|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:Being absolutely immune to the enemy's weapons means the tank destroyer probably wins, but the Romans can always dig a big tiger trap and bait the tank into it. Then release it into the Arena.
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
Tank destroyers are built to fight other tanks. Roman armies typically did not use armored vehicles at all, so the full potential of the destroyer could not be realized.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Tank destroyers are built to fight other tanks. Roman armies typically did not use armored vehicles at all, so the full potential of the destroyer could not be realized. Well, the Romans called them cisterna, and once their drinking water was gone their ability to fight went with it, so checkmate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
If history is any guide, the Romans would win if it were a Spanish, French, English, Italian, Romanian, Hungarian, Balkan, Greek, or Middle Eastern tank destroyer, but they'd lose to a German one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 07:43
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:just climb onto the thing and throw something on fire into any available hole Sex advice thread is the other way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 09:53
|
|
|
Ghetto Prince posted:Read up on the 18th dynasty, they're all amazing. Especially once all the incest starts catching up to them with Ahmenotep IV. Also known as Akhenaten / The Heretic / That Criminal. I think you mean
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
fantastic in plastic posted:If history is any guide, the Romans would win if it were a Spanish, French, English, Italian, Romanian, Hungarian, Balkan, Greek, or Middle Eastern tank destroyer, but they'd lose to a German one. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
I thought the generally accepted view was that Akhenaten's eccentric religion probably had more to do with curbing the power of the priesthood than actually being crazy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
I'm still two thousand posts behind but this showed up in my twitter feed and is relevant and interesting https://twitter.com/PaulMMCooper/status/933753595174031361
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
Imperialist Dog posted:I'm still two thousand posts behind but this showed up in my twitter feed and is relevant and interesting Edit: The Christianity thread would probably like that post as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
it's a shame that got removed, it's almost as interesting a piece of history as the temple its self
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Koramei posted:it's a shame that got removed, it's almost as interesting a piece of history as the temple its self
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:But its removal is also a piece of history--it tells us about 19th century nationalism, the idea of "the Classical," and how different people conceptualize what it means to "restore" an artifact. One of the coolest academic talks I'd ever seen was on the ethics of preservation and restoration, about these questions - her thesis statement was that the history of the artifact is as much a part of the artifact as the "original." Any attempt to return an artifact to some ur-version of itself will be arbitrary and likely obliterating something interesting. She was primarily focusing on books and practices of rebinding them, which has all kinds of implications.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:One of the coolest academic talks I'd ever seen was on the ethics of preservation and restoration, about these questions - her thesis statement was that the history of the artifact is as much a part of the artifact as the "original." Any attempt to return an artifact to some ur-version of itself will be arbitrary and likely obliterating something interesting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
It's really interesting that even when an ancient stone building lies in ruins and most of it's gone (are there any accounts of how catastrophic it must've seemed when these big huge buildings partially collapse?) what's left after all the ruins are taken away is still big and huge and it's part of the landscape and society still has value in them, and finds uses for them. In a way, the whole medieval period is normally treated like Europe's awkward teen years. Everybody's so embarrassed by the stupid things that may have happened, they all made a concerted effort to try to ignore it, even though it was probably more relevant to the modern day than the classical period.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:One of the coolest academic talks I'd ever seen was on the ethics of preservation and restoration, about these questions - her thesis statement was that the history of the artifact is as much a part of the artifact as the "original." Any attempt to return an artifact to some ur-version of itself will be arbitrary and likely obliterating something interesting. There was a cool Time Team special ep about restauration work in an old manor house, where behind some 16th century wall panels the ppl working on it found medieval wall paintings. So, the wall painting were restored and then almost immediately, the restored panels were put back to cover them back up again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
gently caress now I want to watch time team. Sing to me baldrick and lead squeezebox player for the wurzels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:There was a cool Time Team special ep about restauration work in an old manor house, where behind some 16th century wall panels the ppl working on it found medieval wall paintings. So, the wall painting were restored and then almost immediately, the restored panels were put back to cover them back up again.   ... I guess that's pretty much what you have to do. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:
Put the panels on with hinges, duh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Some of it had to do with the soldiers not wanting to do physical labor (because that's what slaves are for), but part of it was the feeling that trenches and defensive positions were cowardly and unmanly. The soldiers were there to fight, not hide, and the general ahold be taking the fight to the enemy, not just sitting there and hiding in ditches while the enemy came at them. This sentiment existed long after the ancient era, though. In the Spanish civil war, militia on all sides thought Spanish guts would carry the day and laying down to fire your weapon was for cowards 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 11:12
|
|
|
Tias posted:This sentiment existed long after the ancient era, though. In the Spanish civil war, militia on all sides thought Spanish guts would carry the day and laying down to fire your weapon was for cowards I mean, what better way to show the world exactly how much guts you have?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
Grevling posted:I thought the generally accepted view was that Akhenaten's eccentric religion probably had more to do with curbing the power of the priesthood than actually being crazy? Reading any kind of intent into ancient Egyptian politics is heavily speculative, since Egyptians were incredibly tight-lipped about writing any sort of personal opinion down. It's true that by that point in the New Kingdom, the priesthood of Amun-Ra was incredibly powerful. It's probably why Hatshepsut managed to become a female king: she was the God's Wife of Amun, which meant that when she became regent (and then later king) she had the support of the priesthood behind her. And later on in the Third Intermediate Period, when unified power breaks up, the priests of Amun basically rule Upper Egypt. So it's entirely possible that Akhenaten did his thing in order to break away from the Amun priesthood, but it's worth considering too that Aten-worship isn't actually that far off from the sort of stuff that was going on with Amun-Ra at that point. In the New Kingdom they went kinda crazy for Amun-Ra, to the point that they started suggesting that other gods were sort of aspects or manifestations of Amun-Ra. So the switch to Aten-worship wasn't that much of a huge ideological shift. The change in art is still weird and goofball and no one's got a good answer for that one beyond that it looks sweet as heck
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 13:19
|
|
|
Tias posted:This sentiment existed long after the ancient era, though. In the Spanish civil war, militia on all sides thought Spanish guts would carry the day and laying down to fire your weapon was for cowards
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
Siivola posted:What's Spanish for "élan"? Good question  A fascist slogan of the time was "Viva La Muerta!" (Long Live Death), which sort of hints at the mindset their commanders had to deal with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Koramei posted:it's a shame that got removed, it's almost as interesting a piece of history as the temple its self Ya but they were probably sick of weird old dudes hanging out up there and just making GBS threads off the side of the pillars all day long.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-42155888quote:Julius Caesar's Britain invasion site 'found by archaeologists' I like the bit in the middle of the article, "Who was Julius Caesar?", with trivia that would only be useful to people who are the least likely to click on the article.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:One of the coolest academic talks I'd ever seen was on the ethics of preservation and restoration, about these questions - her thesis statement was that the history of the artifact is as much a part of the artifact as the "original." Any attempt to return an artifact to some ur-version of itself will be arbitrary and likely obliterating something interesting. Is your username from The Honest Whore? If so, that is a gross speech.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Is your username from The Honest Whore? If so, that is a gross speech. Close - "On Mrs. Willis." I was procrastinating on my dissertation when I registered.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:One of the coolest academic talks I'd ever seen was on the ethics of preservation and restoration, about these questions - her thesis statement was that the history of the artifact is as much a part of the artifact as the "original." Any attempt to return an artifact to some ur-version of itself will be arbitrary and likely obliterating something interesting. I worked with some US federal historic preservation folks previously, and got to take a tour of the Pentagon while it was under construction after 9/11. They went back to the original quarry and used the same stone and same finishing equipment to get the finish of the facing stones to be the same, and since the old windows originally opened and thus have handles, the new windows had handles too even though they do not open. Not really related to this thread, but the coolest lecture I got to hear had people from DARPA, other research agencies, and academics giving their predictions for the development of future technology and achievements, up to and including their predictions for the probability that we make contact with extraterrestrials. AvesPKS fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Dec 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
AvesPKS posted:I worked with some US federal historic preservation folks previously, and got to take a tour of the Pentagon while it was under construction after 9/11. They went back to the original quarry and used the same stone and same finishing equipment to get the finish of the facing stones to be the same, and since the old windows originally opened and thus have handles, the new windows had handles too even though they do not open. You can't leave us in suspense like that...
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:You can't leave us in suspense like that... I mean it was on the list with a probability attached to it. He gave some rationale but it's not like he was quoting the Roswell files. His predictions for self replicating nanobots and human cloning had contextual support that was much easier to rationalize. I'm not even sure how you evaluate a claim like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
I have question about Caesar's Civil War commentaries that always has been interesting to me. He seems to posture himself as being wronged by Pompey, and the Senate - not for the fact that they wanted to remove his army from him but because they didn't give him due process and proper day in court to discuss things with them. Basically he claims they broke a parliamentary procedure, in more contemporary terms, and did so for the variety of personal reasons of others in power. So he says:quote:For these reasons everything was done in haste and confusion. Caesar's relations were allowed no time to inform him, and the tribunes were given no opportunity to make a plea against the danger that threatened them, or even their fundamental rights by veto, which Lucius Sulla had left untouched. I guess my question is how we should interpret these claims? Rome was forever changed by a procedural abuse? Huh. Seems plausible. There are just a variety of times in these commentaries where something about the narrative makes me really suspicious. Caesar recounts an army of Pompey's, I think, that surrendered early on in the conflict: he says he allowed them to disarm and go home. Can we believe that? I'm just re-reading this after about five years and its still fun to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Caesar’s big problem was that he wanted similar prominence to that of Pompey and Pompey didn’t want that. Pompey’s career had been insanely unorthodox and basically broke all the rules for proper Roman statesmen and nonetheless the senate were content to suck his dick about it, by and large. Caesar seems to have felt like he should get the same kind of special treatment on his own, but the senate was only willing to give it to him as long as Pompey was okay with it. When he stopped allowing it, that meant to Caesar that Pompey and the senate had wronged him. If you want to rule securely after seizing the government by force it’s also probably a good idea to emphasize that you didn’t set out to coup everything but were forced to do it in self defense. As to whether he allowed Pompey’s army to walk: it’s entirely possible, he didn’t have anything personal against them (this wasn’t an ideological conflict so much as a conflict about which warlord the Roman people would follow). Also, Caesar definitely wanted to be seen as a clement and forgiving man: he had grown up in the age of the Sulla-Marius strife and had narrowly avoided getting proscribed during that time due to his relationship to Marius, and probably didn’t think super highly of mass reprisal against Roman citizens either on a personal level or as a political strategy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Peetown Manning posted:I have question about Caesar's Civil War commentaries that always has been interesting to me. He seems to posture himself as being wronged by Pompey, and the Senate - not for the fact that they wanted to remove his army from him but because they didn't give him due process and proper day in court to discuss things with them. Basically he claims they broke a parliamentary procedure, in more contemporary terms, and did so for the variety of personal reasons of others in power. So he says: You're not the first to be suspicious, but consider it the other way: how much falsehood do you think he can actually get away with, in a book written for (and published to) a Roman audience that would include all of the relatives, superiors, and subordinates of the soldiers involved?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Aren't there more well-documented cases of Caesar's overly-generous clemency? Like him sparing (some of?) Pompey's sons and then it biting Octavian later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Aren't there more well-documented cases of Caesar's overly-generous clemency? Like him sparing (some of?) Pompey's sons and then it biting Octavian later. Caesar’s clemency was a big deal. In 44 when he had won the war, the senate ordered a temple be dedicated to goddess Clementia, either as Caesar’s request or in hope of pleasing him. He pardoned basically every Pompeian leader who would allow him to do it, among them Cicero, Ahenobarbus (who joined back up with Pompey and died fighting Caesar’s forces at Pharsalus) and Marcus Brutus and Cassius (who obviously decided to kill Caesar down the line). Many senior Pompeians killed themselves rather than give him the chance. It’s been speculated that he even intended to pardon Pompey, though that surely would have been a bit too ridiculous. He never pardoned Gnaeus and Sextus though; Gnaeus fought to the death and Sextus went to ground until after Caesar’s assassination.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CWBlackwell/status/711911884983824385 holy hell
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
dank
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
On the other hand, if we treated Native American names like ancient Greek names in history, we'd have to run them through ~1,000 years of academia beating down the names to fit into local lexicons, even totally reinventing both pronunciation and spelling halfway through so almost nothing of the original name is left. Probably end up with a lot more King Phils.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
Hey give me some counter examples for "gold has always had trade value for 10,000 years"
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 07:22
|
|