Roman/ancient history: Checkmate, Atenists

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

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

General Panic posted:

The hot pools at Bath, as used by the Romans, were closed from 1978 to 2006 because of infectious organisms in the aquafier, although that's a natural hot spring rather than the usual man-made bath house. I suspect that by modern standards those probably were a breeding ground for germs.

This little critter, to be precise :haw:

Though I can't help but wonder how many people in history have died of awful deaths that were blamed on innocent third parties, amplifying the tragedy.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2012 01:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Jun 2, 2024 03:19

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

Would it be fair to describe the strength of the Roman legions as that they have the killing/staying power of heavy infantry (like the phalanx formations), but the speed and flexibility of medium infantry.

# ¿ Jun 25, 2012 04:40

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

Since this is suddenly the horse archer thread :allears:

, does anyone know how many horses the average mongol cavalryman would have owned or been responsible for?

I mean, the advantage of animal husbandry is that they breed much quicker than humans, and can live off low quality carbohydrates. I'd imagine a mongol soldier would have owned a team of horses, and swapped between them. Maybe his family takes care of the horses, iunno.

Also, I thought the counter to horse archers was bring alot more archers wielding larger bows that could outrange the HAs.

# ¿ Jun 27, 2012 07:05

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

The intersection between political power and ritualistic memes is really interesting, it seems universal and has evolved convergently across many the world. I've been doing some light reading mesoamerican societies, and the same phenomenon seems to occur.

I'd theorise these kind of rituals act to enforce hierarchical co-operation throughout the society, and societies that can be both large and co-operative outcompete those less capable of so (regardless of the welfare of the individuals). Without these kind of memes (religion, nationalism, ethnicism, regionalism) to enforce co-operation, large groups fragment into smaller groups bound by more visible ties, such as kinship.

# ¿ Jul 21, 2012 09:33

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

Careful there if you upset him his pyloric valve will release.

# ¿ Aug 21, 2012 05:00

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

Grand Fromage posted:

I think it's done by comparing costs. We actually have fairly complete price lists from a ridiculous experiment in price fixing by Diocletian, where the government would dictate the maximum price of every item in the empire. We also have ideas of what things cost in other eras. There might also be a calculation using the amount of gold/silver, though there's a problem with that because the figures are usually given in talents and we aren't actually sure how much a talent was.

It's not terribly valuable for history. What matters was Crassus' wealth versus other people at the time, not what you could estimate it being in dollars. So like the $400 billion figure is fun but meaningless; Crassus' personal wealth being equal to the treasury of the entire empire, however, is not.

It also matters that some objects have different opportunity costs in different eras. I can walk to the shops and get a loaf of bread for $1. That's like 1.8% of my daily income. How many loaves of bread could a labourer afford per day? Industrialisation and modern supply chains have made many objects disproportionally affordable.

So this just makes it harder to compare.

# ¿ Sep 1, 2012 00:32

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

Speaking of which, can I post this infuriatingly bad essay that I found posted on another forum?

quote:

Comparing the Ancient Empires of Rome and China

The ancient civilization of Rome was far superior to ancient China in many ways, government and leadership being the two most important ways. Rome�s government was more detailed and left no room for error. It was well thought out and the structure was very defined all though out Roman history, while the Chinese government changed every time a new ruler came to power. Rome also produced better leaders like Caesar and Augustus. China�s government lacked the essential parts needed to make a great government and leaders; neither was as great as the Rome�s.

The structure of the Roman government was far better than China�s government because the Chinese lacked many things the Roman government had. The Roman government was made up of the Senate, Emperor, the Consul and Proconsul, the assemblies, priests, and other Roman officials. The Senate was originally a board of elders who advised the king. Later it became comprised of ex-office holders and its decrees developed the force of law. Often it was understood that a measure had to be approved by the Senate before it could be voted on in the Assembly. The Emperor was like a president. A dictator was put in control over the state only for extreme emergences. The dictator could only hold office for up to six months and while in charge he had absolute power. This allowed the ruler deal with what ever emergences were at hand without having to wast time and go threw the government to get stuff done. The Consul, chief executive officer, could only (theoretically) hold office for one year, and couldn�t be consul for another 10 years. Eventually proconsuls were created, men who were given some of the powers of a consul, especially for commands far from Rome, such as being governors of provinces. The assemblies were the gathering of people to vote on laws and such. The priests also played an important role in the Roman government. There was a Pontifex maximus, and 9 other pontiffs which were like the high priest and other priests. The other Roman officials included Tribunes had the power to veto, Censor had the power to remove unworthy people from senate, Questors financial people, and Aediles supervised public works. There were many more jobs and positions in the Roman government and they all contributed to the success of Rome.

Chinese government was not as detailed as the Roman�s government. Chinese started with the ideal that all power should come from above, from the centre, from a single supreme ruler. (Pye 183) This ruler was called the emperor but was more like a dictator. Democracy was out of the question in China as it was around 200 BCE in other civilizations. (Frank) The Chinese never had a permanent senate but during some dynasties there were courts, like the Court of Imperial Clansmen, that dealt with family, state and society matters. There were priests and such but they all answered to the emperor instead of answering to the people like in the Roman government.

Roman leadership was far more advanced than Chinese leadership in many ways. The Romans has leaders like Julius Caesar, Augustus (formally Octavian), and Justinian. Once theses leaders found a system that worked for Rome they stayed with that system. While that Chinese change their form of government every time a new leader emerged. The leaders of Rome moulded, shaped and made Rome a very successful and prosperous state.

Julius Caesar was a great general for the army and a dictator from 61-44 B.C. He was a great military leader and won many battles. He is better known for his death. The Senate feared that he would disband them but didn�t want to do anything because the people loved him. A group of conspirators assassinated him in 44 B.C. His adopted relative Octavian, whose name is changed to Augustus, would becomes Rome�s first emperor.

Augustus, Rome�s first emperor from 27 B.C. to 14 A.D, uncanny political abilities and his meticulous attention to detail provided a stable government that brought peace and prosperity to the Roman Empire for the next two hundred years. He wrote the Deeds of the Divine Augustus when he was seventy six. This essentially stated all the things he did in his life and showed how future emperors should lead. During his reign many images of power were built. The temples of Mars, Jupiter Subduer and Thunderer, Apollo, divine Julius, the senate house, the theatre of Marcellus, and many more things.

Justinian was the last great emperor of Rome. He was in power from 527 -565 A.D. He was known as a strong ruler and an excellent administrator. One of his most valuable contributions to modern society was his code of Roman law. He had the best legal scholars of the empire take all the Roman laws on the books from the time of Augustus and condense them into a uniform code of laws. Justinian taxed the people heavily to pay for his wars and for the construction of magnificent buildings in Constantinople, but his taxation was justified in the public's eyes.

The Chinese leadership during this time was less organized. Each time a new leader came in power everything would completely change. It was not like the Roman governments which said pretty much the same. The Chinese government was influenced by Confucianism and Taoism. The Han Dynasty was probably the most successful of all the Chinese Dynasties, but not as successful as Rome.

Resulting from the chaos left over by the Qin Dynasty came the Han Dynasty. It built on the strengths of the earlier dynasties and removed the faults. Taxes were reduced and economic recovery was widely promoted. Examinations were used to identify potential candidates for official posts and gifted scholars, while the teachings of Confucius were promoted and encouraged. At the height of its power at around 140-87 B.C. under Emperor Wu Ti, the Han Dynasty began to expand ferociously. However, the royal treasury was feeling the strain of these expansionist policies. The peasants and merchants were feeling the strain too. Men, horses, armour, and supplies were needed for war and the royal treasury was draining. Taxes were raised as a result. The common people protested as the rapidly growing population aggravated the situation. This aggravated state caused a period of discontentment similar to that of the former dynasties. China would never really advance. China would have a prosperous time and then everything would eventually revert back to chaos.

Confucianism was a main part of Chinese leadership but the problem was that none of the leaders listened to Confucius until after his death. Confucianism dealt with moral virtues and values such as piety and respect. The keynotes of Confucian ethics are love, goodness and humanity. One who possesses all these virtues becomes a ch�n-tzu (perfect gentleman). The Confucian golden rule was: do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself. Politically, Confucius advocated a government in which the leader is benevolent and honourable where the subjects are respectful and obedient. The ruler should cultivate moral perfection in order to set a good example to the people. In education Confucius upheld the theory, unheard of in his time, that in education, there is no class distinction.

Taoism played a role in Chinese leadership but it hurt China rather than helping. Taoism encouraged its followers not to stick to a strict system of society but instead to follow the "Tao" way. Taoism was also mixed with a bit of alchemy in the form of elixirs and pills. When opium was introduced to China people would get addicted and refused to work. This was just another factor that made China far from superior to Rome.

Rome�s government was far more detailed and thought out and their leadership was better trained. China had a few good leaders, but none were as great as Roman leaders, and the one person they should have followed from the beginning, Confucius , they didn�t follow until after his death. The Chinese government left too much power in the emperor�s hands. This is why the government changed from emperor to emperor. The Roman government did the exact opposite it put more power in the people which enabled the government last longer. Over all Rome was a better empire.

# ¿ Sep 3, 2012 05:43

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

Woah who bought the :agesilaus:

smiley?

# ¿ Sep 19, 2012 02:14

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

I prefer the historian over the classicist, because the requires you to be highly critical of sources rather than an incredulous buffoon.

I think it's fair to say that the Spartans were a standing army, considering they were mobilised throughout the entire year. But I think the key decider is the separation between citizen and citizen-soldier. Pre-Marian, they had the citizen and the citizen-soldier. Post Marian they had the citizen and the professional soldier. The Spartans had nothing but the soldier. All primary industry was performed by slaves. If there's no peaceful citizen class, then is there any distinction in calling the spartan army professional?

# ¿ Sep 22, 2012 06:19

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

The question is, is he actually Grumblefish's rereg or just some other random dipshit who feels like trolling?

# ¿ Sep 23, 2012 13:21

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

Don't be a coward post your link between Hippokleides and break dancing.

# ¿ Oct 1, 2012 23:59

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

Yeah, something I've always noticed, from a pop history perspective, is that classical life is always described from a certain social status. Domestic life always implies the existence of servants to help maintain the household.

In other words, only the narratives of those that can afford slaves/servants and read/write get preserved. If you can't, well, no one cares about you in the future.

You see this even in relatively modern history of England and America, where the stories are told from relatively prosperous households.

# ¿ Oct 4, 2012 14:25

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

My question now is, did the statues really have that particular shade of red or blue or yellow? Did it really look that horrendous to our modern sensibilities? I remember reading somewhere that there was an organised effort back in the 19th century or so to strip the paint off the statues. How true was this? I know Pompeii was painted, did their statues look like that?

I suspect that the reason we like minimalism these days is because bright colours and tones are cheap in this modern society. They probably weren't back in those days, and they'd probably want to flaunt it.

# ¿ Oct 16, 2012 22:39

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

I hope Agesilaus has an apoplectic fit every time he sees the retouched statues!

# ¿ Oct 17, 2012 04:57

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

Just how do you sculpt from a template? A reference, I can understand, but an actual template? You need someone to physically chisel away every bit of stone.

It's not like casting, where you can have a master and cast from that.

Still, being a sculptor or an artisan was probably a sweet gig back in those days.

# ¿ Oct 17, 2012 06:07

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

I dread to see what happens when alien archeologists dig up Free Republic.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2012 00:45

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

Would it be fair to say that the late Roman republic was gradually trending towards some particularly wealthy individuals consolidating their power over the government apparatus? Where Sulla failed, Augustus succeeded. So was it only a matter of time before someone eventually seized the day and became dictator-for-life?

# ¿ Oct 26, 2012 12:23

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

Whatevs I don't know gently caress all about roman history :v:

# ¿ Oct 26, 2012 12:58

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

I think the best conclusion to draw from this is, as Namarrgon says, society provides the groundwork for Great People to flourish, and in return they influence the society.

Like in this modern age, institutions like universities and corporations are fertile grounds for particularly clever scientists and innovators and entertainers. But if there were to be an asteroid strike and we end up in The Road, someone who would otherwise make great contributions to biology or physics can't do poo poo and instead it'd be whoever can warlord it up over a tribe of bandits and raiders.

# ¿ Oct 27, 2012 01:04

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

I am proud of the fact that my history teacher taught me to not only consider if a source was primry, secondary, or tertiary, but also to consider the motivations and culture behind someone who wrote them :agesilaus:

# ¿ Oct 28, 2012 21:12

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

As much as :agesilaus:

annoys me, he's a necessary evil.

1) The discussion on how to read and critically interpret history is crucial.

2) It teaches us how not to be like :agesilaus:

# ¿ Oct 29, 2012 03:02

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

Grand Fromage posted:

Ancient Aliens is like the peak level of that poo poo. Hurr how does old people make building? Must UFO!

They figured that poo poo out, man. My favorite is when they say "it would have taken an unbelievable amount of labor!" Well, yeah. That was one thing they had plenty of. You got a whole summer where all your millions of peasant farmers have literally nothing to do. Put 'em to work building a pyramid.

Pyramids don't even impress me. The natural shape of a certain volume of low tensile strength material is going to be pyramidal.

Obelisks and Steles are better (not just because they're giant dicks).

# ¿ Oct 29, 2012 07:36

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

Give enough people enough time and they can work it out.

I'm more impressed with carving something out of one giant chunk of stone, with enough tensile strength to support its own weight, and tipping it onto one end.

(Okay fine pyramids are cool, but they're overrated)

# ¿ Oct 29, 2012 10:13

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

Once again, freedom of speech, but not freedom from the consequences of your speech.

# ¿ Oct 30, 2012 01:09

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

Alot of this makes a shitload of sense. I've always thought of the Roman legions as having the staying power of heavy infantry, but organisation allowing the mobility of relatively lighter infantry.

I still can't help but wonder, surely a line of spears does better than a line of gladii?

# ¿ Nov 3, 2012 11:21

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

Plus, I think Gladius/Shield can deal much better with getting flanked than Spear/Shield.

I know the pila were also used as form impromptu phalanxes, how good at that were they?

# ¿ Nov 5, 2012 02:37

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

Kaal posted:

Fundamentally, I think that some of our modern-day problem is that we reject the idea of a warrior caste - leaving our citizen-soldiers conceptually isolated. If they talk about the glories of war, or rejoice in victory over their enemies, or describe their scenes of battle, then they're rejected as being too violent for a peaceful society. If you talk to an American soldier, they'll usually tell you that they don't often talk about their deployments because civilians simply don't understand; they'll judge their actions by the metric of suburban life, or (worse) ask questions that are sickly voyeuristic. At the end of the day, only 10% of our population ever serves with the military; which makes the experience quite alien.

We've stripped soldiers of their traditional coping mechanism (celebrating the role of the warrior and the martial experience), and so now we're struggling to come up with an adequate replacement. Roman legionaries didn't have that problem: You'd never see them saying stuff like "I'm a lover not a fighter", or protesting that they hate killing and love peace, but are simply doing what must be done. And so they didn't have to deal with all that internal conflict.

While I'm all for better understanding and treatment and destigamatisation of mental illness, there is absolutely no way that I would support the creation of a new warrior caste. If what you're saying is correct, that warrior castes can deal better with PTSD within its ranks, then I'd happily trade away that benefit in favour of societies that don't merrily engage in aggressive wars for plunder, subjugation, and social status.

I prefer a society that makes it extremely difficult and requiring a huge amount of effort to muster a casus belli for war.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2012 22:03

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

Taken 2

# ¿ Nov 12, 2012 04:58

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

I'm going to post a thread named "Ask me about being a barbarian" and come in and ruin you all.

# ¿ Nov 13, 2012 04:33

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

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

It sounds to me that you have bands of raiders that suddenly united under a flag, hit a bunch of civilizations as they were in the middle of internecine warfare, famine and economic depression, collapsing them, before the raiders themselves collapse without leaving any primary sources in the historical record.

Is this a decent simplification of the overarching narrative?

# ¿ Nov 13, 2012 12:50

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

Over interpreted, there's no actual data, and there's no evidence that these proposed mutations aren't selected against.

Besides, even if it is true, it's irrelevant. What matters is the gestalt intelligence of the society. No man is an island. What, you think every single hunter gatherer Ubermensch independently developed their own bow? Every single Athenian Citizen researched the Secrets of Bronze Working? Of course not, the learnt it from their parents and peers.

A better interpretation is that the hunter gatherer societies might possibly for more individual innovation, but more modern societies (that worked at the city state plus level) selected for social cooperation and information sharing.

# ¿ Nov 13, 2012 14:03

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

InspectorBloor posted:

You might find http://www.atarn.org/ interesting (warning! Bowporn). Guys like Adam Karpowicz built quite a number of bows based on archeological finds. Some of them had quite excessive drawweights of +120#. Lower drawweigths were usually attributed to bows used from horseback.

The chinese used masses of crossbows against horse archers with variing success. There are numerous advantages versus mounted archers. First, training a crossbowman takes, much like learning to shoot a firearm, just a few weeks, while the art of horse archery is quite a complicated thing to learn that takes years of practice, plus the training to be able to shoot a bow with +80# with accuracy for a prolonged period of time without wrecking your shoulders. Second, there is a limit to the drawweight of what can be used from horseback in a meaningful way and with that, armorpiercing capabilities and accuracy. It's no secret what crossbows can do, and the models without windlasses could be fired quite rapidly. Historical chinese texts speak of a maximum of 90 pounds in their training regimen for mounted archers. Modern enthusiasts find this cap at around 60#. Third, man and horse make a pretty big target, it is said that horsearchers would dismount and shoot in the sitting position when confronted with masses of bows.

Horsearchers were still in use in the 19th century, the ottoman empire still had bowyers in Instanbul supply for their crimean tartar forces.

Horsearchers alone would not win a war so easily (combined with heavy cavalry it was a gamechanger as you know), but they'd ruin everyone's day pillaging, looting, killing farmers or driving them off as slaves. It's a reoccuring theme that it was cheaper to buy these fuckers off than to build an army to fight them, since as long as they remained nomads, all you could do is drive them off for now. Or you could buy their neighbours to fight them.

Maybe clicking the link above will infect some of you with the virus called "I want to build a hornbow". It sure did that for me.

Hmmm, I guess that makes more sense than horse archers being some kind of overwhelming force of war that it usually gets treated with on this board (and by me sometimes). Horse archers are expensive. And while they're good at raiding, in order to work effectively in pitched battles, you need good leadership and coordination.

Also, since the conversation has moved towards crossbows, just where did the killing power of Chu-ko-nus come from? The darts they shot weren't that large, and don't even look like they'd pierce leather. I guess they're good for laying covering fire.

I've also heard that they were tipped with a deadly paralytic poison. If so, what were the details, where did it come from, and if this kind of potent poison was so cheap, why wasn't it used more often in warfare?

# ¿ Nov 13, 2012 21:41

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

What were the population sizes like back in the Bronze age, and how much food surplus could the subsistence agriculture produce?

# ¿ Nov 16, 2012 03:02

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

BoutrosBoutros posted:

Subsistence agriculture by definition produces no surplus at all. It literally means farming just enough to provide for the farmer. I can't answer the question of what the population densities were like, but there were proper cities with large populations in any case. These civilizations were capable of producing a sizeable surplus.

Ah, thanks. I guess my definition was wrong, I looked it up, subsistence agriculture tends to be non specialised and hence lacks economies of scale. More intensive agriculture techniques call for specialisation and trade with people who can fill out more of their needs.

Still, as a food surplus per farmer, it can't be awfully high.

Phobophilia fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Nov 18, 2012

# ¿ Nov 18, 2012 00:32

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

WoodrowSkillson posted:

Not a historian, but the general pattern of casualties was that they were surprisingly low during the initial portions of a battle, with the worst ratios being when one side gets cornered or routs and is chased down. During the actual fighting at the front, people were primarily making sure they did not die, and opportunistically killing or wounding their opponents. It's when other dudes come in from the sides, or you are running away while cavalry chases you that things get horrific. The oter time being when one side is totally outmatched, which the Romans were on the winning side of for the majority of the empire's reign.

I think this is a surprise to generations that have been raised on video games, where you can casually order units to fight to the last man, and there are no mechanics for surrender. Really, a commander can order someone to fight, and they'll mostly do it, but they're also trying to keep themselves alive even if it jeopardises the mission of "killing as many dudes as possible".

# ¿ Jan 17, 2013 03:23

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

Duels are ritualised warfare.

Things they are good at:
(a) resolving disputes where the stakes are low enough such that any outcome satisfies both parties.
(b) demonstrating who amongst us are hot poo poo.

Things they are not good at:
(a) resolving high-stakes disputes, such as which italian city state gets to own all the trade routes
(b) scenarios where the rules are fluid and all the players are acting on the principle of "anything goes"

# ¿ Feb 6, 2013 13:45

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

Okay now I'm surprised I've never heard that used as Conclusive Evidence for the Existence of Judeo-Christian God.

# ¿ Feb 18, 2013 08:34

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

In that case, what was the power base and economy of these Germanic tribes? Semi-nomadic villages? How could you even resist any conflict without organisation?

# ¿ Mar 1, 2013 02:22

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

Well, if we're going by that definition, Judaism started out like that as well, where this particular tribe worshipped one particular god out of the entire pantheon of the local semetic tribes. It's just that this monolatry gradually evolved into full blown monotheism where the fellow members of its pantheon were derised to become unholy demons and the former subsumed all functions of the latter.

The reason why it won out in the end was probably sheer bloody-mindedness and an obsession with using the written word to define their own narrative of history.

# ¿ Mar 4, 2013 23:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Jun 2, 2024 03:19

Phobophilia: Apr 26, 2008; by Hand Knit

Zeus has spoken. Any dissenters?

# ¿ Mar 15, 2013 23:55

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

«‹›7 »