Roman/ancient history: Checkmate, Atenists

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Roman/ancient history: Checkmate, Atenists

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Pfirti86 posted:

There are attempts to trace the royal families of Europe back to a senatorial family that popped up around the 300s. This is called descent from antiquity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_antiquity) and has thus far proven to be elusive.

In particular, if you go back far enough enough in Charlemagne's line, you run into a certain bishop Arnulf of Metz (you eventually have to switch to the maternal line to get here). From records, Arnulf was a son of a Arnoald, who himself was a son of Ansbertus - a Roman senator in the 500s. This part is disputable though, and many think this lineage was invented to promote the prestige of Charlemagne. From here, some sources allege that Ansbertus was the son of Ferreolus, who was the son of Tonantius Ferreolus, who was the son of another Tonantius Ferreolus, who was the son of another Tonantius Ferreolus, who was the grandson of a certain Flavius Afranius Syagrius. This guy was a patrician (like you were looking for, as the Syagrii were fairly prominent in Gaul) and the urban prefect of Rome. The line sort of ends there, right around 369 AD. Of course, I guess this doesn't go back to the patricians you're thinking of (the Julians, etc.), but it's about the best the West can do with a direct lineage. Like the OP said, many of the families just sort of disappeared from the written record after a while, probably intermarrying with others without record and continuing their progress to today. Many of us in the West probably are direct descendants of at least one prominent Roman family if you start skipping between paternal and maternal lines and go back far enough. Sadly, it's impossible to know for sure.

Edit: Sorry OP, but the Roman Empire really fell in 1806. Or 1917. Translatio imperii motherfuckers .

More then likely there is not a single traceable member of any Roman Imperial family anywhere, let alone a patrician family.

# ¿ May 25, 2012 18:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 6, 2024 07:45

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

General Panic posted:

Not sure about that, but I think he was the emperor who got defeated and captured by the Parthians and ended up spending the rest of his life being the Parthian king's footstool whenever he wanted to get on his horse.

Either way, not a great success.

This is more then likely not true. It's only based on some Christian propaganda. Valentinian III getting his army destroyed and his head turned into a drinking cup is true.

# ¿ May 28, 2012 19:57

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Pfirti86 posted:

Valentinian III was assassinated due to political intrigue, he didn't die in battle. But Nikephoros I probably did have what you describe happen to him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicephorus_I

By a dude named Krum too. I don't think there's a more stereotypical Conan-the-barbarian-name out there - if I told you a Roman Emperor had his skull turned into a cup by someone, you could almost guess by pure chance that his name was Krum. Here he is dining with his new tableware:

Aw poo poo, sorry, I'll stop posting.

drat it, I got my Emperor's mixed up.

The worst Emperor was clearly Romanos IV, who lost the Battle of Manzikert.

# ¿ May 29, 2012 20:52

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

Could the Romans have weathered the disaster at Manzikert if things had gone a bit differently right after the battle?

They did weather it pretty well and did manage to recover somewhat till the Sack. The real disaster at Manzikert was the loss of manpower to the Empire. After that it was pretty much cut in half which meant they couldn't keep as many armies in the field.

# ¿ May 30, 2012 15:03

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Twat McTwatterson posted:

Details on Roman involvement in Arabia? Coined Arabia Felix, I believe. Felix meaning lucky, but why this term? Arabia is largely, if not entirely, nomadic tribes until Mohammed in the 7th century- if Islam is of the Abrahamic tradition, was that tradition brought to Arabia by Jews as a result of the diaspora? What is the earliest date of Judaism in Arabia? There must be some Jewish involvement...

There where at least some Jews in Mecca before the advent of Islam. Arabia Felix is what is now Yemen, and was a major trade route stopping point.

My favorite random Mohammed story is there was at least at one, a letter sent to the Emperor Heraclius saying basically "convert or invade". Making it one of the few times a major religious figure had some historical documentation.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2012 18:30

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Grand Fromage posted:

Roman culture didn't seem to stick in Britain. Part of it is that Britain was abandoned--most of the Romans (and those Romano-British who didn't want to stay) ended up leaving the island, so there wasn't as much Roman stuff left. The entire island seems to have been de-urbanizing and the economy was going down. There's a lot of debate about what actually happened, though. We know a lot of people moved from Britain to Brittany, hence, you know, the name.

In any event, by the time the Angles and Saxons showed up, it wasn't like in the other areas where the Germanic tribes were taking over areas that were every bit as Roman as Rome itself. And it's possible that those Germans weren't interested in Romanizing the way people like the Visigoths were.

I've read a few books that say Britain itself was fairly Romanized up until about the 6th century. The later western Emperors had contact with British Roman cavalry up until the fall of the Emperor in the West.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2012 16:05

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

To Chi Ka posted:

I was wondering about the ecological transformation of North Africa. From what I've read, the region was a lot greener than it used to be, to the point where North Africa was considered the bread basket of the Empire because of the amount of wheat it produced. The Romans did pursue a lot of irrigation projects in the region. But who was responsible for the desertification of the region? The source I read blamed the Muslim invasions for destroying all of the infrastructure the Romans built up, which led to the region drying out. Another source I read said that the Romans used up too much water. Could this have been attributed more to changes in global climate as opposed to human action?

The Berbers in the 11th century pretty much caused the decline of irrigation in North Africa. Large parts of it where pretty much no mans lands up till that point but the rise of the Almoravid and the Almohad dynasties where pretty nomadic based and caused large scale abandonment of irrigation.

Pretty much the same issues that came from the Mongol sack of Baghdad and the lost of irrigation there.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2012 15:45

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Grand Fromage posted:

The senate continues meeting into the 600s.

North Africa was somewhat more lush at the time. The Sahara was there, but it's been slowly expanding over time so go back 2000 years and it's smaller. But keep in mind the Roman settlement is all along the coast. The climate there is moderated by the Mediterranean, and there's irrigation.

The Romans are responsible for the lack of animals in North Africa but it's unclear how much other environmental damage was done. Even back then people hosed up the environment though, Romans stripped much of Europe of its forests. They grew back some, then were stripped again, and by the Industrial Revolution you have the modern situation of Europe having very little in the way of natural forest.

I've read that most large animals where gone for North Africa/Egypt before the Romans fully controlled the area. I know Egypt was pretty much emptied by the time Alexander got there.

In the late Empire, a place in the senate was pretty much just a title of nobility

# ¿ Jun 21, 2012 16:41

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Supeerme posted:

Can someone tell me why is the Western Rome are always shown in either Red or Eastern Rome, Purple? Was there any clear reason of the colors itself?

How much of our knowledge about the Roman Empire came from them in the first place? Was most of our knowledge came from the Church?

The reason the Eastern Empire was purple is the old Imperial palace was pretty much covered in purple coloured marble. There was a whole room made out of purple marble where the heir was to be born.

The account of the Crusaders showing up in Constantinople may be one of the best thing I've ever read. How overawed and amazed they where at the city. Richer then any other in history (a little hyperbole but not by much given the city wasn't sacked for 900 years and had the wealth of the Empire in it).

# ¿ Jun 26, 2012 17:16

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

FizFashizzle posted:

Those really are hilarious. Just imagine being in the most civilized city in the world, a place with free health care and female doctors, and seeing this horde of unwashed french coming up to your gates demanding passage to the levant.

Alexios basically took them all in small groups, guarded the whole time, and showed them around what civilization actually looked like AND IF THEY WERE ON THEIR BEST BEHAVIOR they'd let them drink. It was essentially like those scam student tours in european cities where you get two drink tickets and entrance to a club.

All to keep a bunch of drunk nords from burning the place down.

The best thing about it was the leaders going to see the Emperor on his giant mechanical throne with singing birds and things. Which everyone would think was a legend if during the 4th Crusade it hadn't broken when they tried to move it after setting the palace on fire.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2012 20:55

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Grand Fromage posted:

Got a link? I've read about it but I don't think I've ever seen the primary source.

The most used primary source for the reaction of the Crusaders is generally the Alexiad, plus a couple of Church sources. The Ottoian Chronicles are also a drat good source about western reaction to the Roman court. Mostly due to the fact it was the only time a strong Western Emperor really dealt with the Eastern one, it shocked the hell out of the Germans.

# ¿ Jun 27, 2012 15:03

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:

From what I've seen, it looked like the Byzantine's weren't able to raise a large army (40k max). Why was this? Talking around the time of the Komnenos.

40K was a huge army till at least the 17th century. However, the Byzantine had just lost Asia Minor before the Komnenos military reforms need them to change the whole makeup of the military. Before that it was based on a standing Imperial Core based in the capital, and a kind of frontier militia which was made up of professional cavalry units and fortresses. This was combined with peasant troops. After the fall of Asia minor however and the military reforms it was almost a complete professional army.

# ¿ Jun 27, 2012 16:41

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

physeter posted:

Here's a picture of some Tuareg "Berbers"

And their traditional alphabet is Carthaginian. So good luck with that.

One of these people is not a traditional Berber but was part of a tribe that migrate to North Africa in the 15th century (North African history chat).

If you want to know about what someone looked like in the Roman era in North Africa, go take a look a someone who is Coptic and still in Egypt. Historical trends say there has been very little outside of the community intermarriage since the 12th century (which is when Copts became a minority)

# ¿ Jul 4, 2012 17:56

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Fornadan posted:

Like any other 250 years old scientific work it is now severely dated, thanks to advances in source analysis and archaeology. He for instance uses the Histoia Augusta pretty uncritically. I wouldn't recommend reading Gibbon unless you're reading it as literature

Modern academics still cite him in their works though, I suspect largely out of tradition (or more cynically, to appear intellectual).

Unfortunately historians' understandable need to just cite their predecessors' works rather than to trace every little factoid back to the original source material leads occasionally to a kind of Historian's Whispering Game where what started out as idle speculation ends up as accepted fact. So for example the well known fact of the Germanic invaders crossing a frozen Rhine on 31 December 406 appear originate in some stray remarks by Gibbon

(And still some people doubt that the Romans invented most of what they thought they knew of their early history)

((I seem to be meandering off topic...))

Every good historian should read Gibbon, not because his work is top notch anymore but because of his historiography contribution. Every historian (at least as I was taught) tries to model there work after his rhythm within the work. Which is why any serious historian writes in his style.

# ¿ Jul 9, 2012 15:29

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Spiderfist Island posted:

My Early Middle Ages professor structured his class as a critique of Gibbon's thesis (Rome fell because of Christian moral degradation and barbarism) and later Henri Pirenne's* (Islam's domination of the Mediterranean and trade therein forced western civilization's "center" to move north and develop into autarkic
kingdoms). The study of how history is studied is just as important as history itself.

If anyone's interested I can give a brief undergraduate engineer's summary of how Late Rome couldn't do without client barbarian tribes, and how tax evasion played into it.

*Pirenne, really, is a lot more important to modern Dark Ages Historiography than Gibbon's Enlightenment-fueled Christian-bashing which relies mainly on written/secondhand sources.

Historiography is the study of history. I took three courses in my undergrad just on that topic.

Gibbon's written/secondhand sources are insanely important. They pretty much set the ton for modern historical study. Reading something before his influence and after it is night and day.

I'm not a fan of Pirenee, but that's me. Mostly because he discounts Italy/Byzantium and Spain too much.

# ¿ Jul 13, 2012 19:46

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

There are tons of Medieval document troves that no one has looked at (or been able to look at) in centuries. At this point they would require MRI's to even be ready and there is simply not enough resources to study them all.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2012 19:20

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Tao Jones posted:

A lot of stuff found after colonial independence tends to end up in museum archives in the country it was found in. I tried to find a link to the Museum of Egyptian Antiquities in Cairo, but the url I found for their site isn't working. I looked at the National Archaeological Museum's site to see if they had any interesting links, but the information for researchers wasn't available yet in English and the same page on the Greek-language website just said, in essence, "if you're a researcher or student and want access, call this official". (The Italian, Greek, and Egyptian governments are not exactly known for their efficiency, or, lately, stability.)

Older finds that have mostly been translated by now are mainly spread throughout university archives in Europe/the US. For example: the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, which were found around 1900 and have been translated, ended up (as you can see on the wiki page) mostly at Oxford and so on. The wiki page appears to just list the Biblical fragments found, which makes it seem like it's more interesting than it is.

Here is the table of contents for the Oxyrhynchus collection. You can see that there's definitely fragments of classical texts there, but a whole lot more pages of things like receipts, land leases, marriage contracts, wills, letters - not that these things are necessarily uninteresting, but if you're aiming to find a completely lost Important Ancient Text, well, good luck to you. It's much more a salt mine than a gold mine.

This is just a fun story, but the best primary sources for Ottoman and late Byantium history are sitting in railcars in Bulgaria. They have been there for more then a century now as the Bulgarians go through them.

# ¿ Jul 17, 2012 17:01

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

The real issue of Papal supremacy really had very little to do with the Patriarch and everything to do on whether the Emperor was supreme or not. The Emperor was generally considered God's True right hand on earth (which is why they always had Halos on them in icons)

# ¿ Jul 19, 2012 20:57

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

roadhead posted:

Did he really select 100 new senators from the Gauls and Celts? Was there a plebe (not Vorenus obviously) that he raised to the senate? I found it interesting that he seemed to be trying to make a better Rome that would endure forever and not necessarily grab all the power for him-self.

Someone like Vorenus wouldn't have been rich enough to be a Senator, he lived on the second floor. You had to be massively wealthy to sit in it.

Most general Roman polices are what we would consider making Rome a better place. The grain rations, the public waterworks, the games. This stuff was Roman politics on it's basic level.

# ¿ Jul 26, 2012 15:33

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

There is some evidence that the last temple in Greece didn't close till the Ottoman Empire. It may have been more of late starting cult. No one is really sure

# ¿ Aug 31, 2012 15:05

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

The Spartans where a standing army. They where however, not a professional standing army by any true sense. They where honestly closer to the Janissary or the Manluks slave-soldiers then professional armies of post-Marian reform Rome.

# ¿ Sep 24, 2012 16:56

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

sullat posted:

But the continuing Persian wars sapped most of the Byzantine's strength. Not until Heraclius destroyed the Persian armies in Mesopotamia was that threat ended... just in time to have most of the empire (Africa and the Levant) fall to the Arab conquest. Past 800 or so, the Byzantines can't really project their power ourside their borders, and starting about 900 or so they contract their navy out to the Venetians... which no doubt seemed like a good idea at the time.

The Empire didn't really get rid of their navy till after the sack when it was too expensive. Up till the Battle of Manzikert the Empire was under a pretty massive resurgence. Under John I Tzimiskes they marched pretty much destroyed all Arab power in the middle east including taking Damascus and almost Jesusalem (he had to turn around and crush the Bulgarians. The real reason the eastern Empire never projected power beyond Italy was infighting. Despite what you might read, Venice paid tribute to the Empire till after the first Crusade.

# ¿ Oct 1, 2012 02:39

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Mans posted:

Weren't there a series of attempts at making Helenistic armies more mobile and agile? It's bizarre to think that things like the Thureophoroi and the Thorakites were actively frowned upon by the Helenistic states in favor of mass phalanx formations. From a logical point of view war was becoming more and more about flexibility and fluidity, and a 50k strong Macedonian army where at least ten thousand of them were of these new style would've been devastating against the Romans.

I have meant to get involved in this bit of the thread for a while but I got busy. There is evidence of phalanx groups from Greece did operating with the legions up until about 500AD when the Empire's military did a massive reorganization.

Not much is known about what they did but they only ever operated in the East so they may have been part of the guard legions in Dacia and the Syrian areas.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2012 17:47

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Grand Fromage posted:

That one's not a legend. Some parts might've been fabrication and there are a few different stories, but some guys who were monks or disguised as them definitely stole silkworms and techniques from the Chinese (a very carefully guarded Chinese state secret) and sold/gave them to the Romans during Justinian's reign. Either independently for profit or sent out by Justinian to do it. One of the great spy missions of history.

It was more then likely Nestorian monks who where fairly active in Asia even though we have next to no information on them. Mostly as we have very little real informational about Nestorian actives so it's pretty much "we know they existed, and we can guess this happened".

# ¿ Nov 12, 2012 00:30

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

InspectorBloor posted:

Thukydides estimates the Skythians to be the greatest military force in the world at his time - if they were ever united. Mind you that the term skythians is a synonym for all kinds of different tribes and people. Studying the history of ancient China, you will find that there were individuals who were actually able to do that. Every few centuries some chanyu would go and let the poo poo fly at everybody around there. The impact of these events would be felt in the west. Think of the migration periods.

After the defeat of the Magyars there was really no major migration event into Europe that was considered to be a straight up migration. After that it was straight up invasions, it's an odd change.

# ¿ Nov 13, 2012 18:04

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Comstar posted:

Going down the rabbit hole...what as the Ummayad tax policy, and why did it help and also bring about the end?

Given what we know about conversion rates, Ummayad taxation policy had very little to do with conversion rates. Egypt (from which we have the best records) more then likely didn't hit 50% of the population until sometime in the 11th century and didn't react it's current levels till the 13th.

Conversion is generally very slow.

# ¿ Dec 4, 2012 19:01

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

physeter posted:

For years I've flirted with a simple idea: the Romans left so little trace of their logistical thought and centurion training methods deliberately. It seems laughable at first but it does make some sense. The Romans weren't ignorant of the fact that their real military power lay in being able to reliably and consistently transport goods from one place to another, and in having men on the receiving end who could translate those goods into things like siege equipment and well-trained footsoldiers.

As early as the Jugurthine War we see the enemies of Rome deliberately attempting to copy the Roman legions. Jugurtha tried it, Mithradates definitely builds a respectable legionary-style force. I think the Seleucids did as well. If we think about our own modern military, even with ridiculous glamorization of our own forces, we don't invite camera crews into SEAL training or the nukey part of a ballistic missile submarine.

I think they deliberately didn't publicize the information that was the core of their military power, just like we don't. Can't ever prove it though.

Even if it was published most of it would have been destroyed in the Sack. More then likely most major works for the classical age survived till then. They where then all destroyed by Crusaders. One major theory says that the Renaissance was kickstarted by texts from the Sack.

China is a odd place for literature given both Confucianism and Daoisms culture impact. Much of the classical Chinese works that still exists is much more of a culture touchstone then an army manual would have been.

# ¿ Dec 14, 2012 21:24

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Not My Leg posted:

This is absolutely true, and I didn't mean to make it sound like I was minimizing his accomplishments as Emperor. Plenty of people would have been killed or deposed much earlier in their reign, and plenty would have failed to ever make it to Emperor at all. It's just interesting that he was skilled, incredibly long lived, and he was first. You might have expected a few more false starts along the way before things either settled down or collapsed.

That raises a question though. Why is Augustus considered the "first" Emperor of Rome? Why not Julius Caesar, who was emperor in all but name, or Sulla, who was dictator for life until he gave it up on his own? Looking at it that way the move from Republic to Principate perhaps looks more like what one might expect. Marius, Sulla, and Julius Caesar are all close calls (Marius) or false starts (Sulla because he retired and Caesar because he was killed) on the road to the Principate, with the Republic returning, in some form, in between each (or never quite falling in the case of Marius). Finally, things go completely to poo poo after Caesar's assassination, and a ruler arises who is both capable and biologically lucky, finally spelling the permanent death of the Republic.

Augustus is the first Emperor because he codified the position. The titles he took and the title's he kept became the most important parts of his power beyond anything else. Which is why later Emperors always took the same titles.

One of the reasons Augustus was able to rise to power was the fact he was Caesar's heir (which made him the richest man in Rome), and bound the legions to him in a way it wouldn't have for anyone else but Anthony in his person as protector of Cleopatra and Caesarion who could have been the only challenger to Caesar's legacy.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2013 16:37

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

QuoProQuid posted:

The argument is that priests should be focused on building their community, not their dynasty. In many diocese you had absentee Bishops who were more interested in increasing the size and power of their estate than providing for the community. It was believed that sexually active clergy members would breed corruption and try to make Church positions hereditary.

The Western Church decides early on that sexually active clergy is a bad thing. The Councils of Elvira and Carthage explicitly declare celibacy to be a necessary requirement for all priests and bishops. These decisions are supplemented by the writings of Pope Sicarius, who abandoned his wife and child to get elected, and Pope Saint Leo I. Even Emperor Justinian I gets involved and declares the offspring of all clergy to be bastards. The problem is the Papacy has no way to enforce the requirement. For every Pope who follows the obligation, there is another who ignores it. There is little pressure within the rank and file clergy to change.

This changes with the Gregorian Reforms around 1050, which came about because of Saeculum obscurum. The Papacy had always been deeply involved with the Roman nobility. However, around 900 became a de facto hereditary position controlled by the descendents of the Duke of Tusculum. The few Popes not descended from the Duke were handpicked by him or his successors. It's difficult to exaggerate just how corrupt these officials were. For example, Pope Benedict IX was installed by his father around the age of 18 (or 12 depending on your source), goes on a murder rampage, sells the Papacy to his godfather, comes back a few months later with an army and reinstall himself as Pope causing a three-way Papal Schism. By his death Benedict IX was elected, ejected, returned, abdicated, deposed, returned again, ejected again, and excommunicated twice. It is an immensely embarrassing period for the Catholic Church.

When Pope Gregory comes to power he resolves to prevent such an incident from ever happening again. In 1074 he publishes an encyclical, removing every single married priest, bishop, and cardinal from their position. This resulted in massive unrest within the Church and many clergy members actively revolt against the Pope. In response, Gregory issues an edict inviting the people to rise up and violently seize the property of any non-celibate bishop. This occurs in several places and forces the clergy to at least pay lip service to the notion of celibacy.

The First and Second Lateran Councils put the last nail in the coffin and end the acceptance of married priests within the Catholic Church. These councils had widespread lay support and made it difficult for any clergy member to voice opposition without risking the loss of his position and lands.

None of these reforms stopped the "Cardinal Nephew" position from forming, which was often the sons of Popes. Honestly the lack of married clergy more then likely hurt the Church in the long run as it created two classes of clergy (the poor local and the rich senior). There are a number of examples of local clergy being unable to feed themselves from English sources in the 11th and 12th century.

The Papacy has an insanely interested political history that's really hard to map properly.

# ¿ Jan 8, 2013 21:31

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

QuoProQuid posted:

Thanks for the responses. I knew the city was going downhill and the population had dwindled significantly but was trying to understand the mindset of those who remained behind. I imagine it would be a very strange time to live. While every generation believes that they represent the end of an era and the beginning of a decline, the last Byzantines would have almost indisputable evidence. It must have seemed almost apocalyptic.

Constantine does seem like a sympathetic figure and I'm glad he enjoyed at least moderate popularity in life. For some reason I thought Mehmed II had offered Constantine survival of the Byzantine Empire in its Aegean and Propontis island territories in exchange for Constantinople. Looking back, however, I can't seem to find anything. I assume I am just confusing information.

The population was maybe 10,000 people when the city fell. It was to the point where most of the city's food needs where meet inside the city walls. It was the Emperor of Trebizond that was offered basically to become a vassal of the Sultan's, but he refused based on the whole "I'm the real Emperor thing". It's a little known Empire so not a lot is written about it.

# ¿ Jan 14, 2013 18:57

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Xguard86 posted:

ya sorry I should have said that. To us they would be petrified wood but compared to other cultures it was extremely open.

One interesting point in the wealth thing is Crassus. He was the richest man in Rome and one of the richest men ever (as compared to his time/place). However, he was always viewed as kind of an also ran because he wasn't from an ancient family and he hadn't won any battles for the state. Today, especially in the US, we value wealth above pedigree and generally above glory/fame so its hard to understand but being rich then was different from now especially if you were "just" rich.

Crassus is viewed as an also ran because he was up against Caesar and Pompey not because he wasn't talented person. When Crassus died Caesar was more then likely richer then he was and Pompey was better at PR then he was. Sometimes things don 't break your way with who you are compete ting again in history.

# ¿ Feb 1, 2013 21:50

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Sleep of Bronze posted:

At the least there's the argument that 'convenient' deaths of H&P were very much more engineered than convenient. I'm not sure I put a huge amount of stock in it, but it's a somewhat valid view.

Honestly, Augustus luckiest break was the fact that Caesarion was all of 13. If he had been an adult when Caesar died a whole lot would have been different. Given many of the Legions that follow Augustus would have followed him even with the Roman adoptions practices.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2013 04:08

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

I was a few weeks behind in the thread so I'm sorry for bring this up but this really bothered me. Alexander did not fight a war of ethnic annihilation in the way anyone from the 19th century on would have. No one from before then would have understood that kind of warf, the closest historical war that was fought for that reason (I do not consider the Bible a historical source)was the Fall of Assyria.

War is a brutal, brutal thing but do not let the facts of conflict be hidden by ideological concerns.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2013 14:59

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Ras Het posted:

Caesar bragged in his book about murdering or enslaving 200k Helvetii, destroying the entire nation as a revenge for warring against him. That's not an ideologically motivated ethnic cleansing perhaps, but it is an ethnic cleansing.

Caesar's campaign books are highly suspect as real sources. However, the Roman's are more then likely the closest state to out and out ethnically cleanse a people simply for existing. It however was not ideologically motivated beyond wealth.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2013 16:35

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Dr Scoofles posted:

That said, I took a module on Medieval history in my first year of uni and the first lecture we had the professor brought a pumpkin onto the stage and started smashing it to pieces with a heavy sword. The people on the front row were spattered with pumpkin flesh and seeds, people were screaming and getting pissed off. After he had finished he swept his hair out of his eyes and rasped "Now image that was a human head."
All history should be taught this way.

This would annoy the gently caress out of me, but I love history so much I read it for fun so that's me.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2013 18:48

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Grand Fromage posted:

There were probably hardcore Roman pagans in rural areas for a long time. Like well into the middle ages. The church didn't really record the details of the paganism they were going after, unfortunately.

The last people that we know worship the old Greek/Roman gods in any real way where in the hills in Peloponnese in the 11th century and even then it was more like a local cult. This came out of a recent (couple of years old) study in the area.

Beyond that we have no real knowledge of when various religions ended their existences.

# ¿ May 9, 2013 03:57

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Lobster God posted:

Don't suppose you've got a link/ name of the study?

I would have to sit down and find it, but I will take a shot at it.

# ¿ May 9, 2013 18:45

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Libluini posted:

So that temple didn't really use steam power? And maybe wasn't even build? Now I'm disappointed.

The mechanical throne had stuff like robotic steam-powered birds, which makes it a true tragedy that it didn't survive.

It was more then likely clockwork and not steam-powered.

# ¿ May 21, 2013 16:15

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

euphronius posted:

That's basically how the government worked. Rich people would do things and pay for things like you said.

This is kind of true and it isn't. While the Rich where expected to pay for things, it was part of your civic duty above and beyond your taxes in order to be able to move ahead in government and society.

This changed even more after the rise of Augustus who owned personal something like 1/2 of the Empire.

# ¿ May 21, 2013 16:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 6, 2024 07:45

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Barto posted:

He wasn't a general though. Li Guang and Wei Qing were some of the generals involved in that series of conflicts, but Chinese history, especially in the Han, doesn't emphasize or record military matters the same way western history does, so it's hard to tell. The archaeology isn't as advanced or understand as it is in Europe either.

It's not that the archaeology isn't as advanced, its that the archaeology has to show results that follow China's pattern of history somewhat.

# ¿ Jun 3, 2013 16:01

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Roman/ancient history: Checkmate, Atenists

«‹›6 »