|
Romans had three names, what we'd call a first name, and a last name, and nickname. What's funny is what we call certain Romans, what names have survived to the present. So we call "Gaius Julius" Julius Caesar, and pretend that Julius was a first name. And we call "Marcus Antonius" Mark Antony. And it just gets way way weirder and more complicated after that.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 04:04 |
|
|
The way Mark Antony is constantly anglicized where the rest aren't is what gets me. To the point where I was reading some book and it mentioned a Marcus Antonius without really introducing him, and I was all confused about why I was supposed to know who that was for a good thirty seconds before I googled it and slapped my forehead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 07:29
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:The way Mark Antony is constantly anglicized where the rest aren't is what gets me. To the point where I was reading some book and it mentioned a Marcus Antonius without really introducing him, and I was all confused about why I was supposed to know who that was for a good thirty seconds before I googled it and slapped my forehead. Stuff like this is why it took me so goddamn long to learn English (like 9+ years until I could read+write without trouble). On the other hand, we did similarly stupid poo poo like "Heinrich, the Cherusker"
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 11:19
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Romans had three names, what we'd call a first name, and a last name, and nickname. What's funny is what we call certain Romans, what names have survived to the present. So we call "Gaius Julius" Julius Caesar, and pretend that Julius was a first name. And we call "Marcus Antonius" Mark Antony. And it just gets way way weirder and more complicated after that. The best case of this is Augustus, who is commonly called “Octavian”, a nickname his political opponents stuck on him that he never used, despite changing his name multiple times in his life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 12:10
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:The way Mark Antony is constantly anglicized where the rest aren't is what gets me. To the point where I was reading some book and it mentioned a Marcus Antonius without really introducing him, and I was all confused about why I was supposed to know who that was for a good thirty seconds before I googled it and slapped my forehead. You used to see Cicero referred to as Tully, which was an Anglicization of Tullius. And, come to think of it, you still see that for a lot of people. We talk about Livy instead of Livius, Virgil instead of Vergilius, Hadrian instead of Hadrianus, Trajan instead of Trajanus, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 14:10
|
|
|
You're not alone in doing that or in being inconsistent about it. Everybody uses localized spellings for some ancient figures and don't for others as far as I can tell, the Germans and French definitely do. I once heard my Austrian ex-girlfriend say Achill for Achilles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 14:26
|
|
|
Grevling posted:You're not alone in doing that or in being inconsistent about it. Everybody uses localized spellings for some ancient figures and don't for others as far as I can tell, the Germans and French definitely do. I once heard my Austrian ex-girlfriend say Achill for Achilles. Achilles had no a chill.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 14:38
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Achilles had no a chill. https://i.imgur.com/s2LmkLv.gifv
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 15:48
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Romans had three names, what we'd call a first name, and a last name, and nickname. What's funny is what we call certain Romans, what names have survived to the present. So we call "Gaius Julius" Julius Caesar, and pretend that Julius was a first name. And we call "Marcus Antonius" Mark Antony. And it just gets way way weirder and more complicated after that. Surely nobody could confuse Gaius Julius Caesar with Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, or Titus Flavius Caesar Vespasianus Augustus with Titus Flavius Caesar Vespasianus Augustus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
Wasn't his grandfather literally called Gaius Julius Caesar as well?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
There were very few names in common use among Romans so the nicknames are helpful. It's like English kings all being named Edward or John or the nightmare of trying to follow some of the names in East Asia that are all homophones and also reused and also names change sometimes plus there's the courtesy name and/or the posthumous name and argh. For fun try to figure out how many important Phokases there were in the eastern empire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:There were very few names in common use among Romans so the nicknames are helpful. It's like English kings all being named Edward or John or the nightmare of trying to follow some of the names in East Asia that are all homophones and also reused and also names change sometimes plus there's the courtesy name and/or the posthumous name and argh. It's the same with vikings. When everyone is named Harald Haraldsson you need to come up with some nicknames.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:For fun try to figure out how many important Phokases there were in the eastern empire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
Doesn't it also suit the purposes of monarchs or otherwise dynastic figures inheriting influence from their predecessors to not draw many distinctions between themselves and their predecessor? Like it's not an accident that of the many names that they have, they have the same ones in the same sequence, and even purposefully gave themselves the names of previous emperors who they shared no familial relationship with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 20:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DouglasCarswell/status/1243181216284708865 Who wants to tell him?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 20:49
|
|
|
it would take some intense mental gymnastics to say that the grain dole was responsible for the fall of the republic, rather than the increasingly concentrated wealth and power in the hands of a few men
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
I saw he blocked Mike Duncan earlier for mocking his idiocy. They just can't help themselves. No, Rome never had UBI. And the cura annonae was not a sign of weakness, it kept the major cities of the empire afloat during the period of Rome's greatest strength. You weren't packing one to one and a half million people into a city that depended on food imports from Africa without a massive governmental system to make it all work. And it did, for like... five hundred years?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 20:59
|
|
|
Yes you see but they no longer exist so check mate liberal hippy
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 21:01
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Yes you see but they no longer exist so check mate liberal hippy alas, i am undone
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:it would take some intense mental gymnastics to say that the grain dole was responsible for the fall of the republic, rather than the increasingly concentrated wealth and power in the hands of a few men The level of galaxy brain required to not see the last century of the republic as (largely) the result of the rich taking everything that wasn't nailed down and putting their own personal power before the needs of the people as a whole is incredible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The level of galaxy brain required to not see the last century of the republic as (largely) the result of the rich taking everything that wasn't nailed down and putting their own personal power before the needs of the people as a whole is incredible. Yes but if the rich had taken even more then everything would have been great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 22:09
|
|
|
I gotta say, killing the republic over the course of a hundred years is a pretty good run. I guess you could also make tortured analogies between UBI and land reform, in which case you have on your side many people arguing that it was the fault of reformers for provoking the collapse, and not the fault of the people defying reform at any cost to the point of making a mockery of the Republic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 22:31
|
|
|
Caesar Did Nothing Wrong
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 22:34
|
|
|
Did Caesar do any land reform that didn't involve killing gauls?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 22:36
|
|
|
Look you don’t want UBI then it’s simple. Just enslave every starving person in Rome and put them to work. Stupid liberals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 22:38
|
|
|
I've never understood why everything is compared to Rome. And I really do like history and culture and tradition and think all of these things are important for how we proceed. There's nothing wrong with looking back at Rome for some inspiration or ideas, like the modern Republicanism movement. (not US Republicans, Republicanism) It's like, a few weeks ago, a guy I know sent me a paper he did reviewing and criticizing a book by Red Dreher. If you don't know Dreher, he's a fringe conservative Christian who still has some influence so he's worth keeping an eye on. Anyway,in his book, he compared our modern world to the fall of the Roman Empire. The only solution is good orthodox Christians making little enclaves of themselves to stay pure and safe from the liberal hordes. Only, his thesis is that Medieval Christian Europe (before William of Ockham hosed up everything) was the best thing ever. So, I like history but I'm not particularly good at it. Even still, I know the Roman Empire falling led to this wonderful time he was praising. So, if we are living in a similar age, surely that just means we are heading for a glorious restoration of Christianity and Christian values all over the West! There was also Camille Paglia talking about how transpeople is similar to the degeneracy that led to the fall of the Roman Empire. Rome was a pretty cool place to learn about and I understand some of our Founding Fathers were inspired by Roman philosophy. Even still, the United States being like the Roman Republic or Empire in any real way seems like a bit of a stretch, to put it mildly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 22:55
|
|
|
It's a lazy comparison, but given that western political/legal systems are often based on Roman models, and the US was intentionally designed using the Roman republican model, the comparisons are inevitable. Sometimes there's even validity to it and it's not stupid. It's real hard to read about the period of the Gracchi here in 2020 and not see parallels. But there are dozens of other historical examples of the elites of society loving themselves with their greed from around the world, we just end up using the Roman one more often as westerners since it is part of our shared heritage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 23:00
|
|
|
Just noting that you were all talking about male names only. Not criticizing just saying it was more complicated than that even And the Roman naming system wasn’t consistent across the western empire and evolved
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:It's a lazy comparison, but given that western political/legal systems are often based on Roman models, and the US was intentionally designed using the Roman republican model, the comparisons are inevitable. Sometimes there's even validity to it and it's not stupid. It's real hard to read about the period of the Gracchi here in 2020 and not see parallels. But there are dozens of other historical examples of the elites of society loving themselves with their greed from around the world, we just end up using the Roman one more often as westerners since it is part of our shared heritage. The one big difference is that currently in the USA the military is ... pretty neutral . It supports viewpoints definitely but is not personally loyal to anyone yet
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 23:24
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The one big difference is that currently in the USA the military is ... pretty neutral . It supports viewpoints definitely but is not personally loyal to anyone yet How many times did a Roman general sent out to war gain the loyalty of their troops and then decide to march the troops loyal to him on Rome and declare himself the new Emperor? From what I understand they also often hadn't actually been paid by the current Emperor which probably didn't help.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 23:41
|
|
|
Honestly not quite as often as people usually think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 23:57
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Honestly not quite as often as people usually think. yeah, it wasn't that common in the early empire, although I think it become more common in the later empire and maybe some periods of the Byzantine empire? Off the top of my head there's Phocas in 602, Julian the Apostate in 361, maaaybe Constantine the Great? And I'm pretty sure there's a few between Manzikert and 1453 that I don't know enough about to remember
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2020 00:13
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:How many times did a Roman general sent out to war gain the loyalty of their troops and then decide to march the troops loyal to him on Rome and declare himself the new Emperor? Like, not more than 20 times. You're missing a bunch of minor emperors who did this and then someone else marched in and did the same thing six days later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
Yeah between Augustus and Aurelius this only happened twice for instance in the Year of Four & Five Emperors. For the Byzantines it depends on the period and usually it is less soldiers loyal to the general, but relatives or supporters of a murdered/deposed Emperor taking up arms. It takes some time to remember exactly, but uhh the biggest generals/governors rebelling were probably... Basilicus, Heraclius, Thomas the Slav, Bardas Phokas, Bardas Sclerus, George Maniakes, Michael Bryennos, Alexios Komnenos, Andronikos III. Also the 20 years anarchy after Justinian II got deposed. Jack2142 fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Mar 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2020 00:26
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Honestly not quite as often as people usually think. It happened successfully not quite as often as people think, at least. There were definitely some unsuccessful ones during the Crisis of the Third Century (even after you remove the ones the Historia Augusta probably made up).
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2020 00:31
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Like, not more than 20 times. I wouldn't count most of those because its usually not the Emperor like promoting a guy and sending him out into the field only for him to be acclaimed by the troops, turn around, and march on Rome. Instead its more like the Emperor dies unexpectedly, and every General who already has an army gets to race to the capital and have a thunderdome to determine who gets the Purple. Maximinus Thrax might be another one, although he and his men had the opportunity to just straight murder the Emperor without having to march anywhere to do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2020 00:41
|
|
|
Squalid posted:yeah, it wasn't that common in the early empire, although I think it become more common in the later empire and maybe some periods of the Byzantine empire? Each of the rebels during the year of the four emperors was a general, I think. Vespatian certainly was. Pertinax, and several of the other five emperors. A lot of times it wasn't successful. Part of the reason the Doukas emperors dismantled the Byzantine military was because they kept trying to coup them, and part of the reason they kept trying to coup them was because they were dismantling the military.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2020 14:55
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Yes but if the rich had taken even more then everything would have been great. If you put enough olives in the press, eventually the oil will trickle down
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2020 06:23
|
|
|
Presented without comment. https://twitter.com/englisbabu/status/1244217117693685761?s=21
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2020 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 04:04 |
|
|
I think it was clever that before the Marius reforms, a person had to be a land owner in order to get into the military. Helped prevent them from switching sides, and it meant they had something to fight hard for. Of course that had to change eventually.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2020 19:52
|
|
