|
Grand Fromage posted:Italy is not the most functional of countries. Out in Ostia there are actual squat toilets. At what point does Rome even come up with the idea of a "throne" (or a "coronation") like we'd know it today? I get that at some point between Augustus and 1453 they definitely become a monarchy with a throne and coronations but I don't think I've ever heard those words used to describe it until after there exist multiple Romes. e: also might that be a legitimate east/west split? From what I know the east was calling the princeps "basileus" since they had one, where monarch kept its stigma in the west for a long time after they became their own bizarro-monarchy. e2: vvvv weird barbarian way to spell "bidet" down there Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Oct 31, 2019 |
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:36 |
|
|
Squat toilets are powerfully superior technology. If you have not used a squat toilet you do not know the true meaning of speed or of efficiency.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:At what point does Rome even come up with the idea of a "throne" (or a "coronation") like we'd know it today? I'm honestly not convinced the Romans ever conceive of it in that way, but if they do Diocletian is a likely start. He's the one who formalizes majesty of the office poo poo lifted directly from eastern monarchies. Aurelian uses some of the forms earlier but they aren't systematic like they are after Diocletian.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Squat toilets are powerfully superior technology. If you have not used a squat toilet you do not know the true meaning of speed or of efficiency. Fine, I will take the throne.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I'm honestly not convinced the Romans ever conceive of it in that way, but if they do Diocletian is a likely start. He's the one who formalizes majesty of the office poo poo lifted directly from eastern monarchies. Aurelian uses some of the forms earlier but they aren't systematic like they are after Diocletian. While you are correct. the first to be "Coronated" in the way we think of it today was Leo the 1st 457-474. Who had the whole thing with the Patriarch crowning him as a source of legitimacy in a mega Religious ceremony. Ironically this is the same time frame the West fell so a lot of people use it as a divider between "Eastern Rome" and "Byzantium".
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
Wasn't there already a lot of symbolism around crowns during the time of the Republic? Like a crown during the triumph and a crown as one of the highest rewards for a soldier. I know Caesar when Caesar took control of Rome, he installed a Special Chair into the senate, from which he would do his thing. It's worth noting that symbolism of crowns and thrones often wasn't exclusive to monarchs. Outside of that, it's not rocket science for the people to acknowledge when there's one guy in control and it's pretty important when that slot gets emptied or filled. There's always the pretension towards not being kings, but it's not like senators and consuls were especially non-regal or pedestrian. When you have somebody with a special office that defines their society, affords them power beyond most others, has special legal protections and rights, wears special fancy clothing, whose family is granted additional status by association, and even can have the divine legitimacy of holding the highest religious offices as well as political, where's the line between that and a ruler with a divine and hereditary mandate to whom all others within the nation are sworn? It's one of those things where the distinction seems extremely important and feels like it should be tangibly different, but I have no idea how you'd define the difference. Weka posted:What do we know about Germanic power structures in the early first millennium? I remember trying hard to read up about that a while back, and all I ever got was that while there was some kind of respect for the idea of hereditary rule that would later get covered in latin and become medieval Europe, there was also some kind of understanding that rulers of tribes or tribal confederations needed to get some kind of support from the ruled in some kind of voting. Other than that I got nothin'. Probably doesn't help that once the Romans started taking interest in the affairs of Germans, it was in the context of preventing them from forming a coherent state that could be any kind of threat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 23:21
|
|
|
How long did it take for emperors to stop bothering to ask the senate to grant them the suite of powers that made up Augustus' not-technically-a-monarchy? I know there was some small scandal with a few emperors (Septimius Severus off the top of my head) putting their anniversary celebrations on the anniversary of being acclaimed by their troops, rather than on the anniversary of the senate vote, but they still bothered to ask the senate eventually.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 23:26
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:How long did it take for emperors to stop bothering to ask the senate to grant them the suite of powers that made up Augustus' not-technically-a-monarchy? I know there was some small scandal with a few emperors (Septimius Severus off the top of my head) putting their anniversary celebrations on the anniversary of being acclaimed by their troops, rather than on the anniversary of the senate vote, but they still bothered to ask the senate eventually. Senate approval lasted until 1204 when they elected Nicholas Kanabos emperor. There's no reliable record of the Senate being reformed after the Fourth Crusade; that election is the last verifiable action of the Roman Senate. From what I've read, legitimate emperors always took the time to get senatorial approval even if that approval was at the point of a sword. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Oct 31, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
They had a https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curule_seat Which is a throne
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:i have been over this and my pov is make merkel the head of a new hre she's not already?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 23:43
|
|
|
euphronius posted:They had a https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curule_seat It's also super cool the way it spread. It became a symbol of power all through Central Asia when some of the states there specifically were taking Roman symbols of authority to use themselves, then passed into East Asia as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
Yeah that Wikipedia article is pretty tight
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 23:47
|
|
|
I'm a big fan of this dog chair
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
The Roman Empire and the Silk Routes by Raoul McLaughlin talks about Central Asian states adopting Roman forms of authority, it's pretty neat. It has a few issues with research, I think the author is not as skeptical of some obviously absurd ancient records as he should be, but it's good overall.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:she's not already? I'm looking forward to the day when I'm old and France finally re-supersedes Germany as the biggest country in Europe. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 23:51
|
|
|
Throne by the way is just the Greek root. Chair is latin
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
The most interesting part of the book to me was material about Roman missions to China I hadn't read before. The first was sent by the excellently named Maes Titianus in about 100 CE and is known to have returned to the Roman Empire after meeting with the Han court in Luoyang. This was followed by a bunch of Roman material about the Chinese, discussing the materials they had to trade as well as cultural appearances. "This new awareness of China could explain a comment made by Juvenal when he complains that Roman women were interfering in traditional male interests by interrupting generals with the question, 'What are the intentions of the Chinese?'" The next three missions to China appear in Chinese records (166, 226, 284) but there is no mention of them in Roman records. His explanation for this is something I didn't think about but loving obvious: it's a long, dangerous journey and they never made it back to Rome. The mission in 166 was the most important, the Roman envoys seem to have lost all of their goods to present to the emperor and the Chinese are just like "what is this poo poo?" when the Romans show up with some scrounged up trade samples. They conclude from it that the Romans aren't nearly as wealthy and civilized as the Chinese had believed, and the lack of follow-up to the embassy also leads to this conclusion that the stories were exaggerated and the Romans aren't really the western equal of the Han that had been previously believed. There were Roman merchants making the journey between India and southern China throughout this whole period too, but they obviously didn't visit Luoyang because they're just merchants so it's not recorded. But you find Roman coins scattered all through the sea route. Roman coins of this period were good quality so it doesn't necessarily mean there were Romans, but there's record of trade and we know of several permanent Roman trading outposts in India so no real reason to think Romans weren't going further east the way the Indians did. Also while we think of the trade as being mostly silk, I didn't know that the Chinese and Indians made much better steel than the Romans and there was a constant demand for it. The military tried to make arms and armor from Indian/Chinese steel whenever possible. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Nov 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 00:03
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Also while we think of the trade as being mostly silk, I didn't know that the Chinese and Indians made much better steel than the Romans and there was a constant demand for it. The military tried to make arms and armor from Indian/Chinese steel whenever possible. Yeah this is something I find interesting but I haven't found much detail about how China and India made steel before the modern period. The Chinese never used bloomery furnaces like early smiths in Europe, instead always first producing cast iron and then somehow converting that to steel, but I'm not really sure about the process they used. I'm not sure if India could produce cast iron or not, but from an early date they developed crucible steel which I think gave them more control over the carbon content than Europeans before the late Medieval. This is how they would produce Wootz steel for example. In the classical era it become normal for Indian rulers to put up giant Iron columns as monuments:  This is the Pillar of Delhi, erected sometime around 400 AD. I don't think the Romans could have made anything like that. The fissure crossing the middle of the column probably marks where it was struck by a cannonball. The thing is solid enough though it simply bounced off
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 00:51
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Yeah this is something I find interesting but I haven't found much detail about how China and India made steel before the modern period. The Chinese never used bloomery furnaces like early smiths in Europe, instead always first producing cast iron and then somehow converting that to steel, but I'm not really sure about the process they used. Interestingly, Korea and Japan both did, which is a pretty strong indication that they got their ironworking technology from Central Asia rather than China.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Squat toilets are powerfully superior technology. If you have not used a squat toilet you do not know the true meaning of speed or of efficiency. Nah, the superior technology is a fallen tree with a nice v of branches and a great view. Making sure you dont get mauled by a mountain lion is a great poop motivator.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 03:20
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Interestingly, Korea and Japan both did, which is a pretty strong indication that they got their ironworking technology from Central Asia rather than China. yeah that is kind of odd. I wonder if maybe the quality of Japanese iron ore was a factor, or if there were other practical issues that may have influenced their practice. Korea is a surprise to me though, I'd assume they'd have just done it like the Chinese. I can't imagine Koreans weren't aware of Chinese blast furnace technology -- presumably if they didn't use them it was by choice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 03:44
|
|
|
Squalid posted:yeah that is kind of odd. I wonder if maybe the quality of Japanese iron ore was a factor, or if there were other practical issues that may have influenced their practice. Korea is a surprise to me though, I'd assume they'd have just done it like the Chinese. I can't imagine Koreans weren't aware of Chinese blast furnace technology -- presumably if they didn't use them it was by choice. Ah I should have clarified, they did make use of blast furnaces later; it's just it started out with only bloomeries. Archaeologically there's reasonable evidence for a path of bloomery smelting technology going from Western Asia -> Central Asia/Siberia -> Manchuria -> Korea -> Japan, so the thinking is that's how ironworking (and bronzeworking, incidentally) was transmitted to the far east at first (and some argue the Central Plains too, or at least the idea of ironworking). Later on once the Han Commanderies got set up blast furnaces were introduced too, but didn't become dominant like they were in China until later. What I read said it's mostly a manpower thing--they apparently take a lot of people to get working properly. Also for Japan, keep in mind they didn't have native smelting at all until about 500 when they discovered how to work iron sands. Until that point it was just forging from pre-smelted ingots that were imported.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 04:50
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I can't imagine Koreans weren't aware of Chinese blast furnace technology -- presumably if they didn't use them it was by choice. Unrelated to metallurgy, this is something I've been wondering about a bit lately--just how technology actually gets transmitted. I know in East Asia it really wasn't just some permeable spread of technology at all. I feel like we often have this image in the west of China/Korea/Japan having been on complete technological parity throughout their existence but it's really not true at all until their much later history; there are some innovations from the latter two* that would make their way back to China, but on the whole China was just straight up markedly ahead. There's a lot more, but for some examples, take porcelain, for instance--it hit its mature state by the early Song, but it wasn't until early Joseon (like 500 years later) that it spread to Korea, and it wasn't until the Japanese literally relocated villages of Korean potters to Japan that it spread there too. Gunpowder is something I've seen some history books offhandedly mention Korea having just gotten from China, but it took them stealing the recipe for it to actually get transmitted. Things like rice transplantation too (which would practically double Korea's population) took centuries to spread. There was a lot that was transmitted by international scholars studying in China, and then China would periodically send experts/artisans as part of their tributary relationships, but on the whole it was extremely selective. Past early Korean/Japanese history when there were waves of Chinese immigrants directly transmitting a lot, it seems like there was a monopoly an awful lot of the time. Ironically actually, the Mongols were one of the best things to happen to Korea in that regard--they killed a huge chunk of the country's population and permanently destroyed an unimaginable quantity of Korea's cultural heritage, but Korea being part of the Mongol Empire gave it the most direct technological/philosophical exchange it ever had. *incidentally for an example, since a while back I mentioned I couldn't think of anything at all that premodern China took from Japan--folding fans. They came via Korea so there's some contention they mighta not actually been Japanese, but the dude in the Imperial Court who recorded their first appearance in China thought they were. Koramei fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Nov 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 05:14
|
|
|
oh, well that makes sense I guess. Looking at the wikipedia article too it sees like there's some dispute over whether China started with bloomery technology, presumably imported from the west, before quickly switching over to blast furnaces. It seems like an area of ongoing research and debate. Later Western Eurasia most likely imported blast furnace technology from China, and I like the idea of tech rippling out in all directions before reflecting back like waves in a pool, with new innovations carried on each crest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 05:19
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:Nah, the superior technology is a fallen tree with a nice v of branches and a great view. Obviously, the superior technology is the Siberian two-stick method (one for balance and one to fend off the wolves)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 11:55
|
|
|
Weka posted:What do we know about Germanic power structures in the early first millennium? This is a really broad question but, to answer it really broadly, it seems like society was usually divided into free men, freedmen and slaves, and that some of the free men were increasingly rich and powerful and used that to convince other free and freed men to go follow them in violent expeditions to get loot and slaves. Some of these guys are quite successful, but none of them manage to create lasting states at first, power is very personal and falls apart whenever the big man dies. It’s really only after the western empire starts getting dismembered that this changes and you get anything approaching stable power structures. So around the start of the fifth century Alaric could be succeeded as king of the Visigoths by his brother Ataulf; when Ataulf was assassinated, a noble of a different family tried to take the throne, but was thought (probably correctly) to be implicated in Ataulf’s death and quickly killed off. The (free, and presumably only some of the free) Visigoths then elected as king Wallia, a prominent military figure who had married into Alaric’s family; he was succeeded by Theodoric who was apparently an illegitimate son of Alaric. When Theodoric died in battle (fighting with the Romans against Attila) his son Thorismund had to immediately leave the battlefield to make sure he got elected king. His worries about the succession were probably justified for a couple of years later he was murdered and replaced by his brother, also called Theodoric, who would in turn be killed and replaced as king by his younger brother Euric. The important thing to note here is that while this was all quite bloody and chaotic, none of these succession troubles actually destroyed the Visigoths as a political force. They did better and better through the reigns of these kings: during Alaric’s tenure, they could not claim any land was theirs except what they were actively standing on, but by the end of Euric’s reign he ruled almost all of Spain and Aquitaine. Nothing like this had been happening before the late fourth century. “Barbarian” peoples had learned something like statecraft from the example of the Roman military.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 12:19
|
|
|
Once Honorius was deposed, the only person in a position to legitimize anyone in the west was whoever sat on the throne of Constantinople at the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Once Honorius was deposed, By that greatest of all plotters, pulmonary edema, no less.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 15:35
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:By that greatest of all plotters, pulmonary edema, no less. poo poo I thought he had been deposed before his death... Guess I'm gonna have to listen to History of Rome podcast all over again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 15:53
|
|
|
He basically got quietly usurped as head of the military by Constantius in the 410s. When Constantius finally married into his family and was named as emperor, the eastern Theodosians wouldn’t recognize him. Constantius planned to attack the east to force that recognition and had he succeeded, it’s hard not to conclude that he would have had Honorius knocked off eventually just to make a clean sweep of it. But he (Constantius) died before any of that could happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
skasion posted:This is a really broad question but, to answer it really broadly, it seems like society was usually divided into free men, freedmen and slaves, and that some of the free men were increasingly rich and powerful and used that to convince other free and freed men to go follow them in violent expeditions to get loot and slaves. Some of these guys are quite successful, but none of them manage to create lasting states at first, power is very personal and falls apart whenever the big man dies. It’s really only after the western empire starts getting dismembered that this changes and you get anything approaching stable power structures. I feel like this really undersells the level of settledness of Iron Age chiefdoms. The tl;dr is that if you were to think 'if these people had been literate we would call them city-states' you aren't really that far off the mark. Iron Age chiefdoms were typically centered around a hill fort surrounded by a small village, enclosed in some sort of fortifications, typically a wooden palisade and earthworks. The valley/plain below the village would be cleared and used for agriculture. That would be the extent of the directly held territory of the chiefdom, beyond which would be a forest or other wilderness that was effectively not under anyone's control, and then the next valley would contain another chiefdom. The population would consist of multiple interrelated families or clans, and the total population would be less than 500. These were permanent settlements. If the current chief died a new one would replace him. I don't think we really know exactly what process Germanic tribes used, but it's reasonable to expect they would be similar to other neighboring Iron Age cultures like the Celts, which we know a bit more about thanks to their contact with Greeks/Romans. If that's the case, there wouldn't be a single universal process, each chiefdom would have its own custom. In one, the elders might choose the next chief, in another the chief might rotate among the 2-3 dominant families, and in some they might choose by election. In some cases multiple chiefdoms could form a tribal confederation. Without writing all diplomacy obviously has to be done face to face, so these arrangements were less formal and more ephemeral. No writing also means no formal laws, so these societies operated on customary law. The chief would be expected to enforce order, but the priestly class would probably have a lot of sway over what was considered 'customary' and the chief would seldom want to contradict them. The waves of migrants that periodically came out of these areas were less interested in finding slaves and loot and more interested in finding land to settle on. Think more along the lines of excess population looking for new territory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
Family Values posted:The waves of migrants that periodically came out of these areas were less interested in finding slaves and loot and more interested in finding land to settle on. Think more along the lines of excess population looking for new territory. It kind of reminds me why Romulus and Remus left Alba Longa to found Rome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 06:32
|
|
|
I think you might be confusing the Celtic peoples of the La Tène culture with the Germans of the first millennia, which is what the original question was about. Of course skasion is right that this is a broad question and there's a lot of change over time. Also you may be extrapolated too far in what you are saying about their politics. Hillforts as far as I'm aware, were not common in the area considered Germania during the reign of Augustus. This is what Tacitus had to say: Tacitus posted:It is a well-known fact that the peoples of Germany never live in cities and will not even have their houses adjoin one another. They dwell apart, dotted about here and there, wherever a spring, plain, or grove takes their fancy. Tacitus is not necessarily the most reliable source, I'm pretty sure he was relying on third hand info here, but this should reflect the general impression of Romans at the time. Archaeological research also suggests, although I think there is a decent amount of debate, that in the iron age most agriculture East of the Danube was based on shifting plots or slash and burn, with houses or even whole villages moving every few years as the land was exhausted and new fields cleared. I think you are overemphasizing the interest of the Germans in land rather than loot. Don't get me wrong, they definitely wanted that. However I think the behavior of early Germanic peoples would have been similar to those of say, the Vikings. Sure they wanted to conquer and settle lands. However if they could just smash and grab silver they would have been happy to do so. Cattle raiding would also have been endemic, and we can look to the Irish mythology for an idea of what it would be like. Especially when we look at earlier periods, it may be a mistake to assume "the chief" is a formal position with clearly defined powers. I like skasion's use of the phrase "big man" here. When we look at a lot of tribal societies they don't necessarily have rigidly defined positions and clear hierarchies. Instead Big Men are just the richest members of a tribe. Their power comes from their ability to persuade and bribe people into following them. Big Men/chiefs don't necessarily have any right to make decision for a tribe, tribes have to make decisions collectively. Even in cases of war, chiefs might not have any power to stop their followers from attacking and fighting even if they want peace. If they tried they might simply start following someone else. I think by the migration period, and partially as a result of Roman influence, the Germanic tribal confederacies became more centralized and institutionalized. However again, there's a lot of variation across Europe. In the Byzantine period the Slavs I think still live a lifestyle more like what I've described here and would not develop more organized social systems until later. Squalid fucked around with this message at 08:38 on Nov 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 08:35
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I think you might be confusing the Celtic peoples of the La Tène culture with the Germans of the first millennia, which is what the original question was about. Of course skasion is right that this is a broad question and there's a lot of change over time. Also you may be extrapolated too far in what you are saying about their politics. We have a pretty decent amount of hillforts in southern scandinavia too (1200 according to Wikipedia), though most are from around year 400-500/migration period. I have like 3 of them just within a few kilometer radius from where i live in Sweden.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 09:26
|
|
|
That reminds me of how with native american power structures, the guys who would somehow get labeled "chief" (presumably by Europeans who did not take the time to figure things out) would inevitably be mid-level functionaries with very little real power, causing much confusion in negotiations. Kind of making things a two way street with the Europeans who often either didn't have the authority to negotiate for their whole nations or wouldn't bother to stop individual citizens breaking the treaty. It's very complicated to understand power structures from the outside.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:We have a pretty decent amount of hillforts in southern scandinavia too (1200 according to Wikipedia), though most are from around year 400-500/migration period. I have like 3 of them just within a few kilometer radius from where i live in Sweden. Going on a field trip to see a hillfort as a primary school student in Norway was a huge disappointment. Our word for "hillfort" is synonymous with "castle" and all that was there was a big pile of rocks. As an adult I think it's pretty cool but back then I had some unrealistic expectations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
accidental doublepost
Grevling fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Nov 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
Grevling posted:Going on a field trip to see a hillfort as a primary school student in Norway was a huge disappointment. Our word for "hillfort" is synonymous with "castle" and all that was there was a big pile of rocks. As an adult I think it's pretty cool but back then I had some unrealistic expectations. Same, we have "fornborg" (ancient castle) which for a 10 year old is possibly the most dissapointment inducing term to describe what amounts to a rocky hilltop in the middle of the forest with broad pile of rocks on the side not protected by small cliffs. Zudgemud fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Nov 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 18:56
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:We have a pretty decent amount of hillforts in southern scandinavia too (1200 according to Wikipedia), though most are from around year 400-500/migration period. I have like 3 of them just within a few kilometer radius from where i live in Sweden. see this is why I had to be very careful and specific about where and when I was talking about. Society and culture changed a lot over a 1000 years and you can't necessarily generalize. Most of the Vandals who crossed into North Africa had probably been born in the Roman Empire and would have been very different from the Suebi of the first century. I think in the Carolingian period some Danish king built a wall separating the whole of Jutland from Germany.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:36 |
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 22:10
|
|