Roman/ancient history: Checkmate, Atenists

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

CharlestheHammer: Jun 26, 2011; YOU SAY MY POSTS ARE THE RAVINGS OF THE DUMBEST PERSON ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH BUT YOU YOURSELF ARE READING THEM. CURIOUS!

Frosted Flake posted:

That's really interesting. Did Green and Blue have different political views then? I wonder which one was loyal to Justinian (if any).

From what I read the Green's were partisans of the house of Anastasius, and Monophysite. Blues were orthodox and generally supported the house of Justinus.

# ¿ Aug 28, 2012 16:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Jun 2, 2024 23:44

CharlestheHammer: Jun 26, 2011; YOU SAY MY POSTS ARE THE RAVINGS OF THE DUMBEST PERSON ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH BUT YOU YOURSELF ARE READING THEM. CURIOUS!

sullat posted:

I think part of the idea of "late Roman racism" comes from when they massacred all the assimilated Goths after Adrianople. You know, the ones that didn't revolt and were part of the Roman armies.

They did something similar in the West when Stilicho was killed. The reason people say they were racists is because well, they were. Maybe not in the more modern sense, but still it was pretty bad.

# ¿ Jan 31, 2013 02:38

CharlestheHammer: Jun 26, 2011; YOU SAY MY POSTS ARE THE RAVINGS OF THE DUMBEST PERSON ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH BUT YOU YOURSELF ARE READING THEM. CURIOUS!

Barto posted:

I don't think there's any need to be careful about it.
Caesar was one of the greatest men that ever lived and he's influenced great men in history ever since. -Influence- People don't give up core values of their own culture because they admire someone from an older culture with different core values.
What Caesar did wasn't genocide, it was conquest as the people he conquered understood and practiced it, how the entire world practiced it.
Now of course, it's genocide. The world has changed.
Military and political leaders since have been inspired by him: who wouldn't be inspired by such a man? (Unless they were being contradictory to make a point). But Napoleon didn't commit genocide because he was inspired by Caesar, did he? Of course, he did other things which we current history-in-progress folks would consider bad. But others at the time didn't see it so, and if some political leader is inspired by Napoleon's genius it doesn't mean they are going to give up what they believe in and go commit atrocities. I'm sure Napoleon inspires a great many French people and Caesar a great many Italians (and of course they both inspire all of us).
I mean, Hitler was inspired by Napoleon but is Napoleon responsible for Hitler's core values of hate and genocide?
No, of course not.
People of the past are what we make of them, and if we choose to lionize their good traits and minimize their bad ones, I think to an extent that's a good thing. And the opposite is also true.

And certainly it's entertaining to appreciate these wonderful characters. History this old: it's primarily for appreciation of it that we're here! I appreciate these men, they and their values can't hurt anyone any longer so I appreciate the good in them- and even like them.

So maybe we should be careful not to be sanctimonious first of all.

I think you did a pretty good job of summing up the problems with the people who like history, they get to caught up in the hero worship that results from looking at people whose actions didn't effect them, so they tend to rationalize what they did to make them feel better. That is how you get the "you can't judge people based on their actions" thing.

Barto posted:

A few months ago I asked for some books on Roman military stuff but didn't get any response, later I found some myself that I've enjoyed so I thought I'd share them.

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Roman-Army/dp/0500288992
The Complete Roman Army is really good. It's great for any sort of details and where the sources of those details come from and how reliable they are.
The prose is pretty enjoyable too.

http://www.amazon.com/Rome-Sword-Warriors-Weapons-History/dp/0500251827
This one I'm just starting in on, but it's more academic in tone and provides a lot of diagrams and suggestions on weapons might have been used (besides explaining how weapons changed Roman history as the title mentions)

The Imperial Roman Army by Yann Le Bohec (http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Roman-Army-Yann-Bohec/dp/0415222958/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366467755&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Imperial+Roman+Army) is a good one, though as the title suggests, it is focused on the imperial period.

CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Apr 20, 2013

# ¿ Apr 20, 2013 15:12

CharlestheHammer: Jun 26, 2011; YOU SAY MY POSTS ARE THE RAVINGS OF THE DUMBEST PERSON ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH BUT YOU YOURSELF ARE READING THEM. CURIOUS!

Slantedfloors posted:

The glorious reign of Gordians I&II lasted a grand total of three weeks (22/03/238 to 12/04/238). Which is sort of what happens when you declare yourself Emperor* without an army.

*_{Technically forced to declare himself Emperor while crying and begging people to not make him do it}

Gordian III did fine without one, kind of.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2013 21:15

CharlestheHammer: Jun 26, 2011; YOU SAY MY POSTS ARE THE RAVINGS OF THE DUMBEST PERSON ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH BUT YOU YOURSELF ARE READING THEM. CURIOUS!

Agean90 posted:

But its such an outlandish and poetic explanation!

It wasn' convoluted enough, HTH. Increase the word count and maybe.

# ¿ Jul 5, 2013 01:43

CharlestheHammer: Jun 26, 2011; YOU SAY MY POSTS ARE THE RAVINGS OF THE DUMBEST PERSON ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH BUT YOU YOURSELF ARE READING THEM. CURIOUS!

Jerusalem posted:

No, he's the one who was killed by a conspiracy spearheaded by a guy who was scared he was going to get fired/punished for some minor bullshit and so made up a story about Aurelian preparing to arrest a bunch of high ranking guys and execute them. Once Aurelian was dead and they realized they'd been played, I'm pretty sure they straight up murdered the guy for basically loving up the entire Empire with his bullshit.

It's a drat shame, because all signs seem to be that Aurelian was getting Rome's poo poo together and after his death things were pretty lovely till Diocletian came along.

Probus.

Though there are conflicting reports on whether he died to disgruntled solders, or died when a more liked usurper arose and his men defected.

# ¿ May 20, 2014 20:08

CharlestheHammer: Jun 26, 2011; YOU SAY MY POSTS ARE THE RAVINGS OF THE DUMBEST PERSON ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH BUT YOU YOURSELF ARE READING THEM. CURIOUS!

Arglebargle III posted:

Oh man in the Tang Dynasty there's a guy who murders two brothers, like personally,* and forces his father to abdicate. Shenanigans abound. That's Taizong though and he's the real brains behind the foundation of the Tang Dynasty and like the best emperor ever so it turns out okay. It's hard for modern readers not to love a dude who hacks his way to power and then is like "let's give this rationalism thing a try and by the way please fill out your "How Am I Ruling?" comment forms before you leave."

*Okay he only killed one of them by himself

He only had two family members killed?

Constantius II laughs at that weak poo poo.

# ¿ May 31, 2014 05:04

CharlestheHammer: Jun 26, 2011; YOU SAY MY POSTS ARE THE RAVINGS OF THE DUMBEST PERSON ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH BUT YOU YOURSELF ARE READING THEM. CURIOUS!

Grand Fromage posted:

It probably wasn't a good idea in the end. People were just talking about military manpower issues. Plagues were part of it, but also giving everyone citizenship eliminated one of the main incentives that got people into the military, the granting of citizenship upon discharge. It became harder to supply the auxiliaries after that, and is part of why the auxiliaries became dominated by German mercenary types that ran off to join up with generals and invade the empire. I believe it was also economically damaging, citizens paid less taxes and got more services than non-citizens. If I'm remembering right.

I am pretty sure that is incorrect on the taxes part, as I think around that point citizenship was more of a burden than anything.

# ¿ Jun 1, 2014 15:58

CharlestheHammer: Jun 26, 2011; YOU SAY MY POSTS ARE THE RAVINGS OF THE DUMBEST PERSON ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH BUT YOU YOURSELF ARE READING THEM. CURIOUS!

Grand Fromage posted:

It's not complete horseshit. He grew up in Constantinople as a hostage and was educated as a Roman. Theodoric did pay homage to the empire and was appointed a viceroy by the east. He was appointed consul and magister militum. He was a good ruler and the German kings of Italy did at least in theory place themselves under the Roman emperor as vassals. I don't know that anybody considered him Roman, but he was technically ruling Italy as an appointed subject of the Roman emperor.

The fact that Justinian rolled in and conquered Italy from the Germans would seem to suggest they didn't really consider them to be legitimate. Nobody ever called them emperors in any official capacity. The emperor was in Constantinople. The German kings went through the motions because they didn't want Roman legions coming over to stab them.

Yeah when the Germans pretended to be a part of the empire, it was always in a subservient role. Not as equals. usually they were seen as a caretaker, which is not an equal.

# ¿ Jun 3, 2014 19:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Jun 2, 2024 23:44

CharlestheHammer: Jun 26, 2011; YOU SAY MY POSTS ARE THE RAVINGS OF THE DUMBEST PERSON ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH BUT YOU YOURSELF ARE READING THEM. CURIOUS!

Oberleutnant posted:

To piss their dads off, probably.

That is also why people love Julian.

Despite him being kind of a giant gently caress up.

# ¿ Jun 14, 2014 15:18

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