|
Modus Operandi posted:Homosexuality wasn't especially prevalent in just Greeks though. People focus on Greeks and homosexuality because it's depicted a lot in art and literature. Yep, the thing is that the concepts of homo- and heterosexuality didn't even exist until the 18th century. Romans (well, mostly the men) could screw whoever they please, that was no problem, although a depraved sex life was still frowned upon, the roman ideal being the stoic men keeping his pulsions to himself. For the record, the church allowed homosexuality for a long time too, but homosexual sex was a sin (since you didn't procreate...). It's always interesting to see how close and yet so far the Romans and the Greeks were to us, culturally speaking  Amused to Death posted:Why? Because all glory to Rome, SPQR and all that jazz. For one thing, it's geographical, as far as most of the west is concern the Roman empire ended in 476 AD because we're western European-centric, if we lived in Greece we'd probably be educated on how the Byzantine empire was in fact a continuation of Rome and in many ways helped save some of the best parts of western civilization. However Byzantium in its heydays(I'd say there were two, the early era up through Justinian, and that around the Macedonian and Komnenian dyanasties starting in the 9th century) still couldn't even come remotely close to comparing to the awesome power that was Rome despite basically being one of the richest states in the world during many periods. The era from the later Republic up to the crisis of the third century is probably one of the most impressive bouts of history ever. Rome was a state that I would say was just ahead of its time. Their political and legal systems were not only advanced for their time, but so advanced they laid the foundation for our current systems. Their engineering feats were spectacular in size and scale, and this in itself is huge for the fact it makes Rome impossible to ignore. Even if its hundreds of years after the fall of the western empire and you're living in feudal Europe and you've basically never read anything beyond the bible(assuming you're one of the few who knows how to read), Rome is still all around you. These giant crumbling monuments, roads, fortifications, amphitheaters, bathhouses, hippodromes, ect, basically even in the dark ages, if you lived in western Europe, you could not forget Rome, the massive monuments of its peak served as a constant intriguing reminder, and probably a sad reminder at that, people in the dark ages weren't sure what happened, but they were aware life had not always been as it currently it was. It's a powerful reminder that was carried down through the enlightenment, and at that point people once again began to focus on everything that was good about Rome during its peak. I'd like to nuance a bit your statement about the "dark ages" (which is also a modern concept that appeared during the enlightenment). Roman achievements are undeniable, but there was no such thing as a dark age during which everything they did was forgotten. The western empire was not as developed (well, except Italy) as the eastern empire, where highly developed civilizations already existed before and where the big urban centers lay; it was mostly rural (all the big European cities were essentially small roman towns), and most infrastructure was built or built upon by the Romans. The fall of this Western Roman Empire was a gradual process, not one big invasion that ended all; Germanic tribes were migrating massively into the Empire, driven by other steppe tribes like the Huns. There were several waves of migration, leading to tensions between the locals and the "immigrants" (which by the way often served in the Roman Army) and civil unrest (you could say riots and mutiny). The western emperor often gave the barbarians wide stretches of land in order to reduce tensions, but as more and more of them were coming, and the emperor holding less and less power, these vassal kingdoms to Rome became more and more independent. The sack of Rome was more of a final act that showed Rome was not as powerful as it once was. Now, the newly established barbarian rulers adopted roman (and local) culture and faith as you said, so the western roman empire lived on through its influence. People knew their ancestors were roman. There was a decline in wealth and overall human development that resulted from those migration waves, civil unrests and the "balkanization" of the Empire. Small states can't afford to build and/or maintain huge projects the way a bigger empire could. Also, all the big intellectual centers (except Rome) have always been in the eastern part of the empire; philosophy and science remained Greek, the Romans were a lot more down-to-earth and pragmatic. With the separation between the two parts of the Empire, ideas didn't spread to the west as much as they did anymore. However, that decline only lasted about three centuries, and starting in the 9th century, there was a first so-called Carolingian Renaissance, thanks notably to Charlemagne, during which culture flourished again, and new innovations (three-field rotation, minuscules, etc.) were made. Roman culture and christian faith (both went hand in hand since Justinian the Great) expanded into Scandinavia and eastern Europe, and the Arabic Empire discovered, built upon and improved Roman and Greek innovations. The Carolingian Renaissance spurred population growth and city development throughout what once was the Western Roman Empire; universities where founded, architecture advanced (for example Gothic cathedrals), and new inventions were made (wind mills, clocks, printing (though not movable type), better ships) or adopted from other countries (paper, gunpowder, the astrolabe, arabic numerals, the compass). So you see, the western roman empire didn't end in 476. It was transformed from the ground up, but it remained there "in spirit", along with the eastern empire. The Holy Roman Empire isn't just Roman for propaganda (okay, maybe a little), but because it's foundation was the Roman Empire. Chikimiki fucked around with this message at 19:15 on May 24, 2012 |
#
¿
May 24, 2012 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
Modus Operandi posted:I figure that most homosexual relationships also had a power component to it too. A Roman man in a position of power could screw whoever they want but engaging in a real gay relationship (with emotions and feelings) with a peer or someone closer to your rank dilutes your perceived power. This is the same reason why being the younger submissive gay man of high rank in a relationship with someone older of lower rank was considered contemptible. It's a form of submission. The real insult in calling Julius Caeser the lover of the King Bythnia was basically saying he submitted to an older man not so much that he may have been bisexual. Praetorians and the like were disgusted by the behavior of Elgabulus because the Roman emperor was never supposed to submit like that to anyone. Exactly. And it was also a sign of weakness for the ruler to indulge in his desires. When Caesar's troops joked that he was every woman's man, it was also very mocking, since this meant he couldn't help but screw any women that offered herself to him.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:The whole thing from The Twelve Caesars since I actually have the book in arms reach Don't forget that this was likely a myth spread by Caesar's political enemies  He really was known for being a "womanizer."The chanting comes from the tradition that home-coming legionaries would mock their general, to blow of some steam 
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
Golden_Zucchini posted:What I'm getting from this is that saying Rome ended with the deposition of Romulus Augustus makes about as much sense as saying that France ended with the execution of Louis XVI. Sure, the system of government and who was running it changed, but the essence of the state and culture were still there. I might be going on a stretch here but in a sense, south-western European countries (Spain, southern France, Italy) are still very, well, latin: imagine reading Grand Fromage's posts in Naples, you'd notice a lot of similarities, in society, daily life, cuisine, etc. Things like the Roman Empire don't disappear from one day to another, they leave profound traces that are carried on by all the people that were involved. It's the same way today: would the western world go through a big crisis and the US be carved up into several smaller states, the people and the culture would remain, as would the influences around the world.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2012 10:47
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:was roman metallurgy advanced enough to have made a steam engine? They actually built one (well, the Greek under Roman rule) called Aeolipile or Hero's engine, but it was mainly seen as a toy rather than something useful. Roman metallurgy was advanced enough to build even a bigger one I guess, but why build a huge, expensive and failure-prone machine when you have hundreds of cheap slaves? Plus, the workings of it weren't yet understood and the scientific method wouldn't be around until the enlightenment, it was mainly trial and error for engineering back then.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2012 19:48
|
|
|
Mescal posted:You've talked about Rome and its influence on the modern world. What about Italy specifically? A lot of things, to be honest it would be shorter to list what isn't influenced by Rome in Italy  First thing is the language, obviously. Italian (and its dialects) is a latin language, it has lost stuff like declination, but a lot of words still remain very similar. There are also all the monuments (roads, aqueducts, etc.), used for centuries and even to the present day, like the Via Appia. An artistic and an engineering tradition that would be rediscovered during the Renaissance and later too. A common History that would help to unify the country. The catholic faith. A culinary culture, as Romans were as food-obsessed as modern Italians. The importance of family (don't quote me on this one though). And if you want to be cynic, clientelism and machoism too. quote:As for tactics, it's quite the opposite. Roman training and coordination allowed legions to handily defeat forces many times larger than them. Legions would beat literally any force they came across with the sole exception of horse archers, which were a bit of a doomsday weapon until gunpowder. Even then, Romans beat the crap out of Parthia, their biggest horse archer threat, numerous times. But they got annihilated a fair few as well. Speaking of which, how important were cataphracts for the Roman army? As the pragmatic bunch the Romans were, I guess they would have quickly adopted heavy cavalry, but why did something like knighthood only evolve centuries later? Chikimiki fucked around with this message at 12:27 on Jun 1, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2012 12:18
|
|
|
Asterix isn't really historically accurate: Cesar is Roman Emperor, legionaries are wearing the wrong type of armor (lorica segmentata instead of chainmail), Vikings in 50 BC, etc. It is more about making fun of various French and European stereotypes, some Latin based puns, and showing the opposition between the modern (western) state and the traditional (French) countryside, represented by the Roman Empire and the Gallic village: the French love to think of themselves as the Gallic village heroically resisting globalization. That being said, I still absolutely love Asterix comic books (the older ones, before Goscinny died and Uderzo took away all the charm) and can only recommend them to you, especially if you like Roman history. There are even some books in Latin!   Chikimiki fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jun 5, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2012 13:02
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I just find it amazing to look at the distances involved. I mean we're talking about legions marching around that were as far from Rome as Europe is from North America. Sure the troops were mostly Egyptian and African, but the generals and centurions were Italian. Kind of related, I heard that through all the marching with heavy backpacks and other physical activities the roman legions did, they were physically par with a modern day athletes; so basically, the average roman citizen (hence citizen, not the "lower" classes) was as fit as a professional football player. Is there some truth to this? Chikimiki fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Jun 22, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2012 10:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
MeinPanzer posted:Yes, they did. There is a good argument to be made for the projection of Roman power past traditional Roman borders (which were often rather porous anyways, such as Hadrian's Wall) through trade and the demand for Roman goods. A good example at random is that many swords thrown into bogs as dedications in Denmark during the first centuries AD are Roman in origin; this extended to all sorts of other objects, however, ranging from wine vessels to jewelry and horse equipment. Exactly, and all the border fortifications (Limes, Hadrian's Wall) are more about "border customs" than retaining invasions.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 10:05
|
|