|
Stringent posted:Cato was the fishmech of Rome. Who’s the  of Rome then?Cato is portrayed by Christopher Walken in that one Caesar movie so he can’t have been all bad.
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 08:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
To add, by the sixties BC Roman politics was utterly broken. Politicians in Rome didn't settle disputes via debate or legislation -- it was settled by mobs in the street. I mean Clodius literally burned down Cicero's house, before he was killed by Titus Milo's own armed gang in a random street battle. The Republic was utterly broken, and I have little respect for the conservatives who thought they could keep it going on life support forever. Men like Julius Caesar might have been narcissistic megalomaniacs, but at least they were willing to do something. Cato on the other hand was a fool who kept quoting laws to men with swords decades after he should have known better. Edgar Allen Ho posted:Who’s the agesilaus was an English lawyer obsessed with ancient Greek and Chinese philosophy and an extremely aristocratic political philosophy. For some reason though he lived and worked in like Chicago of all places, don't know how that happened. He could be Cicero plausibly. If he were around today he'd probably be ranting about how the unruly mob is responsible for Brexit and Trump and how this is proof the House of Lords should have exclusive power to write legislation. Squalid fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Feb 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 08:05
|
|
|
Hot take: Cato's stoicism was just a cover for his repressive classism and he never was much of a stoic, just a toxic bastard who'd be posting on Reddit about  if he was alive today.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 08:38
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Trajan The real question is how would he feel about himself being at best the second most famous Cato, beaten out by Closeau's manservant?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 08:52
|
|
|
Scarodactyl posted:I don't get it. Trajan strikes me as probably not being in the top ten in terms of broad public perception? Trajan was fondly remembered by the Romans themselves (or at least those of senatorial rank) as the best emperor. They began to traditionally wish every new emperor would be “felicior Augusto, melior Traiano” — more fortunate than Augustus and better than Trajan. (I’ve never thought Augustus was as felix as all that but apparently Romans did).
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 13:42
|
|
|
skasion posted:Trajan was fondly remembered by the Romans themselves (or at least those of senatorial rank) as the best emperor. They began to traditionally wish every new emperor would be “felicior Augusto, melior Traiano” — more fortunate than Augustus and better than Trajan. (I’ve never thought Augustus was as felix as all that but apparently Romans did). He had both glory and a long life, so if the Romans thought anything like the Greeks about what the best life is he certainly ranks up there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 13:49
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Wanna go back in time and tell Cato (both the elder and junior) that in the future the most powerful and idolized Roman will be some Spaniard. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 15:59
|
|
|
I just had the revelation that the Trump presidency might end with "Stop quoting retards, we're carrying laws"
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
One of the key points that Mike Duncan makes in The Storm Before the Storm was that Roman politics had more wrong than just violence being introduced as a viable political tool. When Sulla came out on top at the end of the civil war, he set out to "fix" Roman politics, but what he did was attempt to totally defang the consuls and destroy the assemblies, vesting all power in the senate, whereas before Rome had a more robust system with a balance of powers between all three. With the balance disrupted, the Republic was doomed to go through another period of tumult. But it was Sulla's Rome that the final Republicans grew up in, and so they didn't really realize how the Republic was fundamentally broken. Just like how how like some people growing up today won't see anything fundamentally wrong with relatively recent developments. Squalid posted:Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. The Republican system was obviously braking down during this era, and all of them, all of them, contributed to the acceleration of its collapse. I'm not sure to what extent this was the result of personal failings on their parts, ignorance, or the inexorable grind of historical circumstance. I am sure however that they knew they were playing a dangerous game, and were perfectly aware of what would come of losing. They sealed their fates with open eyes i for men like Cato I have little sympathy. I get it, he was an aristocrat dedicated to the old aristocratic order that only had thin veneer of being more than just an oligarchy, but I'll still sympathize heavily with the people who will fight to the last breath against the final vestiges being dominated by a new monarch. No matter the amount of imperial magnificence that followed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:Francis? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
Stringent posted:Cato was the fishmech of Rome. OP, thread name please.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I get it, he was an aristocrat dedicated to the old aristocratic order that only had thin veneer of being more than just an oligarchy, but I'll still sympathize heavily with the people who will fight to the last breath against the final vestiges being dominated by a new monarch. No matter the amount of imperial magnificence that followed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:One of the key points that Mike Duncan makes in The Storm Before the Storm was that Roman politics had more wrong than just violence being introduced as a viable political tool. When Sulla came out on top at the end of the civil war, he set out to "fix" Roman politics, but what he did was attempt to totally defang the consuls and destroy the assemblies, vesting all power in the senate, whereas before Rome had a more robust system with a balance of powers between all three. With the balance disrupted, the Republic was doomed to go through another period of tumult. get in a time machine and ask the proles and slaves how much of a poo poo they gave
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
Was there a BravestOfTheLamps of Rome, then?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
Marxist-Jezzinist posted:get in a time machine and ask the proles and slaves how much of a poo poo they gave
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:let's never try to understand a person from his or her own point of view then, in case they might have disagreed with Marxist-Jezzinist Thank you However in future I will try not to espouse the controversial position that actually it's dumb to sympathise with the ancient equivalent of billionaire tyrants ContinuityNewTimes fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Feb 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
Sarern posted:Was there a BravestOfTheLamps of Rome, then? Someone who really wanted to be Cicero, but they were so annoying that no one bothered recording them Also weren’t the proles getting in street fights about who they preferred? Maybe it wasn’t the world’s most meaningful dispute but if people will fight for the likes of Grover Cleveland and James G. Blaine then why wouldn’t they fight it out for Gaius Irrumabius Dumbo and Lucius Pedicabus Scipio Fucuittius? Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Feb 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:short? i can manage short napoleon was of average height for the era! it was a smear campaign i swear! *tugs on collar*
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
Napoleon was taller than me
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Napoleon was taller than me And he had a bitchin' set of, hold on to your pants ladies and gents, aluminum cutlery
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
Marxist-Jezzinist posted:get in a time machine and ask the proles and slaves how much of a poo poo they gave Honestly? In the broadest terms, you go from the later days of the Republic where there's people en masse agitating for land redistribution through legal structures that are clashing with the senate to when the empire recedes and leaves behind landowners with a lock on their power using administrative structures established under the empire and the workers beneath them being locked into servitude for the rest of eternity. The people's antipathy towards the senate was fueled by the Republic's genuine failures to provide for them, but while early emperors courted the people by being magnanimous in the short term, but in the longer term, the empire streamlined the process of the wealthy taking the whole pot and cutting the rest of the people out of the loop. The assemblies lost all of their power, and the senate was maintained as a place to appease the wealthy. The proles had no power left over their fate, although if they were lucky they could benefit from either economic good times or wealth being brought in from new campaigns. The slaves, on the other hand, probably just would've resented being made slaves. Either by economic bad times or being brought in from new campaigns. There's a side of Julius Caesar that I think most people overlook. While in Italy he was a mixed bag between trying to court public opinion solidifying his own autocratic powerbase, up north of Italy he fought one of Rome's least justified wars killing a whole lot of people and breaking the back of a culture over his knee, and before he was assassinated, he was planning to go double his fortunes by doing it all again. Marxist-Jezzinist posted:Thank you The conflict was not one of billionaire tyrants yes or no, it was one between a crowd of billionaire tyrants that felt an obligation to something beyond themselves and a singular billionaire tyrant trying to become that obligation and covering his rear end with big public entertainment investments. I do think that Rome has a lot of parallels to today's growing income gap and increasing corporate hegemony, but the scarier side of that is that the Roman increasing power of the wealthy transformed into an apparently stable world order for at least 500 years. Although there's also all those non-democratic republics that popped up in Italy that I don't really know what to make of.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 18:52
|
|
|
Late to the party, but:HEY GUNS posted:distinct from the imperial court, which owned itself Ah, Bremen, owning itself since the early modern 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Gaius Irrumabius Dumbo and Lucius Pedicabus Scipio Fucuittius Either of them have my vote
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 19:32
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Constantine VIII got to be a nominal emperor for 60 years, only actually ruling for less than 3. What was he doing for the other 60?? Being rich and having an excellent time and not loving worrying about anything. And even though his actual reign sucked for the state and the future, he died from natural causes. It was a good life. According to Psellus he even brought back gladiator battles. Seriously though I think after reading some of the translated first hand sources of these periods Constantine VIII actually did a lot more than people seem to assume. Him being a figurehead/symbolic emperor doing public stuff in Constantinople and running the palace allowed Basil II to leave the capital for years at a time and go off conquering. After Basil no one else really is able to leave Constantinople that long without bad things happening in their absence. Plus its not like he was completely useless he did go on campaign with Basil II against the rebels when they were young men and potentially (or at least one of his soldiers) killed Bardas Phokas in battle. My nomination for dumbest Emperor is actually his successor Romanos Argyros. Jack2142 fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Feb 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
Marxist-Jezzinist posted:Thank you  history is nothing but billionaire tryrants usurping each other.especially communist history
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 21:47
|
|
|
i think a good candidate for worst byzantine emperor was Alexios IV, who told the fourth crusade 'everybody wants me back in power, so take a detour to constantinople and i'll pay you 200,000 silver marks' (apparently he had to go all the way to swabia, those late byzantines made some cool road trips when they were desperate), then was only able to turn over half that amount by ransacking his own city, resulting in the Latin Empire (which really should have been the end for the byzantine empire, but they just kept coming back). The Angeli in general were a loving terrible dynasty another traditional choice would be Michael VII, the guy who was put on the throne by the guy who betrayed Romanus IV Diogenes at Manzikert. the traditional story is that Romanus got lenient peace terms, but Michael VII was more interested in keeping his throne than in preserving the Anatolian heartland that had held off the Empire's existential enemies for like 400 years, so he basically shot his own empire in the heart so he could rule for seven years before loving off to a monastery also famous insane person Justinian II is another traditional inclusion. crazy guy gets de-nosed and deposed but a few years later he's back with a barbarian army, time for poo poo to get messy. harry turtledove, of all people, wrote a historical fiction book where he met a Vedic doctor in the Crimean Bosphorus who fixed his nose, which i think is barely?? plausible given the timeline?, but there's references to a fake-rear end gold nose too so i doubt it actually happened there were a lot of bad byzantine emperors but the system just kept chugging along. i think the bureaucracy deserves more praise than it usually gets; it's generally only mentioned when they're the ones loving the empire over. i've heard they even invented the paper clip!, but i can't immediately find a source so maybe i made that up? similarly the anatolian aristocracy often did bad things (i think the Doukas family who betrayed Romanus IV and lost Anatolia itself were among their number, which is kind of an impressive self-own), but i suppose you have to give them credit for being the martial culture that held on for all those centuries
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Napoleon was taller than me aphid_licker posted:And he had a bitchin' set of, hold on to your pants ladies and gents, aluminum cutlery 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:harry turtledove, of all people, wrote a historical fiction book where he met a Vedic doctor in the Crimean Bosphorus who fixed his nose, which i think is barely?? plausible given the timeline?, but there's references to a fake-rear end gold nose too so i doubt it actually happened
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:
batko did nothing wrong
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:And he had a bitchin' set of, hold on to your pants ladies and gents, aluminum cutlery That was Napoleon III I believe
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:harry turtledove has an actual phd in actual byzantine history, in case you ever wonder "what am i supposed to do with a degree in THIS" Translated the Chronicles of Theophanes the Confessor, no less.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 23:40
|
|
|
i have some questions on the subject of early church conflicts about the human/divine/both nature of christ, from more of a historical perspective than a theological one. is that cool? i hope that's cool. here goes. so first off, the only relevant source i can give you, and the source of my question: I read A History of Christianity in Asia, Vol. I: Beginnings to 1500, Volume 1 by Samuel Hugh Moffet and, although i failed to find it in a few minutes of searching, i feel like there was something in there about a translation issue between Syriac and Greek causing the greeks to think the syrians were saying something more strident about christ's nature than they actually were, and how that inflamed the argument about (i think it was) Nestorius when the theology may not have warranted it.* now i know the whole schism wasn't caused by one translation error, but i certainly have gotten the impression that the eastern church's major groups in these controversies were divided along primarily ethnic lines; greek, syrian, and egyptian, to simplify. this mistranslation, or perhaps deliberate misunderstanding, could offer a mechanism for the ethnic lines to turn into religious lines. that's not to say there weren't miaphysites in gaul and chalcedonians in persia, i don't think there were any black-and-white simple divisions here, but the divisions with the least grey seem to lie in the same areas as cultural/ethnic/linguistic divides. so i'm curious. first off, if i'm just wrong i'd love to be less ignorant! second off, if the above is accurate, how many more examples of inter-linguistic misunderstandings can anybody think of from that era? how many other reasons for cultural clashes within the eastern roman empire were there i don't know about, and how did they affect the historical events influencing the formulation of theology in this period? * the focus of the book, really, was on the history of christianity in asia east of the roman empire, which is fascinating in its own right, but that's not what i'm curious about at the moment. i thought it was really good, though, especially about covering how christianity interacted with zoroastrianism, which was going through a major reform era of its own and had very, very strong ties to persian culture. if anybody wants to talk about that instead of my question, feel free!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:most people are taller than me 5’6-5’8: cry me a river you freakish giant 5’5-5’5: high five 3’5-5’4: hellooooo down there
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 02:47
|
|
|
Should have been born in a country the vikings invaded, midgets  Im 6'2 and compared to my siblings im a runt
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 04:43
|
|
|
underage at the vape shop posted:Should have been born in a country the vikings invaded, midgets cool also no one cares what the weirdo internet poster's height is
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 04:50
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:i think a good candidate for worst byzantine emperor was Alexios IV, who told the fourth crusade 'everybody wants me back in power, so take a detour to constantinople and i'll pay you 200,000 silver marks' (apparently he had to go all the way to swabia, those late byzantines made some cool road trips when they were desperate), then was only able to turn over half that amount by ransacking his own city, resulting in the Latin Empire (which really should have been the end for the byzantine empire, but they just kept coming back). The Angeli in general were a loving terrible dynasty It's the Roman problem: even when you get to the later Romans, being the Emperor is not the same as being a King who rules a monarchy. You're holding an office, you're the head of an organization. Caesar's murder means something to the Roman system even 1000+ years later.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 05:34
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:It's the Roman problem: even when you get to the later Romans, being the Emperor is not the same as being a King who rules a monarchy. You're holding an office, you're the head of an organization. Caesar's murder means something to the Roman system even 1000+ years later. I find it interesting that during many Chinese interregnums there was a significant difference in legitimacy between the office of Emperor and King. Succession for Emperors was very strict, usurping the Emperor and declaring a new dynasty necessarily meant a massive civil war and was uncommon. Even when centralized authority collapsed the new generation of warlords would keep the Imperial Household around as puppets for generations sometimes, before declaring a new dynasty and retiring the old Emperor. Ambitious courtiers could murder an Emperor they didn't like and Empress Dowagers could wrest de facto control from their children, but succession had to stay within the Imperial household. Kings by contrast, even when they wielded power equivalent to that of a emperor, were treated more like a Roman Augustus. They lived in constant danger of a palace coup d'etat by ambitious generals and subordinates. They had none of the sanctity about their person that the Emperors did. There was no Mandate of Heaven for Kings, their authority extended only as far as their swords could reach. Some examples: The Kingdom of Wei during the three Kingdoms usurped from the Cao clan by the Simas, who went on to found the Jin dynasty. Yang Jian usurping the Northern Zhou in 577 before conquering the southern kingdoms and founding the Sui dynasty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 06:24
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:there were a lot of bad byzantine emperors but the system just kept chugging along. i think the bureaucracy deserves more praise than it usually gets; it's generally only mentioned when they're the ones loving the empire over. i've heard they even invented the paper clip!, but i can't immediately find a source so maybe i made that up? similarly the anatolian aristocracy often did bad things (i think the Doukas family who betrayed Romanus IV and lost Anatolia itself were among their number, which is kind of an impressive self-own), but i suppose you have to give them credit for being the martial culture that held on for all those centuries In addition to bureaucracy helping keep the republic moving along, I think there is merit to the idea that succession in the ERE had strong elements of republicanism to it. That helped(though not always) to keep things getting too radically different.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 07:31
|
|
|
spoon daddy posted:In addition to bureaucracy helping keep the republic moving along, I think there is merit to the idea that succession in the ERE had strong elements of republicanism to it. That helped(though not always) to keep things getting too radically different. Any Roman boy could grow up to attain the poorly-defined highest rank of a weird sort of dictatorship where every element of society had to kind of agree at least a little that that specific human should be in charge of them, whether it was 100 AD or 1000. This was a good thing and a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 08:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Any Roman boy could grow up to attain the poorly-defined highest rank of a weird sort of dictatorship where every element of society had to kind of agree at least a little that that specific human should be in charge of them, whether it was 100 AD or 1000. This was a good thing and a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 08:04
|
|