't take is used as proof that the Western Roman Empire had finally fallen. Keep in mind we're only talking about the Western Roman Empire and not The Roman Empire. People commonly use Western Roman Empire as shorthand for the Roman Empire in total due to ignorance caused by the bias in history towards 'The West', most of the people in this thread are aware of this. Anyway, Byzantine empire is just a way of saying the Eastern Roman Empire. They didn't actually call themselves the Byzantine empire by the way, they called themselves the Roman Empire for most of their time in existence and would consider themselves Roman up until close to the end. This would cause some problems with regards to the Roman Catholic church and the Holy Roman Empire (kingdom of Germans as far as they were concerned). As for your question about Theodosious I have no idea. That's a big butterfly flapping its wings right there. All I can say is that you can't have a vacuum that large and expect things to work out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 12:43
|
|
|
The empire is still standing strong...
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
A question about the Senate as an institution. How long did it maintain itself after the 'fall'? Do we know how its function changed over time? I kind of have a vague impression that it degenerated into a municipal body that survived for a long time after imperial institutions collapsed. I like the idea of a bunch of ancient Patrician families acting like they're rulers of the world while they argue over petty local issues. I'm generally interested in how Imperial symbolism and iconography survived/transformed in the west. One hears reports of Popes granting people titles like 'Consul of Rome' waaaayy into the Middle Ages. Does anyone know of any study which deals with this topic specifically?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
For all us historians, what do you think of this proposal? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czgOWmtGVGs it has exactly 0% chance of happening but I do like the idea behind it and the paradigm-shift in thinking it'd foster.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
DangerousDan posted:A question about the Senate as an institution. How long did it maintain itself after the 'fall'? Do we know how its function changed over time? I kind of have a vague impression that it degenerated into a municipal body that survived for a long time after imperial institutions collapsed. I like the idea of a bunch of ancient Patrician families acting like they're rulers of the world while they argue over petty local issues. The senate survived more or less unscathed from the fall of the western empire up until Justinian's Italian war basically. It's important to remember that the senate had already been politically irrelevant for a couple centuries at that point, more of a club for rich old men of Rome than any kind of power. Ironically they probably had a bit of a renaissance as a result of the collapse of imperial rule; in the closing decades of the western empire the "barbarians" showed themselves more open to the idea of senators as emperors than had any Roman since the Antonine dynasty. The Ostrogothic kings were actually pretty friendly to the senate but the war with Justinian put paid to that, on top of armies devastating Italy and Rome itself the last Gothic kings became decidedly unhappy about these rich people and their propensity to support the invaders and killed more than a few senators. The senate still existed in the late 6th century because they begged the eastern emperor to send help against the Lombards, but probably not long after that it disappeared. In the early 7th century the last senate house was converted into a church. There was also a senate in Byzantium which retained a good bit more prestige and power into the high Middle Ages, but I know very little about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
I don't see any real good reason to want to deal with a 5 digit number instead of a 4 digit one. The suggested new starting point doesn't sound particularly accurate or quite as universal as they're claiming. I would like to see these people face off against the fundamentalists who believe all reality is 6,000 years old though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
It would be no more or less useful or meaningful than the shift from BC/AD to BCE/CE that happened on the sly sometime a while back. Awkward for a while, eventually it'd just be the new norm. Meh. And as Slothful Cobra said, not exactly the most accurate start point (even less so than old JC's birthday)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
skasion posted:There was also a senate in Byzantium which retained a good bit more prestige and power into the high Middle Ages, but I know very little about it. I know they enjoyed a bit of a renaissance in the waning days of the Macedonian dynasty; I recall that they ordered the Empress Zoe to marry a senator at two points during her tumultuous reign.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
sebzilla posted:It would be no more or less useful or meaningful than the shift from BC/AD to BCE/CE that happened on the sly sometime a while back. Awkward for a while, eventually it'd just be the new norm. Meh. the BCE stuff has not even truly caught on for most people, and shifting the day you were born, along with all of the pop culture references to things like "the 50s" would create a ton more resistance
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:the BCE stuff has not even truly caught on for most people, and shifting the day you were born, along with all of the pop culture references to things like "the 50s" would create a ton more resistance The 50s would still be the 50s, just the 11950s instead of the 1950s. And birthdays etc would also still be the same, except with an extra digit. Really the whole thing is pretty meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:For all us historians, what do you think of this proposal? If we're going to accept an arbitrarily longer calendar just for funsies, why not go with one of the existing calendars of other cultures for the years? Like how it's 5777 in the Hebrew calendar, or how it's currently the year 7525 in a calendar once popular during the Byzantine era - both of which are calendars attempting to number from when the world was created.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
I'm ok with all of that as long as we cut out the ~300 years of *phantom time*  
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Ab urbe condita or bust 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:This thread loves it some Ottoman propaganda bullshit. Heh, sounds like someone's been a victim of Frankish fake history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
scientists have proven that the roman empire ended with the fall of the empire of trebizond in 1461, no sooner, no later
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Romes never die, they just go to sleep one day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:scientists have proven that the roman empire ended with the fall of the empire of trebizond in 1461, no sooner, no later
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
I sort of think like until ~476 it's very definitely "Roman", and after they lose all this territory to the Arab conquests in the 7th century it's very definitely "Byzantine" (though of course they kept calling themselves Romans, while westerners eventually started calling them Greeks), and in between you have this fascinating ~2 century transition period, with Justinian and his wars and his plague sitting right in the middle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
As someone who works in IT, adding an extra digit to year fields would mean years of work. I support this change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Omnomnomnivore posted:I sort of think like until ~476 it's very definitely "Roman", and after they lose all this territory to the Arab conquests in the 7th century it's very definitely "Byzantine" (though of course they kept calling themselves Romans, while westerners eventually started calling them Greeks), and in between you have this fascinating ~2 century transition period, with Justinian and his wars and his plague sitting right in the middle. I mean, that gets into weird categorical arguments like Republic-era Romans weren't the same Romans as Romulus-era Romans who weren't the same as Principate Romans or Dominate-era Romans. It's gets weird trying to apply labels to a civilization that spans millenia. They're all Romans up to 1453. You've just got different flavors: Romulus/Monarchy, Republican, Imperial/Principate, Dominate, Late-Antiquity, and Medieval. "Byzantine/Greek" Romans would fall in Late-Antiquity and Medieval.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
We're gonna be real loving embarrassed when we adopt this calendar and archeologists find a temple from 1000 BHE somewhere
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:This thread loves it some Ottoman propaganda bullshit. The Ottomans did use Emperor of The Romans as their primary title.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Start the calender 65 million years ago. Before then is HD: has dinos, after is BP: Boring Period (no dinos).
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Start the calender 65 million years ago. Before then is HD: has dinos, after is BP: Boring Period (no dinos). Birds (Byzantine dinos) are still around, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 19:14
|
|
