|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Was it Shulgi who was actually low-born and trying desperately to make up for that? No, as far as we can tell Shulgi was the son of Ur-Namma, who was king of Ur before Shulgi. He is also the third king who deified himself in Mesopotamia, the first was Naram-Sin about 150 years before Shulgi, and one or two of Naram-Sin's successors followed suit. After the Sargonic kingdom that Naram-Sin had been king of collapsed, deifiction of kings fell out of fashion for a while. Ur-Namma never deified himself. But Shulgi revived the idea about half-way through his reign and he seems to have taken it quite seriously. Deification of kings was practiced for about about 300 years after Shulgi, but it was unevenly practiced after the fall of the Kingdom of Ur that Shulgi had run, and its not clear how seriously some the other kings who practiced it in those 300 years took it. Once Hammurabi, who never deified himself, took over all of Babylonia in c. 1750 BCE, (defeating at least one god-king in the process) deification of kings fell out of use in Mesopotamia and never returned.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 05:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
CrypticFox posted:Shulgi B Like Cardi B, but with more divination and lion-hunting
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 15:01
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Was it Shulgi who was actually low-born and trying desperately to make up for that? Sargon had a similar screed and admitted that he was a bastard whose mom dumped in the river.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 15:45
|
|
|
Orbs posted:Heck yeah. Love to never confuse favourable signs with unfavourable ones, like those fool diviners do *Eagle flying north shot out of the sky by skilled bowshot, also has my exact face* *turns to harsupex* Is that bad
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 16:05
|
|
|
zoux posted:*Eagle flying north shot out of the sky by skilled bowshot, also has my exact face* If Suetonius has taught me anything, a quick wit can make any omen a good one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 16:32
|
|
|
Groda posted:Sargon had a similar screed and admitted that he was a bastard whose mom dumped in the river. Yep I was getting mixed up with Sargon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 16:37
|
|
|
Groda posted:Sargon had a similar screed and admitted that he was a bastard whose mom dumped in the river. He was not low born though. Said mom was a high priestess Also the Sargon birth legend is Neo-Assyrian, from like 1600 years after he reigned. Older sources just point out the obvious fact that he was an upstart. skasion fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Mar 4, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 16:49
|
|
|
skasion posted:He was not low born though. Said mom was a high priestess Even the older sources tend to still be from centuries after his death. We don't have a lot from Sargon's own lifetime, and what we do have from then does not shed much, if any, light on his background. He became shrouded in myth pretty fast, so its hard to untangle even sources that are closer in time to his life. We really don't know anything with any degree of confidence about Sargon's background.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 17:38
|
|
|
Groda posted:Sargon had a similar screed and admitted that he was a bastard whose mom dumped in the river. Also his name means "The King is legitimate  "
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 17:42
|
|
|
Once again I see people raising questions about my legitimacy that are answered by my name.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 17:43
|
|
|
CrypticFox posted:Even the older sources tend to still be from centuries after his death. We don't have a lot from Sargon's own lifetime, and what we do have from then does not shed much, if any, light on his background. He became shrouded in myth pretty fast, so its hard to untangle even sources that are closer in time to his life. We really don't know anything with any degree of confidence about Sargon's background. Ok, I’ll put it like this: we cannot state with confidence that Sargon himself claimed to have been the bastard of a high priestess who sent him upriver, and the oldest sources on his origins of which I am aware (Sumerian King List) put the matter less fancifully and more flatly, that he was the son of a gardener and the cupbearer to the previous king.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 18:35
|
|
|
fine fine but we are missing the most important aspect here: enheduanna is extremely rad
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 22:23
|
|
|
Prime roman smack talk on the Gauls: "The German has neither cuirass nor helmet; even his shield is not strengthened with leather or steel, but is of osiers woven together or of thin and painted board. If their first line is armed with spears, the rest have only weapons hardened by fire or very short. Again, though their frames are terrible to the eye and formidable in a brief onset, they have no capacity of enduring wounds; without any shame at the disgrace, without any regard to their leaders, they quit the field and flee; they quail under disaster, just as in success they forget alike divine and human laws." -Tacitus, Annals of Imperial Rome
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 20:17
|
|
|
zoux posted:*Eagle flying north shot out of the sky by skilled bowshot, also has my exact face* *The Babylonians proceed to invade and conquer the city*
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 20:52
|
|
|
MeatRocket8 posted:Prime roman smack talk on the Gauls: The Germans and the Gauls are not the same. The Gauls were a Celtic people, and definitely not as primitive as Tacitus is making the Germans out to be. Its reasonably likely that the Romans get mail armor, the gladius, the scutum, basically all the "standard" legionary kit, by copying what the Gauls did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 20:53
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:The Germans and the Gauls are not the same. The Gauls were a Celtic people, and definitely not as primitive as Tacitus is making the Germans out to be. Its reasonably likely that the Romans get mail armor, the gladius, the scutum, basically all the "standard" legionary kit, by copying what the Gauls did. all of this is just what Big Gaul wants people to believe
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 20:58
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:The Germans and the Gauls are not the same. The Gauls were a Celtic people, and definitely not as primitive as Tacitus is making the Germans out to be. Its reasonably likely that the Romans get mail armor, the gladius, the scutum, basically all the "standard" legionary kit, by copying what the Gauls did. Also: Gaul starts around the latitude of Florence. Gallia Cispadana, but Gallia all the same. The border between Roman, other Italics and Gaul wasn't quite as defined as most people imagine
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 21:01
|
|
|
EricBauman posted:Also: Gaul starts around the latitude of Florence. Do they have moustaches? Do they wear torcs? Do they wear pants? Gauls
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 21:18
|
|
|
Gauls were really good at metalworking. It was kinda their thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 22:35
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:The Germans and the Gauls are not the same. The Gauls were a Celtic people, and definitely not as primitive as Tacitus is making the Germans out to be. Its reasonably likely that the Romans get mail armor, the gladius, the scutum, basically all the "standard" legionary kit, by copying what the Gauls did. The thing that stands out about comparing the Roman and La Tene/Gallic kits is not that the Romans were using totally different tools, they obviously weren't (other than the pila which is outstandingly odd), but that the average Roman soldier was kitted out to the level that only a very tiny minority of La Tene/Gallic soldiers were. Mail existed in the La Tene culture for the elite of elites, but mail was standard for Roman heavy infantry (and Roman armies were heavy on the heavy infantry). More interesting is that the "naked Gaul/German" is such a common trope in Roman and Greek literary sources. Not just Tacitus, who if I had to guess is using Caesar as a source there, but also Caesar obviously, Polybius, Diodorus, and Livy all describe Gauls or Germans as fighting naked, either partially or completely. More interesting is that while we don't really have La Tene literary sources, we do have La Tene representative sources, and some of these depict naked warriors, like so https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_2001-0501-1
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 22:37
|
|
|
*cereal eating meme guy* These helmetless, curiassless Germans could NEVER defeat two legions marching in order through a forest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 16:17
|
|
|
zoux posted:*cereal eating meme guy* These helmetless, curiassless Germans could NEVER defeat two legions marching in order through a forest. Who’s that pokemon? It’s Arminius!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 16:44
|
|
|
Have you guys watched Barbarians (the German produced series about all that business where the Romans speak actual latin) and if so, what did you think
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 16:55
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Gauls were really good at metalworking. And Norse were good at democracy. That was their Thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 16:58
|
|
|
I'm told that Gaulish trousers became braccae, which became medieval braies. Did the Gauls not wear some of loincloth or shorts under their trousers? I also get the impression that a lot of ancient and medieval trousers were close fitting, and we'd call them leggings or hose. Medieval clothing is scary. I used to believe that underwear, trousers, and stockings were different things. I'm confused by the process in which trousers got shorter and became underwear, and then people started tying hose to the legs of said underwear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 17:06
|
|
|
zoux posted:Have you guys watched Barbarians (the German produced series about all that business where the Romans speak actual latin) and if so, what did you think i watched the first season and its ok but has at best a basic understanding of the historical events and plays wildly with them to no real end. i did not bother with season 2
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 17:09
|
|
|
Pfft, Britannia is the real poo poo when you want a really historically accurate tv show.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 17:43
|
|
|
zoux posted:Have you guys watched Barbarians (the German produced series about all that business where the Romans speak actual latin) and if so, what did you think Yeah the historical accuracy leaves quite a bit to be desired, but it's not the worst. Polymathy seems very impressed by the spoken Latin though. Even the minor characters seem to have been well coached.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 17:49
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Halloween Jack posted:I'm told that Gaulish trousers became braccae, which became medieval braies. Did the Gauls not wear some of loincloth or shorts under their trousers? I also get the impression that a lot of ancient and medieval trousers were close fitting, and we'd call them leggings or hose. Shut up, Uncle Ray! It's the style!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 17:55
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Shut up, Uncle Ray! It's the style! You could not wear your hose any lower so you made tiny hose for each leg SAY IT
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 18:00
|
|
|
Safety Biscuits posted:And Norse were good at democracy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 18:05
|
|
|
zoux posted:Have you guys watched Barbarians (the German produced series about all that business where the Romans speak actual latin) and if so, what did you think Only saw season 1. It was ok Vikings-style fluff until the actual battle plan, which is not only ahistorical but pants-on-head. If the real Arminius had tried that poo poo, they’d be speaking Romance in Poland rn. I’d like to blame it on the budget but yeah, no chance, what they went with must have been more expensive. Whatever. Respect to the linguistic gimmick…not sure I accept the general point behind it, but it’s great to hear, anyway. Thusnelda is very attractive, loved her road warrior look. Didn’t watch season 2
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 18:14
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:The Germans and the Gauls are not the same. The Gauls were a Celtic people, and definitely not as primitive as Tacitus is making the Germans out to be. Its reasonably likely that the Romans get mail armor, the gladius, the scutum, basically all the "standard" legionary kit, by copying what the Gauls did. There were no standards though with the tribes, right? I'm sure some tribes had good gear, some had mickey mouse gear, and some fought butt rear end naked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 18:50
|
|
|
MeatRocket8 posted:There were no standards though with the tribes, right? I'm sure some tribes had good gear, some had mickey mouse gear, and some fought butt rear end naked. Yeah, and it also differed within a given "tribe". The upper crust of Gaulish society would have been very well equipped with iron weapons and armor of extremely high quality. Younger and poorer warriors less so. This isn't too dissimilar to how Greek and early Roman armies went to war, really; we don't know if the Gauls had ideas about citizenship, but Greek and Roman sources depict them as having something broadly similar to citizen militias, where each farmer was expected to turn up for war with a spear, shield, and whatever else he could afford. There's a definite tendency to buy into Greek and Roman attitudes about Gauls/Germans being primitive barbarians, but they had a vibrant and very successful civilization. They didn't really build cities or have writing, and most of their structures were made out of wood so they didn't last as long as the nice stone buildings in the South, but this was a group of people that had basically unmatched ironworking technology, and their military kit was adopted almost wholesale by both the Greeks and Romans. They were politically fractured and unable to resist the Roman juggernaut, but then again so were the Greeks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 19:21
|
|
|
Safety Biscuits posted:And Norse were good at democracy. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 19:29
|
|
|
Gauls had writing. They used Greek letters. There’s tons of material evidence, and also it says so in Gallic Wars. There is no extant literature, and literacy may have been limited in extent before the Roman conquest, but they could definitely write. I think you could also make an argument that the more successful oppida like Bibracte were cities, though that’s more of a matter of opinion skasion fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Mar 6, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 19:49
|
|
|
Safety Biscuits posted:And Norse were good at democracy. Vel mælt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 19:56
|
|
|
Safety Biscuits posted:And Norse were good at democracy. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 19:58
|
|
|
I would agree that it's wrong to say they didn't build cities. They were certainly much smaller than Mediterranean ones, they weren't an urban civilization the way the Romans or Greeks were (that being relative of course, the majority were always farmers out in the countryside) but they had permanent settlements with buildings and roads and walls, sometimes even made of stone. I can't think of a primarily agricultural civilization that didn't build cities to some extent. It's a natural thing to emerge if you're not moving around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I would agree that it's wrong to say they didn't build cities. They were certainly much smaller than Mediterranean ones, they weren't an urban civilization the way the Romans or Greeks were (that being relative of course, the majority were always farmers out in the countryside) but they had permanent settlements with buildings and roads and walls, sometimes even made of stone. I can't think of a primarily agricultural civilization that didn't build cities to some extent. It's a natural thing to emerge if you're not moving around. Well its a little more complex than that as we don't call every permanent settlement a city. There's a complexity/density criteria that generally needs to be hit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 20:13
|
|
