|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That was Napoleon III I believe Aw jeez
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 11:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 11:43 |
|
|
Sarern posted:Was there a BravestOfTheLamps of Rome, then? Cassandra.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 12:17
|
|
|
Stringent posted:Cato was the fishmech of Rome. Fischmech of Rome would have been some retarded slave that had a habit of making GBS threads his own loincloth and then sniffing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 12:20
|
|
|
no, it would be the smartest kid in Rome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 12:32
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Fischmech of Rome would have been some retarded slave that had a habit of making GBS threads his own loincloth and then sniffing it. Goes around stealing ppls poop sponges.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 12:37
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:but god help you if you misplace a iota when talking about jesus Was this iota human or divine?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 13:37
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Any Roman boy could grow up to attain the poorly-defined highest rank of a weird sort of dictatorship where every element of society had to kind of agree at least a little that that specific human should be in charge of them, whether it was 100 AD or 1000. This was a good thing and a bad thing. I thought this was going to be an america joke. “Our democracy owes a lot to Rome. True, behind the facade of elections was a firmly entrenched oligarchy controlled by the likes of the olive and lead industries and the war profiteers in Big Javelin, and the only candidates who could gain any traction were inevitably rich, male, from well-known families, and possessed of a freudian fascination with huge white columns- but the similarities don’t end there!”
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 15:08
|
|
|
spoon daddy posted:In addition to bureaucracy helping keep the republic moving along, I think there is merit to the idea that succession in the ERE had strong elements of republicanism to it. That helped(though not always) to keep things getting too radically different. That's the Constantinople hypothesis, right? That Constantinople is so important to the ERE, and so hard to take by force that any claimant to the imperial throne had to have some sort of support among the various factions in the City. As for China, it's interesting how the first person to usurp a dynasty using court intrigue instead of raw military force set up the precedent for how to properly replace a Chinese emperor in the form of the Nine Bestowments, a set of nine "gifts" that only exist to signal to everyone that the shadow emperor is about to become the formal emperor: quote:1. Gift of a wagon and horses: when the official is appropriate in his modesty and walking in an appropriate manner, so that he does not need to walk any more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
Would the Medieval Roman State pass the sniff test as a Nation State? I am curious, personally I think it does more so than any other of its contemporaries at least till the latter years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Would the Medieval Roman State pass the sniff test as a Nation State? I am curious, personally I think it does more so than any other of its contemporaries at least till the latter years. No. It was a multinational empire that claimed universal jurisdiction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 20:40
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I find it interesting that during many Chinese interregnums there was a significant difference in legitimacy between the office of Emperor and King. This is largely because the term "king" is meaningless in Chinese history. loving everybody is a king of some sort. That's why they had to make a new term for people with actual royal authority, 国王, since the regular 王 word for king had lost any value. Jack2142 posted:Would the Medieval Roman State pass the sniff test as a Nation State? I am curious, personally I think it does more so than any other of its contemporaries at least till the latter years. Not a nation state, but it was the most state-like entity of medieval Christendom. Nobody else had that sort of strong central government and regular taxation and such. Part of why the Ottomans became such a force so rapidly was they inherited a functioning classical imperial system while the Europeans were still loving around trying to nation build. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Feb 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
It's worth noting in this context that "nation state" also has a very specific meaning and none of the ancient empires really qualifies, if only because the concept of a "national" identity as we understand it hadn't really solidified. Note that in this case "nation" means something more akin "a people" than a specific geographical construct. edit: it can be argued, for example, that the US isn't a nation-state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 00:30
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:This is largely because the term "king" is meaningless in Chinese history. loving everybody is a king of some sort. That's why they had to make a new term for people with actual royal authority, 国王, since the regular 王 word for king had lost any value. Even Chen Sheng can be king!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 01:42
|
|
|
King is ... loose in English/German too. Its lofty heights in American minds come from the temporally unique British philosophy of the divine right if Kings coincident with the American Revolution and related propaganda
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
Wasn't there a whole lot of nonsense in Europe (especially Germany) about which territories were Duchies vs Earldoms vs Bishoprics vs Kingdoms, with the title of king being the prestigious, sought-after one, even if in practice all those terms just meant "sovereign ruler"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 01:51
|
|
|
Over the history of the term “king” could mean guy who maybe rules that moist mound over there to Karl der Große
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
I’ve been listening to that really excellent Fall of Rome podcast and it brought a couple questions to mind that I think I’ve always had rattling around. I understand that by the late 300s and 400s, the western empire’s armies were largely along the frontiers and there was a sort of co-evolution of “barbarian” and roman-military culture to the extent that the roman armies and barbarians largely resembled one another. But when poo poo really seemed to be falling apart in the west, what with invasions, civil wars, rome getting sacked, huge losses in battles, why was it impossible to raise new armies of [presumably] loyal, local romans from the core provinces or Italy? There were millions of romans - maybe more than ever before, but army recruitment was so tough and the financial system so busted they needed to use settled goths and allied franks and federati and so-on. Was it the crisis of legitimacy from constant coups and idiot child emperors?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
It's a big question that nobody has come up with a satisfactory answer for. One of the major questions of late antiquity studies. The old explanation that now we know isn't true is there weren't enough Romans to fight. Another classic simple explanation is the Romans had no means to draft soldiers and there was no incentive strong enough to get citizens to sign up in large numbers. This hypothesis has been questioned quite thoroughly lately and there's no consensus. The evidence has pointed to the empire of the 300s being an exceptionally strong state and the big "What's the deal with gravity?" type of question for historians of the period is what the hell happened to the western empire. All the old ideas that were accepted since at least the time of Gibbon seem to be provably wrong from better recent archaeology.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 02:56
|
|
|
 obviously it was lead poisoning
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 03:03
|
|
|
euphronius posted:King is ... loose in English/German too. Good thing it was only the brits who imagined the divine right of kings or we’d all be in a realllll pickle
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 03:06
|
|
|
It’s not too hard to believe that the Empire declined and collapsed in a much shorter frame of time than was usually believed. 400ish-476ish is about the same amount of time between the death of Commodus and the Crisis of the 3rd Century. It’s just that no one was able to pick up all of the pieces and reassemble the Empire the second time around although Justinian gave it the old college try.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 03:13
|
|
|
I don't have a good answer based on scholarly sources, but it seems a lot like modern day outsourcing for companies that turned around and bit them in the rear end. Oh we hired some factory in China who said they could do the work for 1/3rd the cost and same quality. Oh we hired some Franks from Germania who said they could bash some butts for 1/3rd the cost and be just as brutal. to Oh poo poo they stole our prototype and started sending out generics and undercutting our market share!!! Oh poo poo they carved out their own Kingdom in Gaul and are stealing our taxes!!! Shimrra Jamaane posted:It’s not too hard to believe that the Empire declined and collapsed in a much shorter frame of time than was usually believed. 400ish-476ish is about the same amount of time between the death of Commodus and the Crisis of the 3rd Century. It’s just that no one was able to pick up all of the pieces and reassemble the Empire the second time around although Justinian gave it the old college try. I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you meddling plague!!! Epicurius posted:No. It was a multinational empire that claimed universal jurisdiction. This is where I would quibble, it seems to me by the Middle Ages the Roman Empire was mostly a single Roman (Greek) ethnicity practicing the same religion (Greek Orthodox). There were Armenians, Bulgarians etc. present in the empire, but they were minority cultures. Jack2142 fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Feb 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 03:13
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:This is where I would quibble, it seems to me by the Middle Ages the Roman Empire was mostly a single Roman (Greek) ethnicity practicing the same religion (Greek Orthodox). There were Armenians, Bulgarians etc. present in the empire, but they were minority cultures. It depends which period you're talking about, it's a thousand years after all. In 800 I would agree, in 1025 I would not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:It depends which period you're talking about, it's a thousand years after all. In 800 I would agree, in 1025 I would not. This is certainly true it was a broad statement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 03:27
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Wasn't there a whole lot of nonsense in Europe (especially Germany) about which territories were Duchies vs Earldoms vs Bishoprics vs Kingdoms This is something I'd like to know more about, because it really feels like a giant exercise in "what is the most bombastic thing I can convince people to call me."
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 03:48
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:I don't have a good answer based on scholarly sources, but it seems a lot like modern day outsourcing for companies that turned around and bit them in the rear end. I would be very, very wary arguing either a monocausal explanation for why they fell to poo poo and also drawing too strong parallels with modern problems. Whether you're talking about Imperial Rome, Qing China, the British Empire, or the modern US the problems - both external and internal - facing each of them are very rooted in their historical contexts, to the point that comparisons get really iffy. Even something that seems 1:1 really isn't the more you look into the political, cultural, economic, etc. issues that factored into them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 03:51
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Good thing it was only the brits who imagined the divine right of kings or we’d all be in a realllll pickle If you are referring to the French They weren’t Kings
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 03:51
|
|
|
Azerban posted:This is something I'd like to know more about, because it really feels like a giant exercise in "what is the most bombastic thing I can convince people to call me." I believe you'll see that my title of Archduke is 100% a real title and not something I forged to make myself more important, suck it Ducal-ailiures.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 04:06
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:It’s not too hard to believe that the Empire declined and collapsed in a much shorter frame of time than was usually believed. 400ish-476ish is about the same amount of time between the death of Commodus and the Crisis of the 3rd Century. It’s just that no one was able to pick up all of the pieces and reassemble the Empire the second time around although Justinian gave it the old college try. What do you mean "reassemble the Empire"? After Justinian the Empire was still around and still had all the important bits. 6th century Britain and Gaul and the hinterland of Hispania were about as wealthy and important and populous compared to places like Egypt and Syria and Anatolia as Alaska is to the continental US.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 04:09
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I would be very, very wary arguing either a monocausal explanation for why they fell to poo poo and also drawing too strong parallels with modern problems. Whether you're talking about Imperial Rome, Qing China, the British Empire, or the modern US the problems - both external and internal - facing each of them are very rooted in their historical contexts, to the point that comparisons get really iffy. Even something that seems 1:1 really isn't the more you look into the political, cultural, economic, etc. issues that factored into them. Of course nothing is 1:1 and I didn't mean to say that "Yes it was exactly like this"! and probably shouldn't have given the example I edited back in. I think the outsourcing idea makes sense to an extent, its not perfect because again a Roman Emperor and Modern CEO have different priorities and world views and aren't going to draw the same conclusions. Especially since the situations and surroundings and even the information available to both individuals is vastly different. Jack2142 fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Feb 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 04:15
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:
 As a AP Human Geography teacher, you would get no credit if you use the US as an example. I think there is a direct reference to that in past short-answer examples on their website.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 04:36
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:What do you mean "reassemble the Empire"? After Justinian the Empire was still around and still had all the important bits. 6th century Britain and Gaul and the hinterland of Hispania were about as wealthy and important and populous compared to places like Egypt and Syria and Anatolia as Alaska is to the continental US. This is more of a cart and horse problem, isn't it? Britain was always less populous, but Gaul, Hispania and Italia were certainly rich in the 4th century, on the same scale of the east. How could they get invaded and become that much poorer, given that case?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 04:38
|
|
|
Beamed posted:This is more of a cart and horse problem, isn't it? Britain was always less populous, but Gaul, Hispania and Italia were certainly rich in the 4th century, on the same scale of the east. How could they get invaded and become that much poorer, given that case? Some people in this thread get cranky when you don't use the term "Roman Empire" to refer to the Byzantines. That's all that was.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 04:44
|
|
|
Beamed posted:This is more of a cart and horse problem, isn't it? Britain was always less populous, but Gaul, Hispania and Italia were certainly rich in the 4th century, on the same scale of the east. How could they get invaded and become that much poorer, given that case? I'm referring to somebody talking about Justinian's conquests in the second half of the 6th century, not about two centuries earlier. The poster was portraying Justinian as failing to "reassemble" the Roman Empire. I'm saying what was the point? What would have been gained? All the important parts of the Roman Empire were still in place. The empire was already assembled! Teriyaki Hairpiece fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Feb 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 05:00
|
|
|
Well Justinian thought there was a point since he, well, tried to do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 05:16
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Well Justinian thought there was a point since he, well, tried to do it. Pretty borders, Justinian actually freaky Friday swapped with a paradox gamer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 05:35
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:It's a big question that nobody has come up with a satisfactory answer for. One of the major questions of late antiquity studies. Yeah, I haven’t seen a satisfactory answer. The narrative of chaos on top seems to suggest a whole lot of contingency: bad luck, murders of the wrong people, bad choices here and there, disease, child emperors and outside barbarians but that’s all unsatisfying. You’d think with the millions and millions of Roman citizens hanging about in italy alone they would be capable of organizing an army or two loyal to the state unless it really had thoroughly alienated everyone. Yet all that contemporary doom and woe writing about the sack of rome etc seems to indicate folks really believed in the state and were shocked as hell when things were heading south.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 05:36
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:
I don’t even want to know their reasoning on this; do I?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 05:43
|
|
|
Wasn't some of it that recruitment responsibilities were turned over to cities and landowners, which tended to prefer to pay fees in lieu of service rather than taking productive peasants off the land to serve in some foreign place that doesn't benefit them or their community?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 11:43 |
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Well Justinian thought there was a point since he, well, tried to do it. Justinian wanted Italy and he wrecked it and he got it. Direct Roman authority over Rome lasted till the end of the Exarchate of Ravenna almost two centuries after his death. What part of the Empire would he have had to "reconquer" for you personally to consider it reassembled?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 06:00
|
|