Roman/ancient history: Checkmate, Atenists

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

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Girafro posted:

So what's the deal with the Holy Roman Empire? Considering it was made up of mostly Germanic kingdoms and Rome had become the seat of Catholicism, how did power shift from Italy to the Germans like that? How does Bohemia, Austria, and Burgundy manage to become such huge players in the empire? (I know this is much, much farther on, but I'm curious how the Roman empire effectively moved from being Italian to being predominantly German.)

I really like the quote that the HRE wasn't Holy, Roman nor an Empire.

e: goon above beat me by 15 seconds :commissar:

# ¿ Jun 13, 2012 04:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 09:23

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Didn't some Byzantine Emperor take back Italy?

# ¿ Jun 13, 2012 14:00

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Grand Fromage posted:

Also important to note that Exarchate of Ravenna is the coolest name any state-like entity has ever had.

It also has the weirdest loving boundaries of any state-like entity that I have ever seen.

e: I didn't realize the Byzantines controlled Carthage as well! Did they inherit those from the Western Half or did they conquer those via Justinian?

# ¿ Jun 13, 2012 14:20

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Farecoal posted:

I thought it was a hunting wound?

Wasn't salt extremely valuable in Roman times, and even up until recently?

I thought Romans produced Salt in southern Italy? Giving them easy access to it.

# ¿ Jun 13, 2012 23:16

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Was Alexios Komnenos (Byzantine Emperor) reforms of the Byzantine military similar to the Marius Reforms?

e: I mean not gear / formation wise, but its impact on the Byzantine Military.

# ¿ Jun 14, 2012 00:04

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

What was around the western edge of Africa during the Roman times? Did they have contact / trade with them?

# ¿ Jun 16, 2012 06:25

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

What happened to the Pope when / Roman Catholic Church when the Goths? conquered Rome? Or had the schism not happened yet?

# ¿ Jun 16, 2012 20:12

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

SeaWolf posted:

The enemy commander, Arminius, was more than just familiar with Roman tactics. He was given up as a child from his home where the Cherusci tribe lived east of the Rhine as a 'hostage' in exchange for his people and village to be allowed to continue to exist.

He was sent to Rome and raised as a Roman. The point being that he would eventually return home and help Romanize the people.
He was raised as a soldier and was very adept. He battled as a Roman and learned their tactics. He was very aware that the Roman way of fighting, as a cohesive unit made them an unstoppable force compared to the Germanic way of fighting which was pretty much every man for himself charge in and start swinging.

He was chosen by Varus to be his right hand man, and eventually made his way back home to Germania with the Legions. Arminius appeared as a Roman, but was still very much a German tribesman and was resentful of the way Romans attempted to 'civilize' the people. Roman law, trade, culture went against everything the German tribes believed in and unrest was very much on the rise.

Arminius was able to unite the tribes despite their natural tendencies to never be ruled by another, and made it clear that the only way Germania would be free of Rome was to fight alongside one another, to set aside the infighting and fight as the Romans fight.

And as has been said above, he was able to ambush the Roman Legions while they were marching, unprepared and unsuited to fighting in the dense forest, territory they had never seen before.

Sadly, after the Romans were driven back past to the west bank of the Rhine, the German tribes began to fight again, not wanting to be ruled by another, and Arminius was assassinated.

Didn't the Romans strike back a few years later and devastate the tribes? Also, how large would these tribes be?

# ¿ Jun 18, 2012 00:44

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Interesting! Didn't the Romans also station an absurd number of legions (I think like 6?) in one area along the Border of Germania?

Also, wasn't part of the reason Germanicus went into Germania to retake the standards of the destroyed legions?

# ¿ Jun 18, 2012 01:38

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

TildeATH posted:

See that green, flat, lovely spot to the left of Dacia? What's that, and why didn't the Romans ever annex that?

My understanding is that when the Romans took Dacia, they only kept the valuable areas (mostly the South) and left the North alone. I believe that encompassed the area you're talking about.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2012 03:30

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Does that bottom right part labelled "Pirate" actually mean there were Pirates in that area? Or did Latin / Whatever have another term for Pirate? Would be cool if we took that word directly from Latin and copied it into English / Other languages.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2012 08:16

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

From all I've read about the legions, they consisted of 4500-5500 soldiers on average. Does this include just combat soldiers or did it also include support, such as the baggage train (Did they have baggage trains?), cooks, surgeons, etc.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2012 11:14

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Grand Fromage posted:

I don't know any offhand but I bet someone did. Hindsight is always dangerous with history. To us, conquering Germania seems like an obvious move that might've helped the west survive, but at the time it obviously didn't seem like that enough for anyone to really pursue it.

Keep in mind, the Teutoburg Forest wasn't a conquest expedition. The legions were out on basically bandit patrol and going home, Arminius just served as a scout and led them into the trap he'd set.

3 Legions on bandit patrol? :downsrim:

# ¿ Jun 18, 2012 11:35

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Grand Fromage posted:

When Rome first gets to the east, they encounter the remains of Seleucid Persia, a Greek successor state of Alexander's empire. This is quickly obliterated, and the Romans get to face off against the Parthians. Parthia (later the Sassanids) are Rome's nemesis, the one state Rome can never seem to get rid of. There are numerous wars, which typically go one of two ways. Rome sends in an army that gets annihilated, or the legions run around Parthia burning everything and killing everyone, then withdraw and Parthia comes back later.

Parthia/Sassanid Persia seems to be the one state that is just as stubborn about getting beaten as the Romans, they just don't give up and have the money/resources/military technology to keep going and prevent the Romans from ever gaining a real foothold east of the Tigris.

If they had beaten Parthia and kept it for whatever reason, what do you think would have changed in the middle east?

I think the most prevalent would be easier contact with China / India / Huns.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2012 02:14

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Grand Fromage posted:

A lot would've changed. More money, more trade, more contact with the east, and depending on how things went later Muslim culture might be a whole lot different, having a western/Roman base instead of growing in an area outside of western culture. Hell, they might've been defeated and not even be around now.

It's like the cultural divide that was produced by the Rhine/Danube border. Culture in Germanic Europe would be a lot different if they had been under Roman control.

I thought Islam originated in North Africa, which would have been in Rome?

# ¿ Jun 20, 2012 02:52

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Did your social status shift in society based on your income? I.e. your family starts at the highest tier of society, has some terrible economic crisis and loses all of it's wealth. Is it still at the highest tier, just temporarily poor?

My question is more based around families that had been around for a long time and were well known / respected / wealthy.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2012 08:59

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Octy posted:

I asked this question at the beginning of the thread. I believe the answer was that virtually all the original senatorial families were gone by the end of the 1st century AD, but there were people who claimed descendance from the more famous members even later on.

Well I'm a direct descendant of Julius Caesar, Trajan, August, Octavian, Brutus, Crassus, Africanus and Agrippa.

More seriously though, I assume part of the reason why Patricians started to fade was that they were usually in debt as you said and the massive rise in power / influence of Plebian families?

# ¿ Jun 20, 2012 12:25

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Octy posted:

I think so. Also, lots of senators tended to be killed depending on the emperor. Luck of the draw really.

Caesar killed a ton right? (Julius Caesar). Or was that somebody else? Killed them so he could collect their wealth and fund more wars I believe it was.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2012 13:24

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Grand Fromage posted:

A minor mindblower that I had forgotten about, this bridge in Trier.

That's a Roman bridge. Note the cars driving across it. It's been reinforced and rebuilt, but the foundation is still the original Roman construction.

How did Roman bridge building work (if you know)? I remember reading about some giant rear end bridge they built in Dacia to help them invade.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2012 16:44

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

euphronius posted:

Augustus was a crazy social conservative.

Were there political factions in Rome?

# ¿ Jun 22, 2012 19:50

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Nenonen posted:

There are many ancient temples still in use. Rome's Pantheon is a fine example, it was built at the time of Augustus as temple to all gods but nowadays it serves as a Catholic church and also as tomb of king Vittorio Emanuele II. Hagia Sophia was built as an Orthodox temple after which Turks converted it into a mosque and added minarets; nowadays it's a museum and some of the original mosaics have been restored.

Where did the Ecumenical Patriarch move to after the fall on Constantinople?

# ¿ Jun 23, 2012 21:24

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Hemp Knight posted:

Is the Starz series Spartacus at all accurate in it�s depiction of Roman legionaries (don�t laugh!), particularly as it�s set at an earlier time than that of the Imperial Rome we normally see on screen?

And are Gladiator/HBO Rome series the best screen depictions of the Roman army, or do older films match them for accuracy? I�m thinking mainly of Kubrick�s Spartacus, where there�s a scene near the end where a legion marches up a hill, Spartacus�s army rolls burning logs down the hill at them, and they all panic trying to get out of the way. My history teacher said that it was completely inaccurate, was he right?

I thought the Spartacus Legionairres wore Lorica Segmentata and the date was set in ~100 BC? Which would be historically incorrect.

e: I remember reading somewhere about a ton of historical mistakes in the series. But whatever, the show kicks rear end regardless :black101:

Iseeyouseemeseeyou fucked around with this message at 10:43 on Jun 25, 2012

# ¿ Jun 25, 2012 10:40

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

I'm assuming Exile would be to the Romans what Jail Time is to us today? In terms of punishment.

# ¿ Jun 25, 2012 22:50

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

How did the Crusaders get away with sacking Constantinople? Did the Pope excommunicate them?

# ¿ Jun 27, 2012 01:13

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

FizFashizzle posted:

Soldiers never go hungry.

I thought Alexios gave them permission to forage?

# ¿ Jun 27, 2012 01:23

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

FizFashizzle posted:

Big Cheese, what's your favorite bad movie about Rome?

If your answer isn't "The Last Legion," go watch it.

Last Legion. Holy poo poo. That is by far one of the worst movies I have ever seen; however it got funding is beyond me.

# ¿ Jun 27, 2012 02:46

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Alan Smithee posted:

How's The Eagle? I don't know if it's worth a watch as I don't care for 90+ minutes of the loaf of white bread that is Channing Tatum

The first ~20 Minutes of pure-Roman stuff is awesome. Then it degrades into the mystical quest for the holy ~~grail~~ 13th Legion Standard.

# ¿ Jun 27, 2012 04:40

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

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.

# ¿ Jun 27, 2012 15:17

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

What did Romans do for "Fun"? I know they'd go to Gladiator fights, but what else?

Did they have theatres, games, etc?

Iseeyouseemeseeyou fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Jun 29, 2012

# ¿ Jun 29, 2012 16:10

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Under Roman rule, how comparable were Greeks vs. Latins (Italians)

# ¿ Jul 1, 2012 13:17

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

DarkCrawler posted:

Julio-Claudians died when Nero offed himself. Galigula's murders had been so massive that only Claudius and Nero pretty much survived, Claudius because nobody thought he was a threat (he wasn't) and Nero because he was a kid.

The sons of Cleopatra and Antony, Alexander Helios and Ptolemy Philadelphus both died young and childless. Cleopatra Selene married a king of Numidia and had some kids, but their kids and their kids are not very well documented after a few generations. Might be someone around who is their great-greatx100-grandchild but there is no way to know for sure.

The only ancestors would be black :suspense:

How did the Romans view skin color? Did it matter to them? I know they would have had blacks from Numidia, Ethipoia?, Mali? and asians. I just find it odd we never really see any examples of prominent non-whites in the Empire.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2012 18:51

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

euphronius posted:

Numidians weren't "black" as it is understood today. Most likely.

I remember references describing the Numidian King that helped Hannibal as dark ebony or something.

Iseeyouseemeseeyou fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Jul 3, 2012

# ¿ Jul 3, 2012 19:26

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

euphronius posted:

You mean ebony?

whoops, yes.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2012 19:58

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Fornadan posted:

Like any other 250 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...))

How dare you suggest the romans didn't originate from Remus and Romulus being raised by a wolf giving them her milk! That's how's it goes right?

Also, Grand, do you watch Spartacus? If so what are you impressions of the arena we see on it?

# ¿ Jul 8, 2012 18:43

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Kaal posted:

To expand on this a bit, the Roman use of metal is only small when compared to the modern-day where the world produces 2.4 billion tons per year. They used it far, far more than any contemporaneous society. The conservative estimates were that Romans produced 82,500 tons per year, compared to 5,000 tons from China (their nearest competitor).

The biggest reason that the Romans didn't use metal more is because the techniques for making cast iron hadn't be disseminated yet. There was a handful of Chinese craftsmen who had been doing it on a small scale since 500 BC, but it took until the 14th century for those techniques to spread to Europe. Producing wrought iron is a much more labor-intensive process than casting, and cast iron is a more broadly useful metal in any case. And even then it took until the 18th century for coal-fueled blast furnaces to be invented, which was really when iron and steel production became truly affordable. Still the Romans were headed in that direction with their waterwheel-driven furnaces, coal mining and general engineering aptitude. If they had heard about the Chinese casting method I'm sure they would have figured out the technique. Since affordable iron production was the essential cause of the Industrial Revolution, there's a good chance they could have launched it 2,000 years early had they simply been aware of the process. Given their love of civil wars though, it probably would have most just led to some truly horrible fighting.

Since Rome did business with the far east, is there any main reason why the techniques didn't reach Rome?

# ¿ Jul 8, 2012 22:37

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Nenonen posted:

One thing to consider with all ancient cultures: we only know bits and pieces of what they did with metal compared to what they did with stone and clay. Gold, silver, copper, bronze or iron can always be recycled, so for something to survive to our day it would have to have been

a) lost

b) held such historical or artistic value that people would not have melted the objects to just take the gold or silver.

And we know from the Spanish conquest of South America how likely b is.

Actually: do we have any metal objects that we know were looted eg. from Dacia by Romans and have survived through them to this day?

The gold and silver in quite a few coins :hist101:

Grand, what do you do?

# ¿ Jul 10, 2012 01:38

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Could someone go further into how Greek Fire worked and how it deployed? I remember watching something on MythBusters about it and they couldn't reproduce it.

# ¿ Jul 10, 2012 23:09

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Grand Prize Winner posted:

It's not a subscription unless you're a really lovely poster.

God, this Rome thread is awesome. Is there anyone here knowledgeable enough to do something similar about, say, the Caliphate and subsequent sunni-shia schism or the politics of India? Any kind of specialized history thread ends up golden.

Back on topic: How did Roman armies deal with elephant, camel, or chariot forces? I seem to remember that the Britons used chariots when Caesar invaded and they seemed to present the Romans with quite the challenge.

Follow-up: How did they invade? Small boats? I know they were still roaming the Mediterranean with ships, but would those survive the channel?

# ¿ Jul 11, 2012 21:48

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

TheChimney posted:

Question:

Pick an era during Roman history, say ... late Republic.
Pick an a city under Roman control, not Rome, but a major city in one of the territories that Rome conquered in its early history.

You will be transported to this place at that time in history exactly one year from now. What will you do to prepare?

Edit:
You can change the place and time period however you want. It's just something fun to day-dream about.

It'd be pretty great to be in pompeii right before the volcanic ash kills everyone there.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2012 06:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 09:23

Iseeyouseemeseeyou: Jan 3, 2011

Did Rome use elephants in their army (auxiliaries maybe)after the second punic war?

# ¿ Jul 12, 2012 20:13

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

«‹›4 »