|
although its worth pointing out freeze distillation doesn't add anything bad to the end product. Drink the same amount of ethanol in the form of applejack and hard cider and you will get the same amount of methanol. The main difference is its just easier to consume more when you concentrate the drink, which makes it more likely for you to suffer the ill effects. This is just my personal experience but I always feel like I have a much worse hangover when drinking wine or beer instead of hard liquor, presumably because the distilled spirits have had the impurities removed.
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
it's a niche thing but there are some very high abv beers out there which are made with freezing and I know *some* of them are well-regarded, although I've never tried one myself. so presumably it is possible to do it well, just not by taking whatever you have and throwing it out in the snow
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 23:07
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:it's a niche thing but there are some very high abv beers out there which are made with freezing and I know *some* of them are well-regarded, although I've never tried one myself. so presumably it is possible to do it well, just not by taking whatever you have and throwing it out in the snow High ABV beers are mostly gimmicks that are made through a modern scientific process. They’re not a bottle a farmer threw into the snow during the winter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 01:09
|
|
|
Here's something to argue about : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhu66Q8rfhI If you don't want to watch it here's the tl;dw Video proposes 5 heirs to the title "Roman Emperor" 1 - Napoleon's heir, on the grounds that the Pope crowned Napoleon Emperor after Napoleon beat the piss out of Europe. 2 - The Hapsburg heir, on the grounds that the Austrian Empire was the successor state to the Holy Roman Emperor, which inherited Charlemagne's title, given by the Pope. 3 - The King of Spain, via the fact that Ferdinand and Isabel were bequeathed the title by Andreas Palaiologos, who inherited it from Constantine XI 4 - Dundar Ali Osman, the Ottoman heir, who owns it via right of Conquest. 5 - The Romanov heir. He asks a bunch of history vloggers who lean towards the Romanovs, but then himself comes down in the in favour of The King of Spain, as it's the only "legal" basis for the title, and the Romans are litigious assholes. My thought is that the only person named in that list who would have legitimate claim to Imperator would be Napoleon, though invested via conquest and being proclaimed by the troops not from Papal authority, but that the Romans would scoff at that title and authority passing to some failson descendent who barely has a cognomen let alone troops to proclaim him. Might make the case for Charles V of Spain, too on similar grounds, but that it wouldn't pass to some anonymous Hapsburg heir since the Romans were typically not that good at the whole blood relative inheritance thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 03:59
|
|
|
The only legitimate ways to gain the purple were to be named co-emperor during the previous emperor's life, or to be declared imperator by the troops and win a civil war So the power is in the hands of the modern Turkish soldiers
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 04:05
|
|
|
I say dig up the heirs to the electors, get them to all elect somebody, throw them at the pope to get his approval, and then if the new Emperor makes it through all that, give them control over all existing official imperial territory that isn't otherwise controlled by an independent state, which is nowhere, because old dead, dethroned monarchs have no hold over the modern world. Of course I say that, but the ludicrous power of monarchy is to make other rich and powerful men drop and swear allegiance for no clear reason, so there's no telling how far an "officially recognized" emperor could go with the ol' King of Ooo scam.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 04:55
|
|
|
I say, like the great Marcus Aurelius from The Gladiator, that Rome is an IDEA and thus anyone who embodies that idea will be the rightful heir. The United States is the obvious candidate, and by extension its president Donald J. Trump.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 05:15
|
|
|
The New Rome is obviously McDonalds, home of the Roma Burger, which is a prophetic goat liver sliced for the augeries, fried golden brown, and shoved between two slices of bread from the annonae, then drenched in garum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 05:28
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I say dig up the heirs to the electors, get them to all elect somebody, throw them at the pope to get his approval, and then if the new Emperor makes it through all that, give them control over all existing official imperial territory that isn't otherwise controlled by an independent state, which is nowhere, because old dead, dethroned monarchs have no hold over the modern world. Which Emperors did any pope have any say in selecting? I can't think of any.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 05:31
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:The only legitimate ways to gain the purple were to be named co-emperor during the previous emperor's life, or to be declared imperator by the troops and win a civil war all hail recep tayyip erdoğan, king of the romans
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 05:36
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:Here's something to argue about : I also liked this vid, watched it a few days ago. I don't really think any of them qualify but if I had to choose I'd pick Dundar Ali Osman or whoever the Spanish king is, Filipe?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 05:47
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:Which Emperors did any pope have any say in selecting? I can't think of any. Charlemagne.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 05:50
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:Which Emperors did any pope have any say in selecting? I can't think of any. At least Otto and Charlemagne, in theory every one that the pope crowned, although in some cases it's dubious how important papal approval was to the process. I remember there was at least one that the pope excommunicated, to which he responded by attempting to placate the pope rather than dismissing the whole thing as if it had no value. Most importantly, at least the appearance of papal approval via the process of coronation was important to emperors who were making big jumps in the contiguity of the whole process, notably Charlemagne who kinda just seized the French throne through right of force rather than any direct traditional claim and Napoleon, who dissolved the last empire and wanted some kind of legitimate-seeming basis from which to proclaim his own empire. The pope is traditionally seen as some sort of source of legitimacy, which is important when you're fabricating a claim to a title that has long laid fallow. And if you're really considering trying to get an emperor recognized as the rightful successor to the old empire (although there's at least 7 weirdly intermingled old empires to become successor of), then you'd inevitably have to run a charm offensive on all of the most powerful people in the international community in order to have your sovereignty respected.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 06:09
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:The New Rome is obviously McDonalds, home of the Roma Burger, which is a prophetic goat liver sliced for the augeries, fried golden brown, and shoved between two slices of bread from the annonae, then drenched in garum. Does this mean Ronald McDonald is the rightful Emperor?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 06:11
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:Here's something to argue about : It's obviously Virginia Raggi. Possession is nine tenths of the law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 06:23
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Charlemagne. Otto! E: f,b
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 07:03
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:Here's something to argue about :
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 07:20
|
|
|
erdogan is emperor
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 10:52
|
|
|
Grevling posted:I say, like the great Marcus Aurelius from The Gladiator, that Rome is an IDEA and thus anyone who embodies that idea will be the rightful heir. The United States is the obvious candidate, and by extension its president Donald J. Trump. He’d probably be a mid tier emperor. There was some bad ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 12:35
|
|
|
Last real emperor was Nero. His death meant the extinction of the bloodline of the Divine Augustus, and the Great Fire previously that destroyed the Senate House, the home of the Divine Augustus and the House of the Vestals showed that the gods had turned their faces against Rome and that no future rulers would be legitimate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 13:01
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Charlemagne. & Otto, yes, but those weren't Roman Emperors. There were Roman Emperors in Constantinople. Charlemagne and Otto were just Franks cosplaying as Roman Emperors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 13:50
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:& Otto, yes, but those weren't Roman Emperors. There were Roman Emperors in Constantinople. Charlemagne and Otto were just Franks cosplaying as Roman Emperors. As the pope so helpfully pointed out before crowning Charlemagne, the person on the throne in Conatantinople was Irene, who was a lady, and since women couldn't be Emperor, and since Charlemagne had already succeeded in conquering large portions of the Empire in the west, with the exception of Spain and North Africa, and had even pushed the borders of the Empire into Germany, why not him? And if Charlemagne is illegitimate because he was a Frank, well, Phillip had been an Arab, Zeno and Leo III Isaurians....
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 14:51
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:As the pope so helpfully pointed out before crowning Charlemagne, the person on the throne in Conatantinople was Irene, who was a lady, and since women couldn't be Emperor, and since Charlemagne had already succeeded in conquering large portions of the Empire in the west, with the exception of Spain and North Africa, and had even pushed the borders of the Empire into Germany, why not him? My point is that the Pope didn't have the authority to declare someone Emperor. That was a new idea, and no Emperors in either the East or West ever needed ecclesiastical approval. Usually power flowed the other way, with a few exceptions involving extremely competent and charismatic clerics. And Charlemagne didn't take control of the existing Roman state or institutions. He wasn't illegitimate because he was a Frank; he was illegitimate because he was cosplaying. And he wore pants.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 15:11
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:My point is that the Pope didn't have the authority to declare someone Emperor. That was a new idea, and no Emperors in either the East or West ever needed ecclesiastical approval. Usually power flowed the other way, with a few exceptions involving extremely competent and charismatic clerics. And Charlemagne didn't take control of the existing Roman state or institutions. He wasn't illegitimate because he was a Frank; he was illegitimate because he was cosplaying. As Pontifex Maximus, the Pope was the highest ranking Roman official left in the West, I guess. And even if the Pope hadn’t given his approval, you can argue that Charlemagne had some legitimacy based on an “acclamation by the army” type principle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
Squalid posted:although its worth pointing out freeze distillation doesn't add anything bad to the end product. Drink the same amount of ethanol in the form of applejack and hard cider and you will get the same amount of methanol. The main difference is its just easier to consume more when you concentrate the drink, which makes it more likely for you to suffer the ill effects. This is just my personal experience but I always feel like I have a much worse hangover when drinking wine or beer instead of hard liquor, presumably because the distilled spirits have had the impurities removed. Red wine is especially notorious for the hangovers it gives, as it's filled with congeners (all the stuff other than ethanol in your drink). Nobody is quite sure of the exact science behind what causes a hangover, only that it probably has some correlation to the amount of congeners present. It might also be that the amount of alcohol you need to suffer a hangover is roughly the same regardless of what you drink but you need far more beer or wine than hard liquor to achieve it, which means putting even more of those impurities in your body.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
Pontifex Maximus as also a title held by the emperors so there is some succession there
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
And Charlemagne was descended from a good Roman family.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:My point is that the Pope didn't have the authority to declare someone Emperor. That was a new idea, and no Emperors in either the East or West ever needed ecclesiastical approval. Usually power flowed the other way, with a few exceptions involving extremely competent and charismatic clerics. And Charlemagne didn't take control of the existing Roman state or institutions. He wasn't illegitimate because he was a Frank; he was illegitimate because he was cosplaying. You say that as if the passage of imperial power didn't tend to be just whatever pragmatic bullshit that seemed prudent at the moment, and as if that specific title didn't then become the basis for one of the biggest states in Europe for the next 800 or so years. Part of the power of monarchy is that while there are all these rules and procedures that theoretically put everything and everyone into their own distinct taxonomic category, people in power can just rewrite all those rules at any moment if they want to hard enough and have the muscle to back it up. From a theocratic standpoint, you could argue that eastern emperors never got patriarchs to approve them because patriarchs < popes. Primacy of Rome and all that. There's also something fitting about the demise of Rome not being one flag burnt or city taken, but an elaborate series of title passing and brand dilution so that any would-be successor basically has to argue their way through 7 different extinct empires to figure out what the title of Roman emperor even means.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:Video proposes 5 heirs to the title "Roman Emperor" "The Roman Empire" had ceased to exist before the Turks ever left the steppes. If you want to consider the Ottomans the rulers of the Eastern Roman Empire by rite of conquest, then sure. Same thing for Napoleon and the Western Roman Empire. The Romanovs and Spain can claim the ERE by rite of inheritance, but not the whole thing. Nobody cares what the Pope says. No, if you want to find the current emperor of the whole enchilada, you need to dig up a descendant of Theodosius. Alternative proposal, if you take an extremely incorrect and anachronistic view of NATO member states as tributaries of the USA, then I guess the Emperor of America is the Roman Emperor:  e: I really should add are_we_the_baddies.jpg here Family Values fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Oct 31, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
The EU is Rome
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
Some loving Barbarians stole all the toilet seats on the palatine. I had to poo poo there squatting. It was terrible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Red wine is especially notorious for the hangovers it gives, as it's filled with congeners (all the stuff other than ethanol in your drink). Nobody is quite sure of the exact science behind what causes a hangover, only that it probably has some correlation to the amount of congeners present. It might also be that the amount of alcohol you need to suffer a hangover is roughly the same regardless of what you drink but you need far more beer or wine than hard liquor to achieve it, which means putting even more of those impurities in your body. i always sort of figured that what we call "hangover" is a bunch of different conditions caused in the aftermath of drinking heavily - part of it is consuming impurities, part of it is consuming a shitton of calories (and likely terrible food) in one evening, part of it is the disrupted sleep, part of it is the GABA parts of your brain rebounding etc etc. dehydration plays a major role too, so while you may need to drink a ton more beer than liquor to achieve a hangover at least you're consuming a lot more water in the process. i always figured that masked the effect somewhat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Alternative proposal, if you take an extremely incorrect and anachronistic view of NATO member states as tributaries of the USA, then I guess the Emperor of America is the Roman Emperor Norton I left no heirs, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 19:32
|
|
|
What do we know about Germanic power structures in the early first millennium?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 20:16
|
|
|
Power Khan posted:Some loving Barbarians stole all the toilet seats on the palatine. I had to poo poo there squatting. It was terrible. Italy is not the most functional of countries. Out in Ostia there are actual squat toilets. On the emperor question, if I were making a real argument I'd say there is no one with a claim. The empire never, ever established a legal framework for how succession to the throne worked and barely even had a traditional one. This was one of the main reasons why they had civil war so often. Legitimacy to hold the throne came from the Roman res publica (which in practice was primarily just Constantinople), so if you could get their support you were a legitimate holder of the throne. An example I stole: Michael V was the subject of a general revolt by the people. All of the sources from the time present the idea of the people rejecting an emperor as a legitimate action--Michael V is one example, there are others, and there is totally different language used for a legitimate revolt like against Michael and an illegitimate revolt. There was no set method to gain this support. Some inherit the throne, some are given it, some take it by force. But the sources talk about legitimate emperors fulfilling the will of the res publica and illegitimate ones as going against it. I think ignoring the power of the people is a mistake that we make by projecting our views and values of government on the past. I'm more and more convinced by arguments that the throne was genuinely considered an office in the Roman government. An exceptional one to be sure, but still an office within a legal framework, operating in the general concept of res publica that the Romans had used for ages. So, there can be no one with a claim because there is no Roman res publica, therefore the office cannot exist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:
On the contrary, Virginia Raggi 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
Not My Romans!! Oh also a very very minor tourist thing when you're in Rome: drink from the fountains! The metal ones with the spigots are designed for that, and the water network that feeds them is partially made up of original ancient Roman aqueducts. You're drinking from the same source as the Romans were. As far as I know Rome is the only city where some of the aqueducts are still functional and in active use. I think a couple other cities still use some of their Roman sewers, maybe Istanbul.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I'm more and more convinced by arguments that the throne was genuinely considered an office in the Roman government. An exceptional one to be sure, but still an office within a legal framework, operating in the general concept of res publica that the Romans had used for ages. It even has the emperor taking power only to find all of the expectations that people have that he'll continue the behavior of his predecessors that keep everything running smoothly, with consequences if he tries to go against it. Though in this case the consequences could include "being shanked by your own guard and the throne offered to whoever has the most money."
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
Grevling posted:Go back in time to visit Galen in the middle of the night, pretend you're Asclepius explaining germ theory to him in a dream. Elissimpark posted:*bedsheet toga, grotty santa beard and two rubber snakes stapled to a tennis racquet One snake. Two is for Hermes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:As far as I know Rome is the only city where some of the aqueducts are still functional and in active use. I think a couple other cities still use some of their Roman sewers, maybe Istanbul. In Jeusalem, the Biyar Aqueduct provided water to the Old City until the Six Day War, when the Israelis hooked up East Jerusalem to Weat Jerusalem's water supply.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 22:04
|
|