|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:OK, I give up. What does it say? B e s u r e t o d r i n k y o u r O v a l t i n e
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:59 |
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:OK, I give up. What does it say? I am guessing loss.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Senior Scarybagels posted:I am guessing loss. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
After several months of reading I reach the end of this thread and the most recent post is a cuneiform Loss edit. Nice work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
This is incredible. Mine was "senpai noticed me".
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 10:51
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:This is incredible. I want that as a tattoo now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
 Important updates from the masters of Rome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
During the Pax Romana did ships regularly travel from Italy to Britian?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:During the Pax Romana did ships regularly travel from Italy to Britian? I don't know for sure but I would imagine so, yes. A lot of North African goods ended up in Britain, and the tin from Cornwall was valuable for making poo poo all over the empire. I'd guess plenty of wine and olive oil was shipped to Britain, though maybe it was more economical to do it from Hispania or something instead of Italy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
Ok next question, regarding Roman trade to Britain, did bulk goods typically exit the Mediterranean through Gibraltar and then moved along the coast, or were they moved along the Rhine, transshipped at some channel port, and hopped across the channel?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Ok next question, regarding Roman trade to Britain, did bulk goods typically exit the Mediterranean through Gibraltar and then moved along the coast, or were they moved along the Rhine, transshipped at some channel port, and hopped across the channel? Cheaper and faster by the sea. Probably just as dangerous though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
I'm sure a German has written a thousand page book about that somewhere. I do not know any specific information but I do know that shipping overland was hilariously expensive compared to sea travel so anything that kept your stuff on a boat the entire time would be preferable. It was cheaper to send grain by ship from Egypt to Rome than to get it from a farm in Italy that you had to access overland. I can't see people dragging stuff to the Rhine unless it was being produced close to there anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
Ah, I hadn't appreciated how much of an ungodly pain in the rear end it would have been to move North African goods onto the Rhine in the first place, gently caress it, just move it along the Atlantic coast. Hmm, when I think about it, you probably don't need to get stevedores to unload and load at transshipment points, just keep that stuff on the boat the entire time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Ok next question, regarding Roman trade to Britain, did bulk goods typically exit the Mediterranean through Gibraltar and then moved along the coast, or were they moved along the Rhine, transshipped at some channel port, and hopped across the channel? Upper German rivers weren't navigable until the early 19th century.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
the waters of the Atlantic in that region are pretty rough though, aren't they? And I remember reading that for Caesar's invasion of Britain he had a new fleet constructed in the north rather than moving ships in from the Mediterranean. I'd be curious if anyone knows the answer for sure. Maybe that Roman Google maps thing shows sea routes in that area?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
I always wondered about river travel in Europe, because I know about it playing a huge part in the way the US developed, but I've never heard much about Europe's rivers aside from Britain's weird canal system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Koramei posted:the waters of the Atlantic in that region are pretty rough though, aren't they? And I remember reading that for Caesar's invasion of Britain he had a new fleet constructed in the north rather than moving ships in from the Mediterranean. I'd be curious if anyone knows the answer for sure. Maybe that Roman Google maps thing shows sea routes in that area? If you're talking about Orbis, yeah it does have the common area routes. SlothfulCobra posted:I always wondered about river travel in Europe, because I know about it playing a huge part in the way the US developed, but I've never heard much about Europe's rivers aside from Britain's weird canal system. The Vikings sure made good use of Europe's rivers! Kaal fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Nov 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
The Bay of Biscay sucks, sure, but you can still creep along the coast at 70 miles per day with a crew of 12-24.. Compare to hauling poo poo up the Seine by human or animal power, then hauling it by ox train over the watershed to the Rhone then down through notorious swamps to be loaded onto a ship to Rome. Ship was probably slower than overland but much cheaper for bulk. That's how it is today and how it was 300 years ago. Don't underestimate the improvements that need to go into rivers to make them suitable for bulk shipment across continents.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I always wondered about river travel in Europe, because I know about it playing a huge part in the way the US developed, but I've never heard much about Europe's rivers aside from Britain's weird canal system. There’s a difference between sending raiding parties down river and trying to move an ancient Egyptian grain load via river. And yeah, canals, ship construction, and modern dredging greatly expanded the usefulness of early US waterways. Romans didn’t have access to that tech.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
Didn't Venice make a killing by being the Mediterranean port closest to the German rivers? Though that was a millennium and a half later
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Didn't Venice make a killing by being the Mediterranean port closest to the German rivers? Though that was a millennium and a half later I don't think so? They were mostly all about trade in the Adriatic at first and then expanded dramatically over the centuries to cover the whole Mediterranean. Perhaps in later centuries when they were big on being the western distributor of spices from the overland routes to Egypt, but they were never really big on overland trading. Trade from the north of Europe to the South of Europe would have gone through the rivers of Russia & the black sea, once the Russians stopped fighting with the Byzantines so much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Koramei posted:the waters of the Atlantic in that region are pretty rough though, aren't they? And I remember reading that for Caesar's invasion of Britain he had a new fleet constructed in the north rather than moving ships in from the Mediterranean. I'd be curious if anyone knows the answer for sure. Maybe that Roman Google maps thing shows sea routes in that area? Keep in mind Caesar was just a provincial governor and trying to convince the Senate to send the navy north under his command so he could hop the channel and beat up some Britons would have been way more trouble than just building the transports there and not having to ask anybody.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:There’s a difference between sending raiding parties down river and trying to move an ancient Egyptian grain load via river. Canal construction didn't vary that much really, but the trouble the Romans had is that most of the places that a canal would be useful for them would be places where even in the height of UK/US/etc canal construction and technology, it'd be a hard sell to get that thing built. Like one thing you could do in a common 19th century canal is whip out some short rail bits and an engine to pull you up and down that in palaces where a lock system would just be too costly/impractical to haul the cargo onwards. You simply can't do that in Ancient Rome because of lack of sufficient metallurgy. So a lot of the most useful places to bring a canal across are impossible or would require mining out truly massive tunnels under mountains to have viable levels to traverse - and boy howdy it would suck if your torch went out in the middle of one of those!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 06:42
|
|
|
Pirates would have been the biggest obstacle at the time. The ships would have had to land each night and the small crews would have easily been overwhelmed by any hostile locals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 08:36
|
|
|
Depends on the time. Unless the sources are lying to us, piracy was almost entirely eliminated in the Mediterranean during the height of the empire. I'm not sure about the Atlantic coast but I don't know where the pirates would be coming from, it was all Roman controlled and there are no records of pirates out of Hibernia. Romans had control out to the Canary Islands on the African side, and they didn't go any further than that because it's uninhabitable wasteland. Bandits showing up when the ships were beached was probably a much bigger problem than attack at sea, some classicists argue the Romans never really got a handle on banditry though others think it was rare within the empire's borders. I don't have an opinion, I don't know enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
I really meant bandits when I said pirates though it’s really interchangeable. Ships had to land each night due to navigation being almost all by sight. Simply too dangerous to stumble in the dark. There’s no way banditry could have been eradicated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
My understanding is that you can't have pirates in any real numbers without pirate friendly ports and once the civil wars were over the emperor had a pretty firm grasp on literally every Mediterranean port.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 08:56
|
|
|
Just with some cursory looking at google maps, the Spanish Atlantic coast is quite contiguous, no areas with tons of little islands and bays and inlets for boat criminals to hide. Unlike other areas notorious for boat crime, like Scandinavia, or Greece, or South East Asia, or Japan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 09:23
|
|
|
Brittany would probably have been the more potentially dangerous area to sail past. Plenty of bays and inlets there. Edit: And check out this nice natural harbor. Kassad fucked around with this message at 10:19 on Nov 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 10:16
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Canal construction didn't vary that much really, but the trouble the Romans had is that most of the places that a canal would be useful for them would be places where even in the height of UK/US/etc canal construction and technology, it'd be a hard sell to get that thing built. Like one thing you could do in a common 19th century canal is whip out some short rail bits and an engine to pull you up and down that in palaces where a lock system would just be too costly/impractical to haul the cargo onwards. You simply can't do that in Ancient Rome because of lack of sufficient metallurgy. I certainly agree with you about the difficulty of digging out canals, etc. I do know that prior to widespread steam engines, people would use teams of oxen or donkeys hooked up to a pulley system that could pull ships up rivers. They still used those systems in the American civil war, which is where I heard about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 12:43
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I certainly agree with you about the difficulty of digging out canals, etc. I do know that prior to widespread steam engines, people would use teams of oxen or donkeys hooked up to a pulley system that could pull ships up rivers. They still used those systems in the American civil war, which is where I heard about it. Yes, but along flat or near-flat stretches where the issue was making headway against a current without having to pole all the time. Moving traffic down the Erie Canal with a mule is a totally different endeavor than getting it through the alps or even the lower lying mountains along the Rhone and Upper Rhine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Just with some cursory looking at google maps, the Spanish Atlantic coast is quite contiguous, no areas with tons of little islands and bays and inlets for boat criminals to hide. Unlike other areas notorious for boat crime, like Scandinavia, or Greece, or South East Asia, or Japan. Galicia has many hiding places and hard to navigate coastal topography that requires extensive local knowledge. A lot of heroin entered Spain and Europe through Galicia in the 80’s that way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Just with some cursory looking at google maps, the Spanish Atlantic coast is quite contiguous, no areas with tons of little islands and bays and inlets for boat criminals to hide. Unlike other areas notorious for boat crime, like Scandinavia, or Greece, or South East Asia, or Japan. You don't need boats to raid ships that land each night. Just like you don't need pirate cities to sell plundered goods in nominally controlled areas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:I was considering doing some of my thesis research on this, there has been some work done in the Maya region with that view in mind, Ill try to find my notes on it and give you a couple people's names that have looked at it. I wait patiently for this information, you can always private message me since I got that enabled.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:You don't need boats to raid ships that land each night. Just like you don't need pirate cities to sell plundered goods in nominally controlled areas. Maybe they have safe ports where people could moor for the night?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:You don't need boats to raid ships that land each night. Just like you don't need pirate cities to sell plundered goods in nominally controlled areas. Sailing ships could get by with small crews, but would have to be pretty dumb to take zero precautions against banditry, and by definition, if the sailing ships are easily operated by a small crew, they can get back out to sea quickly. Ships that would be rowed for parts of the voyage would no longer have such small crews. Populations were smaller and less mobile than today, too. If you don't have a place where people know you and accept your dealing in stolen goods, it's not as easy to roll into a new town and sell a bunch of stuff that just fell off the back of the trireme, honest. You are much easier to track because strangers and bands of armed men are more novel. On top of that, if you're land-raiding goods that were cheaper and easier to transport by sea, you have now shouldered the cost of transporting those goods to market by land.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Piracy was pretty much wiped out after the big Roman antipiracy campaign in the first century bce, until the end of the 3rd century, when the Goths and Hereules raised the eastern Med, and the Franks and Saxons raided the Gaulic and British coast
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
homullus posted:Sailing ships could get by with small crews, but would have to be pretty dumb to take zero precautions against banditry, and by definition, if the sailing ships are easily operated by a small crew, they can get back out to sea quickly. Ships that would be rowed for parts of the voyage would no longer have such small crews. You have some good points but your concept of how sailing vessels work is pretty poor. A deeply laden vessel is not leaving shore unless the tide is right. If the wind is blowing towards shore you are not leaving either. Say you did make it out, how you gonna notice reefs or not get disoriented by the sound of the surf? The Roman Empire was not patrolling the Atlantic seaboard for any extended period of time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Senior Scarybagels posted:I wait patiently for this information, you can always private message me since I got that enabled. Sorry, poo poo came up and haven't been near my notes in a couple days. The person I have written down is Cameron Griffith who looked at torch light and how it interacted with cave features and modifications. I will try to find some of his articles but yeah.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:59 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Yes, but along flat or near-flat stretches where the issue was making headway against a current without having to pole all the time. Moving traffic down the Erie Canal with a mule is a totally different endeavor than getting it through the alps or even the lower lying mountains along the Rhone and Upper Rhine. Yeah it's a whole different scale of effort. Just pulling some of the smallest modern British canal "tubs" which were hauled up rails or oiled ramps would mean hauling up several tons of cargo at once. It'd be quite an effort for the draft animals and you'd need to rotate them out several times a day to make sure they don't get overworked. And then you consider the need to have dozens of them to cross mountain ranges and so on... Also a side note: when British canals were really starting to build out a ton many of those built through hills and mountains with tunneling would be too small to bring the towing horses through. Instead, you'd bring some dudes on board to lie down on top of your boat's roof or cargo and kick against the low roof to propel your way through. In the dark, of course. Imagine having to have that job on some of the longer tunnels, where you need to do that for like a mile or more!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 20:09
|
|