|
sullat posted:I think it was a plot by Paradox to generate unrest in the empire. There was one ”born in the purple” emperor and it was mostly a ”gently caress you” to the Patriarch. Mind explaining this one? I can't find any person(s) named Paradox.
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:29 |
|
|
I'm guessing he meant Pertinax?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Mind explaining this one? I can't find any person(s) named Paradox. Oh, it's a reference to a video game, Crusader Kings 2. The whole "born in the purple thing" came from Constantine VII, because his old man kept trying and trying to have a legitimate heir, and ended up going through 4 wives to do it. At the time, the Christian Church didn't recognize second marriages*, even for widows/widowers, so the Patriarch refused to recognize his son as heir. So his dad gave him the nickname "born in the purple" since he wanted to reinforce the kid's legitimacy. Which ended up working, since the kid was able to outwit/outlast several other claimants to the throne. Before and after Constantine VII nobody really cared overmuch about it, albeit because during the non-dynastic periods, the guy who usually ended up as emperor did so by poking out the eyes of his predecessors. *Technically they had to get special dispensation for that (which he did), but she died, and so he married a third woman, which really ticked off the Patriarch, so he got dispensation from the Pope, which pissed off the Patriarch even more. Good times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Mind explaining this one? I can't find any person(s) named Paradox. In Crusader Kings 2 (made by Paradox Interactive) there's a silly succession mechanic for the ERE where kids born to the Basileus while he's in office ("born in the purple") have precedence over pre-existing kids in inheriting the throne unless you give one of the older children the title of Despot. It's not very historical at all, no.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
sullat posted:Oh, it's a reference to a video game, Crusader Kings 2. The whole "born in the purple thing" came from Constantine VII, because his old man kept trying and trying to have a legitimate heir, and ended up going through 4 wives to do it. At the time, the Christian Church didn't recognize second marriages*, even for widows/widowers, so the Patriarch refused to recognize his son as heir. So his dad gave him the nickname "born in the purple" since he wanted to reinforce the kid's legitimacy. Which ended up working, since the kid was able to outwit/outlast several other claimants to the throne. Before and after Constantine VII nobody really cared overmuch about it, albeit because during the non-dynastic periods, the guy who usually ended up as emperor did so by poking out the eyes of his predecessors. What's the time frame for this? I thought widowers we're always entitled to remarry (all I can think is in the early church where there was the fad of "I mean, you shouldn't even marry, but if you have to..." it was still considered an ideal in some circles not to remarry but wasn't really frowned upon). I just can't remember a time where this is the case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Read up on Gordian I & II. The second worst day of their lives was the day the local garrison and people of Carthage proclaimed them co-emperors. Gordian I begged the crowds to not go through with it. Yeah, I know. The third century was probably the worst time to be nominated emperor or become one. Not that the preceding or succeeding centuries were much better. I'd have been doing it to people I didn't like all the time. Also, funnily enough and which I didn't know until the other day, there was an Emperor Tacitus in this period. Unlikely to have been related to the historian, but apparently Tacitus was barely read by the third century and because the emperor circulated copies of his work, it's likely we have him to thank for the survival of one of the greatest works of literature. Octy fucked around with this message at 10:15 on Mar 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:What's the time frame for this? I thought widowers we're always entitled to remarry (all I can think is in the early church where there was the fad of "I mean, you shouldn't even marry, but if you have to..." it was still considered an ideal in some circles not to remarry but wasn't really frowned upon). I just can't remember a time where this is the case. It was in the middle of the iconoclasm period, so all sorts of weird stuff was going on theologically. And yeah, it may have been a proxy for a more political underlying dispute, like who should rule the empire, but that's what the public record is going to show.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
That's what I figured, since what I know comes from a Western church perspective.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
I've always had a rather bittersweet feeling about lost works of history, especially stuff that we know about by name, but know almost nothing about. I was curious what was the last major literary work from the ancient world recovered by archaeologists / historians?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
P-Zombie posted:I've always had a rather bittersweet feeling about lost works of history, especially stuff that we know about by name, but know almost nothing about. I was curious what was the last major literary work from the ancient world recovered by archaeologists / historians? You can see a list of ancient texts discovered in relatively modern times here. Probably the most interesting are two poems by Sappho, a number of works by the poet Menander, and a treatise of Archimedes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
quote:The rear end Novel, I assume this is what you are all interested in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Thanks! As quixotic as it may be, I still hold out hope that someday we'll recover a complete compendium of Aeschylus' plays or something absolutely crazy like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I assume this is what you are all interested in. Please scan and translate a copy ASAP, I must know the secrets of ancient rear end men.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 09:05
|
|
|
I still want my copy of Lives of Famous Whores, and will not be happy until I have read it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
P-Zombie posted:Thanks! As quixotic as it may be, I still hold out hope that someday we'll recover a complete compendium of Aeschylus' plays or something absolutely crazy like that. But then we'd have to read them. (I know, I use that joke a lot). In truth, Aeschylus would be super-valuable in a literary sense (to stop people wondering whether this line or that is an Aeschylus reference) and medium-useful in a mythographic sense. Drama-wise, the world has enough plays where nothing happens except people standing around talking. :P
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
homullus posted:But then we'd have to read them. (I know, I use that joke a lot). In truth, Aeschylus would be super-valuable in a literary sense (to stop people wondering whether this line or that is an Aeschylus reference) and medium-useful in a mythographic sense. Drama-wise, the world has enough plays where nothing happens except people standing around talking. :P Yea, if only someone'd find an ancient Roman tabletop RPG, cos we do need more of those.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I still want my copy of Lives of Famous Whores, and will not be happy until I have read it. I wish Physical Defects of Mankind was recovered, and it was Suetonius making fun of ugly Romans, with pictures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:Yea, if only someone'd find an ancient Roman tabletop RPG, cos we do need more of those. On it, boss. http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/100538/43-AD---Roleplaying-in-Roman-Britain?cPath
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
Noctis Horrendae posted:On it, boss. I think he meant a role-playing game written by Romans. But if not, try Rolemaster: it had a decent Rome module: http://www.rpgnow.com/product/78509/Rolemaster-Rome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I still want my copy of Lives of Famous Whores, and will not be happy until I have read it. What, the second Philippicae isn't good enough for you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Well we have a Roman d20, it's only a matter of time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
Roman RPGs were all for filthy casuals. Real ancient gamers played the Greek editions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Romans would have seen Greek RPGs as the Japanese RPGs of the ancient world -- weird, feminine male protagonists that dressed funny, and lots and lots of pedophilia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
 3/15/-44, never forget. e: broke tables like a Nazarene carpenter
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
-44? What is this nonsense? 3/15/710 AUC, the day the Republic was saved!
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
If only somebody had told him to beware the Ides of March... oh wait, somebody did!
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:
One of the greatest crimes in history. gently caress the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
euphronius posted:One of the greatest crimes in history. gently caress the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
euphronius posted:One of the greatest crimes in history. gently caress the Senate. You prefer dictators to quasi-democratic procedure? Of course, if the latter, nobody at the time could have foreseen the repercussions of Caesar's death. He might as well have been another Ti. Gracchus or Sulla, where things just went back to normal after their deaths (more or less). Also, August 19 is a pretty important date this year. 2000 years since Augustus' death. Feels like only yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Octy posted:You prefer dictators to quasi-democratic procedure? Of course, if the latter, nobody at the time could have foreseen the repercussions of Caesar's death. He might as well have been another Ti. Gracchus or Sulla, where things just went back to normal after their deaths (more or less). Emphasis on the quasi there, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
Octy posted:You prefer dictators to quasi-democratic procedure? Of course, if the latter, nobody at the time could have foreseen the repercussions of Caesar's death. He might as well have been another Ti. Gracchus or Sulla, where things just went back to normal after their deaths (more or less). Hahah there was nothing democratic about republican Rome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Emphasis on the quasi there, honestly. Yeah, that stuff gets really complicated and seems very strange to modern people. Generally, Roman autocrats in this period were populist and supported by the lower levels of society while republicans/Senators (especially the optimates) were more frequently oligarchs and represented landed and powerful people. There are some exceptions, of course (Sulla for one) but Caesar, the Gracchi, Augustus and lots of later Emperors were arguably better for the lower classes than the Senate when it was in power and they were certainly very popular. Note this is not a  defense of autocracy and dictatorship, just some background. Ancient democracy was not particularly democratic.E: phonepost spelling corrections.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Hahah there was nothing democratic about republican Rome. That's why I said 'quasi'. Care to defend your Caesar? By the by, not attacking anyone. It's just plenty of people glorify Caesar and it's always interesting to hear their exact reasoning. Sure, his civil reforms were great for the common people, but we can't forget this was after being partially responsible for plunging the empire into civil war. Octy fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Mar 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Octy posted:That's why I said 'quasi'. Care to defend your Caesar? Julius Caesar didn't start the cycle of civil wars in Rome, and for the vast majority of people in Rome you didn't have any less say in what the Roman government did than before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
If anything, Caesar and Octavian probably pushed the system further towards 'fixed' than it had been in decades.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 04:18
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:Julius Caesar didn't start the cycle of civil wars in Rome, and for the vast majority of people in Rome you didn't have any less say in what the Roman government did than before. Who did, then? You can't deny he was partially responsible. That's some revisionism, right there, mister. And I never claimed the majority of the Roman people had any say in government before or after, although it has been debated (see: Millar and Holkeskamp).
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Octy posted:Who did, then? You can't deny he was partially responsible. That's some revisionism, right there, mister. And I never claimed the majority of the Roman people had any say in government before or after, although it has been debated (see: Millar and Holkeskamp). It's Marius' fault.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Octy posted:Who did, then? You can't deny he was partially responsible. That's some revisionism, right there, mister. And I never claimed the majority of the Roman people had any say in government before or after, although it has been debated (see: Millar and Holkeskamp). Sulla and Marius started it. They were the first to really set Roman against Roman and violate the sacred borders of Rome. Caesar was just continuing what they had unleashed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Caesar was also being spurred by Cato and the Senate conservatives, who were threatening him with death and ignominy the moment he let go of power. Their willingness to kick apart the stability of the power structure in order to achieve the political ends of the elites basically forced his hand. Even with Sulla's example, it's possible that the Republic would have continued for a long time if it hadn't been for their recklessness.
Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Mar 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:29 |
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Sulla and Marius started it. They were the first to really set Roman against Roman and violate the sacred borders of Rome. Caesar was just continuing what they had unleashed. And even Sulla and Marius were acting in an established political environment where it was considered A-OK to knife the poo poo out of a dude if he was representing his constituents in a way that conflicted with landed interests. It's not like they were the first guys to go "Hey, maybe I can just use force instead of working this out procedurally". Slantedfloors fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Mar 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 04:51
|
|
