Roman/ancient history: Checkmate, Atenists

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

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Why was the Varangian Guard not as abused as the Praetorian Guard was?

I slightly assume this is because the Byzantine Empire had a succession method (Monarchy) versus the Roman Empire's Republican Elections?

Two followup questions:

What happened to the German bodyguard of the Roman Emperor's? I remember there were multiple different guards, all from outside of Italy - except the Praetorian Guard, and my next question is why were non-Italian Romans so trusted?

I just can't wrap my head around this idea that Germans would be better bodyguards than the plebeian Romans because they had no where to go in society (social mobility).

# ¿ May 27, 2012 18:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:14

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Amused to Death posted:

The Byzantines despite being a monarchy oddly never had any set in legal stone succession method either. Heirs could be named but no one was getting far without the support of the military and the patriarch of Constantinople.

I always found the Roman attitude towards slavery to be interesting, especially when compared to backdrop of slavery in the say the 18th and 19th century. I mean no doubt a lot of slaves were in brutal condition, yet at the same time there was appears to be a general respect for slaves, I mean they could actually earn money and purchase their own freedom, and a large part of the Roman civil service was freedmen. There was also legislation to protect slaves, a few mentioned in "Roman Civilization Volume Two: The Empire"

-Vespasian ordered that any woman who was made a prostitute after being sold on the condition she wouldn't be made one would immediately be a free woman of the former seller.

-The Petronian Law in 33BC forbade owners from forcing their slaves to fight in arenas

-Claudius decreed that if an owner neglected the health of their slave and the slave died that the owner should be tried for murder.

-Hadrian forbid owners to kill their slaves in any circumstances saying it was a matter for the courts, outlawed abuse unless it was to get information in a criminal case, and even then only allowed it on slaves who may have had direct witness of a crime and outlawed private prisons for slaves.(Thankfully the US has now seen the folly out the outlawing of private prisons 1,900 years ago)

Heck, everyone from bottom to top was equal for Saturalia when they all wore the same exact goofy hat. Can you imagine a slave owner in say the Confederacy or Brazil becoming equal for a day with his slaves, and heck maybe even serving them dinner, or the government banishing someone for a couple of years for undue cruelty towards their slaves.

There's a line from Seneca in the book where he mentions that once the idea was taken up "to distinguish slaves from freemen by their dress; it then became apparent how great would be the impending danger if our slaves began to count our number.

Perhaps it was a mix of stoicism and the fact Romans didn't hold anyone particular group to a sub level of slavery. Slaves were just anyone who weren't citizens who by capture or birth happened to wind up as slaves.

Where would Romans that were "outlawed" go? Specifically around the peak of the Roman Empire.

# ¿ May 27, 2012 18:57

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Amused to Death posted:

I think it generally involved banishment from a certain area, such as Rome itself or Italy, or to a more distant area of the empire, basically just far away from Rome. Don't quote me on that though.

Alright that makes far more sense. I was under the opinion it banished them from the Empire altogether for their sentence. I couldn't figure out where they'd go if this were the case - Germany and upper? Britain would be hostile to them, so maybe the East / Africa. Or for that matter how they would even keep track.

Iseeyouseemeseeyou fucked around with this message at 19:15 on May 27, 2012

# ¿ May 27, 2012 19:12

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

euphronius posted:

You could go to Parthia.

I thought they conquered Parthia?

# ¿ May 27, 2012 19:24

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

I asked this a few months ago in the Military History thread, but figured yall might be able to answer it better. Following the (second) Dacian War,

How did the Roman Economy deal with having 1x its GDP in gold and (idk how many times) it's GDP in silver added to it?

If it wasn't put into the economy, what exactly did the Romans do with it? I assume some the troops took as loot and the powerful families took a share.

This is based off of the amount of gold and silver they took from Dacia once it was conquered (165,500 kg of gold and 331,000 kg of silver).

# ¿ May 27, 2012 20:20

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

nothing to seehere posted:

Just wondering, why was there so much gold and silver in Dacia? Not exactly a rich place, I would think.

Tons of Gold & Silver Mines. I think it had 2x as many as the entirety of Italy alone. Also, after the First Dacian War the Romans had Dacia as a "Client State" or something along those lines and gave them money, etc. The Gold Mines alone contributed 700 Million Denari per year (GDP of around 10 billion) to Roman Empire after the second war (according to Wikia).

# ¿ May 27, 2012 20:36

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Farecoal posted:

Wait, what? I must not be as educated as I thought I was about Rome, I thought the position of emperor just passed down from father to son?

Republic.. Elections.. :p sons rarely followed their fathers if I'm remembering right.

e: I'm talking about Biological Sons.

Iseeyouseemeseeyou fucked around with this message at 01:19 on May 28, 2012

# ¿ May 28, 2012 01:10

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

TildeATH posted:

I think everyone should read Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. It's a beautiful story and as much about the British Empire as it was about the Roman.

Which reminds me--Gibbon, I believe, tells a story of one of the Four Emperors camped out across the river with his army from the army of another of the Four. Gibbon wrote that a dozen or so men crossed the river and routed the opposing army of 60-100,000 men. It's been over a decade since I read Gibbon, so I'm probably screwing this story up in all sorts of ways, but does any of this have any basis in fact?

Wait what? Need more info please on how a dozen guys routed an army.

# ¿ May 28, 2012 16:50

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

TildeATH posted:

Bit of a stretch to think of Ethiopia and Mali as tribes eking out their existence.

Not to derail, but what were Ethiopia & Mali like during Roman times? Did the Romans trade with them?

# ¿ May 28, 2012 22:21

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Grand Fromage posted:

Roman agriculture was never much above subsistence level. In the early and mid republic, it was largely the domain of family farmers on small plots, worked by the family and their slaves. More and more slaves entered the empire over time, the prices went down, so everyone used them. Slaves were so cheap that we have numerous records of slaves who owned slaves of their own.

Gradually what began to happen was the wealthy landowners bought up more and more plots, consolidating the agricultural land into giant plantation estates worked by armies of slaves. Small farmers were pushed further and further into the provinces, or had to go into the cities to live. It becomes a massive problem and land reform/redistribution is a huge political issue. The Gracchi brothers begin addressing it in 133 BCE and get assassinated for their efforts, and this traditionally kicks off a lot of the civil strife that fills the next century, specifically the struggle between the populists and the elites.

Romans didn't benefit from many of the technologies that make modern crop yields so good. They had irrigation and mechanical grain mills. They also had some sort of mechanical grain reaper, we've never found one and the technology disappears but there are pictures of it.

Grapes were by far the most popular fruit to grow, both for eating and for making wine. Olives were the standard cash crop, olive oil is a big seller everywhere on Rome's trade network. The grains were a bit more varied than what we usually eat today. They grew wheat, millet, barley, emmer (very popular at the time but not much now), rice. Asparagus was highly prized, it would be dried for use throughout the year or stored in the snow in the Alps. Cabbage, turnips, and leeks were common. Beans and chickpeas, lentils were considered especially good. Kale, broccoli, cucumbers, artichoke, mushrooms. Any spices they could get their hands on were prized.

A lot of it is similar to the Mediterranean diet of today, since that's what grows in the region.

Most of the food (Wheat, Grains, etc.) was farmed in Egypt right?

# ¿ May 29, 2012 02:47

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

MothraAttack posted:

What's the most widely supported hypothesis as to the intended usage of those strange metal spheres the Romans produced periodically?

Link please?

# ¿ May 29, 2012 04:24

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

DarkCrawler posted:

Also, can someone tell me how the heck did Romans keep putting armies in the field time after time Hannibal wiped them out? It seemed to me that Hannibal's army was a single one that Carthage wielded in his campaigns while Romans lost what, 100,000 men alltogether and yet were able to invade and completely destroy Carthage not that long afterwards.

Also, was the Hannibal the only person badass enough to make Romans need to resort into guerilla warfare? Does anyone else come even close to his boogeyman status in the minds of Romans?

I'm under the impression that all military's rarely utilize more than 23-3% of the able male population. If that's at all true with the Romans, then they would have plenty more fighters, but it would be at the expense of the crops, etc.

# ¿ May 29, 2012 18:15

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

feedmegin posted:

Ever wonder why your upper house is called the Senate, or why you have eagles all over your poo poo?

Because

# ¿ May 30, 2012 21:59

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

When did Greek become the dominant language of the Eastern-part of the Empire (Byzantium)? Pre or Post Collapse of the 'Empire'?

# ¿ May 30, 2012 23:51

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

How did the Byzantine Imperial Dynasties popup? I've read that most were families from small villages in Greece / Anatolia, which to me implies peasants.

# ¿ May 31, 2012 17:13

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Do yall think we would be more or less advanced (technologically, intellectually, society, etc.) today if the Roman Empire had not fallen?

# ¿ May 31, 2012 21:10

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Fintilgin posted:

I think that's one of those things that's totally impossible to tell. It's fun to fantasize about a Roman walking on the moon in 1000 A.D. (1753 A.U.C. ), but I imagine it's just as likely large, stable, lasting Rome would have turned inward much like China, and Eurasia would be bracketed on either end by big, technologically conservative empires that both thought they were the perfect center of the universe.

Alright, I had just assumed it wouldn't have progressed all that far due to reliance on slavery (And thus as was mentioned, less likelihood / reason to industrialize).

# ¿ May 31, 2012 22:37

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

UberJew posted:

Roman metallurgy wasn't even remotely close to advanced enough to mass produce track and rolling stock, nor were their manual slave-operated mines up to the task of producing enough raw material.

One mile of railroad in the 19th century took an estimated 150 tons of iron and the entire iron production of the Empire is only estimated to have been about 84,750 tons, enough for 565 miles of track if every scrap was used for absolutely nothing but railroad.

Yearly or total Iron Production?

Why did they produce so little iron? From what I remember, they mined vastly more Silver / Gold than Iron.

# ¿ May 31, 2012 23:26

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Grand Fromage posted:

Iberia is greatly overlooked. The typical narrative will just at some point say "Oh and Iberia is Roman now" and that's about it.

My personal theory is the initial conquests in Iberia are of the Carthaginian areas, so it gets sort of sidetracked by the Punic War. Then after the full conquest of Iberia, there's not much fighting there again ever. Iberia also goes full bore Roman very fast and becomes the most Roman area outside of Italy, like the initial cultures just vanish entirely and it's Roman as gently caress. It's not a coincidence that the first non-Italian emperors come from Spain. After the west breaks apart, Iberia remains the most Roman of the successor states and stays Roman the longest. Basically until the Islamic conquest finishes rolling across the peninsula.

Iberia never has the drama of other regions, so I think that's why it doesn't get a lot of attention.

Will get to this after class.

No new posts, woo. Okay. First, yes, the Romans respected their adversaries. You can see this in the artwork, the most famous example is this guy, which is actually a Hellenistic sculpture but was hugely popular in Rome:

This is not a triumphant image. It's designed to create sympathy for the Gaul, make him relatable as a person, not just some barbarian. Look at the pain on his face.

The Romans recognized the contributions of outsiders and they definitely weren't stupid about the abilities of their enemies. Frankly, they were terrified of Gauls ever since the Gallic sack of Rome in 387 BCE.

I would suggest looking at Trajan's Column and how the enemies are depicted there, then look at Marcus Aurelius' column. It's way more sympathetic to the defeated foes, and really kind of makes the Romans look brutal in a way Trajan's does not. It's hard for me to describe it any better than you'll see by looking over those columns carefully. Plus they kick rear end.

Roman writers like Tacitus also do frequently talk about how much more noble the barbarians are and what the gently caress happened to Romans.

As for the fall of Rome and Germans grinding expansion to a halt, read back a bit. Neither of those is true.

I don't believe the Viking culture existed in the classical period, nor was there really anything up there worth trading for, so no. If they did it wasn't notable enough to mention them as a separate group of people, they'd probably just fall within the generic German label.

That collar around his neck - that is to symbolize a slave collar right?

# ¿ Jun 1, 2012 08:33

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Eggplant Wizard posted:

Cato the Censor removed someone from the rolls of the equites for being too fat to stay on his horse, however (170's BC).

Ah, the original goon :rimshot:

quote:

Why was it challenging?: Because to be in the Senate you needed to own land that generated 1 million sesterces a year, which was typically about 500 iugera of land. You & your immediate family also could not be engaged in trade, where trade was roughly defined as mercantile activity. So as a senator, income is limited to the following: selling proceeds of the land you own (crops, ore, timber), rents, war spoils, inheritance, gifts and bribes. Now, ok you say, surely they started rich and inherited lots of land and money.

I thought the legion commanders were always senators and the non-legion senators were also governors of the Senatorial Provinces to keep them extravagantly wealthy.

Iseeyouseemeseeyou fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Jun 1, 2012

# ¿ Jun 1, 2012 17:17

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Grand Fromage posted:

I know gently caress all about the late army so I could be wrong. I'm reading a book about the era now but there hasn't been much discussion of the military yet.

In the period I know well, the heavy infantry were the vast majority of any Roman army.

Byzantines used Cataphracts quite often if I'm remembering correctly.

# ¿ Jun 1, 2012 18:29

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

WoodrowSkillson posted:

They were the territory of various tribes of Gallic peoples, with the Helvetii being the most famous as they were the ones Caesar used to start his Gallic wars.

We only know what the legends and archaeological digs tell us about pre-republican Rome. Northern to mid Italy from like 1000-600BC consisted of the Etruscans in the north and Latins in the middle. (I'm generalizing of course there are other peoples too) Rome was founded by Latins but there was massive amount of Etruscan influence, and it is theorized that the Kings of Rome were of Etruscan origin. If you want the legends, just search google for the seven kings of Rome (in reality there were almost certainly way more then 7).

The reason we have so little information is because of the Gallic sack of Rome in 387BC, all the records were burned/lost and we only have the legends Romans told their children to fill in the gaps now. There is some awesome stuff in there and it probably generally tells the real story, but no, the dudes who sacked Rome were not miraculously wiped out as they left by the Roman reinforcements arriving just in time.

I thought the Etruscans inhabited the lower part of the "boot" of mainland Italy? If they didn't, who did?

Grand: How is it determined that the glassware came from Roman? I assume the way they were made / look?

# ¿ Jun 2, 2012 07:15

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Who lived in the Crimea / Rus around 2nd-4th century CE? And did the Romans have any contact with them?

Iseeyouseemeseeyou fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Jun 3, 2012

# ¿ Jun 3, 2012 18:23

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Grand Fromage posted:

I believe the Greeks did have a writing system for music and that's where we get it from, but this is outside my area of knowledge and into "I think I heard this once" territory.

Music definitely would've changed over time. I suspect with the more limited range of instruments and the relative lack of communication it wouldn't evolve anywhere near as quickly as it does now.

Crimea was mostly inhabited by Greeks who were client kingdoms of Rome. Further inland you get steppe nomads like the Scythians and Sarmatians. Romans knew about them but neither side had any real interest in the other. Mostly they were a nuisance to the Romans.

Later the Huns came through that area.

Sarmatians! Is it true at all (I doubt it) that Rome used Sarmatians in Britain? (I.e. King Arthur movie, reason why I doubt it).

# ¿ Jun 3, 2012 23:42

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Thanks for getting to that!

# ¿ Jun 4, 2012 05:45

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Eggplant Wizard posted:

Re: Sarmatians. Checked a book. Tacitus mentions them in Britain, and Marcus Aurelius seems to have sent some (5500 according to this book) "later in his reign" and there is epigraphic evidence of them from later than that.

Cool thanks! 5500 seems like a rather large number though, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that be 11 auxiliaries of them?

Also, how did Romans deal with Inheritance and Legitimacy?

By Inheritance I mean - who would inherit the lands, gold, leader of the house/family, etc. and by Legitimacy I mean does it matter at all who the mother was? Were Bastards lower on the social ladder than their legitimate siblings (in equite/patrician families), etc?

# ¿ Jun 5, 2012 02:50

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

So did the helmets really scratch / leave marks/indentations under the chin of the wearer?

# ¿ Jun 6, 2012 00:40

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

WoodrowSkillson posted:

The most interesting part of the pilum was it's soft iron neck. The reason it is so thin in this picture is because that way the shaft would bend if it hit anything besides a soft body. This would then render a shield useless or at least extremely cumbersome as you now have a 7 foot spear stuck in your shield. It also prevented them from being throw back at the legions. Each legionary was given two of them, one weighted and the other not, the idea behind weighting them was to add more penetrating power and to facilitate bending the iron shaft.

After Marius, yes, red was a relatively cheap color to make since it came from Madder, a common plant in Europe and he Mediterranean. Crimson, Indigo, Saffron Yellow and especially purple were far more expensive. Purple was so expensive only the emperors could afford to wear it, and it is associated with royalty in other cultures as well for that reason.

Soldiers after Marius were supplied by the state since he did away with the money and property requirements to join the legions. The soldiers were given at least one tunic, possibly two, as well as their armor, boots/sandals, weapons and other equipment. The soldiers could buy additional stuff, and there is evidence of them buying things like armor for armor for their arms and such.

What did the dyes represent? I've always seen / understood red as the Armies, but heard that the Navy used Blue for it's soldiers.

# ¿ Jun 6, 2012 05:56

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

How did Rome fair having 4 Emperors in the later empire?

# ¿ Jun 7, 2012 22:57

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Were Gladiators allowed to have personal possessions?

# ¿ Jun 8, 2012 09:16

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Are there any (known) instances of Gladiator's being wealthier than their owners?

# ¿ Jun 9, 2012 11:56

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Alan Smithee posted:

And a word on animals. What were the logistics involved for bringing in exotic animals from far away places?

I would assume a very strong iron cage in the belly of a ship.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2012 12:49

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

physeter posted:

Conscripted. If they didn't have gear, they could buy from the state. If they didn't have cash, the cost would be deducted from the stipend they would otherwise be receiving from being on campaign.

On slavery, I think it helps to understand that the Roman concept of slavery extended from old school concepts of apprenticeships all the way through indentured servitude, and down to short lives of extreme brutality (mines, quarries & latifundiae). Mere chattel was just the low end. A bunch of low end slaves thrown into the arena to die was like a demolition derby, not something you'd want to drive your Ferrari into. A highly trained gladiator was like the Ferrari.

In re Roman noblemen, in modern media we almost always use British accents to distinguish the Roman social classes. The only hitch with that is to most English speakers, upper class Brit speak sounds fairly effete. It's something of a disservice to the Roman upper class, who were pretty far from that.

If you could choose any Accents (Speaking English) to portray Roman Nobles, which would you pick?

# ¿ Jun 9, 2012 23:32

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Grand Fromage posted:

Yep, everybody forgets about them because it's eastern Europe but it's the closest language to classical Latin. Trajan conquered Dacia so hard that it's still called Romania to this day.

I thought it was because they settled far more legionairres and Romans there than most regions to prevent an uprising and to keep the gold a flowin?

# ¿ Jun 10, 2012 23:40

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Farecoal posted:

What was the most important/influential part of the empire other than Italy? And what was generally the second biggest city in the empire?

Going off of this, why did the Romans treat Capua like Carthage when it joined with Carthage in the 2nd Punic War? I can understand them destroying Carthage, but Capua is in Italy, not very far from Rome, etc.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2012 02:27

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Girafro posted:

Hey Grand Fromage, can you tell me about the Roman campaign against ancient Greece? Specifically how they brought Epirus to tow and what kinds of military tactics they used to seize all the city states. How did they manage to pull it off when Greece had already demonstrated they could hold back the Persians? Were the Romans so much stronger than the Persians or was Greece just in a state of disarray?

tl;dr How did Rome manage to conquer Greece when the Greeks managed to repel the Persians?

Greece vs. Persia: Phalanx vs. Mob
Rome vs. Greece: Legions vs. Phalanx

I guess this had something to do with it?

Fromage could you comment on this as well, if there's a different answer?

# ¿ Jun 11, 2012 23:49

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

So how did Octavian ever reward Agrippa?

# ¿ Jun 12, 2012 21:17

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

During Trajan's time, how were legionnaire's compensated? Was it all cash or did they still receive land (obviously in the conquered provinces and no longer Italy)?

Also, how did the legates and other higher ups get compensated besides cash? Obviously titles, etc.?

# ¿ Jun 13, 2012 00:50

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Grand Fromage posted:

Nothing. Byzantine Empire is a name invented by later historians, it has no real value. The culture does change significantly but it's a state that lasts 2,200 years, so of course it changes. It changed a lot in the classical Roman period too.

Not that I'm aware of. Other than the Illuminati.

There was also a massive taboo about bringing armed men into the sacred boundary of Rome. The first taboo, you could say--Romulus kills Remus over it in the legend. The Romans were highly superstitious so this mattered a lot, but fortunately for Caesar, the taboo had already been broken by Marius and Sulla. But yeah, the Rubicon was the boundary of the province and Caesar had no authority to cross it with an army. And since the senate was busy outlawing him and trying to get him out of Gaul it was pretty clear what he was up to.

It just happens with some of the names, I don't know why. Pompey's another prominent example, the actual name is Pompeius. I don't think it's Shakespeare's fault but it might be. Shakespeare!

Nobody knows. One of history's mysteries.

Cash and loot was always good. Slaves, for yourself or to sell. Retired legionnaires still got land grants, that didn't change. The retirement benefits were very good, it was how they recruited a lot of people. If you were a non-citizen provincial, you could join the legion and serve for 25 years. Upon your retirement you were granted a plot of land, a large discharge bonus, a pension (unclear whether you got land and a pension or could choose), and you and your family received Roman citizenship.

Legates got titles and advancement in rank, along with the piles of loot.

I thought non-citizens could only serve in the Auxiliaries?

# ¿ Jun 13, 2012 02:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:14

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

FizFashizzle posted:

There's like a billion of them.

Also, the gooniest emperor was almost certainly Claudius. He most likely had aspergers and only survived various purges because everyone thought he was retarded. The only time he could talk was when he was confined to the rules of public discourse. In private conversation he was a stuttering fool.

He got in trouble with his family for publishing a history of the Julio-Claudians which was probably a little too honest.

He got murdered by his wife.

How can he be goony if he had a wife, let alone contact with females? :rimshot:

Did any Emperors try to create a "Pure" line (via incest) and pass down the Emperor ship to their "pure" son?

# ¿ Jun 13, 2012 02:52

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

«‹›4 »