|
I just finished the fantastic Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire by Warwick Ball. I'd can't praise it enough. I had no idea about that part of the Roman empire, except for the stuff mentioned in the bible. Why did the Romans react so harshly to the Jewish Revolt, since it was mostly Sectarian violence? Ball describes the Revolt as being most closely related to the Iranian Revolution. Basically, as he describes it: Judea was a client state and not under direct Roman rule like Antioch. The Romans aquired Judea just a year after Syria and it was really easy for them. The Romans were in a pickle though because they had a policy of religious freedom, but also hated nationalist revolt. In the aftermath of the Maccabaen Revolt, to the Jews religious was nationalism. So the Romans put Herod in charge of Judea, and that seemed to work okay for them. Their main concern was keeping Persia in check. Herod rebuilt the temple, the Romans stayed out and everything seemed okay. Then, all of a sudden the Jewish community is tearing itself appart, the province is out of control and thousands of people are dying. It seems like the Romans could have just stayed out and waited to see what happened, as long as Persia didn't try to retake Judea as they had a few decades earlier. So why did the Revolt happen after decades years of peace under Rome, and why did Rome react so harshly? I hope you're familiar with this topic because I'd love to finally have someone to discuss it with! If you don't already have the book, it's terrific. It was the first major study of Rome in the East in years, and I would consider it one of the best books on Rome in general. e: Actually, if you know, I'd be interested in what the early Christians were doing during the Revolt. Ball has a lot of good information on the origins of Christianity, and the growth of the Church up to the Christianization of Rome but he starts later chronologically since they obviously weren't major players at the time. Frosted Flake fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Jul 3, 2012 |
#
¿
Jul 3, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jun 2, 2024 01:49 |
|
|
I know Phillip the Arab (Marcus Julius Philippus Augustus)was supposedly one of the first Christian emperors, but was he actually arab? Apparently the Arabs were the most feverent converts to Christianity, and the idea of Jihad started with the emperors sending the Christian Arabs on holy wars to fight the Persians. I find it facinating that there were so many cultural similarities between the Christian and Islamic middle east. Although it was never truely Romanized, I think it's facinating that it was almost fully Christianized, long before Britain and even Rome.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
Mister Gopher posted:Plus the Romans had naval superiority, so Hannibal had to go over the alps. I'm reading the Fantastic Carthage Must Be Destroyed by Richard Miles, one of the first comprehensive studies on Carthage in decades. It's very confusing because of religious naming conventions, every generation has a few Hasdrubals and Hannibals. Carthagenian society is facinating though, even from what little we know about them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
Are there any references to the beginnings of the Jewish Revolt in the Bible? If the historical Jesus died in 33 A.D and the Revolt was between 66–73 A.D, wouldn't there have been Zelots running around? I know it was a generation prior, but I was under the impression that this sort of thing didn't happen overnight. E: and how accurate are Josephus' references to Christ? Apparently parts of his work may have been doctored by later Christians.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2012 15:18
|
|
|
I've always wondered - How did the Ethiopian Orthodox church come about? We've all heard about Roman missionaries like St. Patrick in Ireland and Saint Remigius baptising the Franks, but were there missionaries all over the Roman world?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2012 19:15
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Part of the problem is Romans reused the hell out of names and you would've had no idea who the gently caress someone was talking about--this is part of why the names keep getting longer over time, adding more and more parts to distinguish people. The Carthaginians too. All of Carthage seems to have been made up of a coalition of Hamilcars, Hasdrubals and Hannibals. Religious naming conventions will do that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
I was always taught that the Middle Ages started in 1066 and ended in 1492. I don't think I was ever taught what happened between the fall of the Roman Empire and The Battle of Hastings in school. Luckily I took a great course on the early middle ages in university and it was fascinating. One thing I've always wondered though, after the Romans left Britian and the Angles, Saxons and Jutes arrived, why did the romanized Britons leave their towns, cities and villas to live in villages?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:Wow, I didn't expect everyone to immediately agree with me, but I did expect people to think a little before pressing the post button. There's really nothing of substance for me to respond to; I guess when you're right you're right. I see you aspire to keep the Roman tradition of smugness alive. Collum barba tenus sapientes?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2012 16:18
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:Culturally and philosophically, many modern people are in a worse position than learned Hellenes, where they are given to false moral and religious teachings. Christianity is of course ancient, but if we're talking about the heights reached by humans, then it remains that the most correct and helpful moral texts and cultural practices come from Ancient Greece and China. Just for clarity, did you achieve enlightenment by sacrificing a pigeon to Athena or by eating a tiger penis?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:Thanks, but again, that doesn't really respond to what I'm saying. I specifically noted a number of ways in which certain ancient institutions, beliefs and practices were superior to many of their modern equivelants. In terms of what I'm saying, it hardly matters if only the best texts survive; it still stands that many moderns are lagging behind certain ancients in their understanding of how society ought to be ordered, what is right and what is wrong, what ought to be, etc. Did you skip your class on Classical democracy? Are you suggesting that we go back to social classes and citizenship? What is the ideal ratio of slaves to freedman? What wars should we fight for conquest? Is times square a good spot for a triumph? Should we disregard the scientific method for philosophy? What kind of equipment would hospitals need to properly ballance the humors? I'm sure once we can figure out all the little details, this will be a great idea. Agesilaus posted:None of you have bothered to take the time to read and respond, so let's just move on. Well that's because the ideas you're advocating are laughable. What do you think the Enlightenment and revolutions were about? Nobody wants to go back to being ruled by a landed aristocracy. I should also point out that you wouldn't even be a part of that ruling class, so I don't know why you're so eager to serve them. Frosted Flake fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Aug 26, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Are you suggesting that we go back to social classes and citizenship? What is the ideal ratio of slaves to freedman? Agesilaus posted:yes; and that's a topic for discussion. Well, let's discuss it. Since you'll be an aristocrat, presumably you will own slaves. How many slaves would you like? Aren't you worried about creating a situation similar to the turmoil of the late republic where an over-abundance of slaves created a work shortage for freedmen? e: I'm very interested in your justification for owning other human beings. ee: Back on topic, did the Social War have long term repercussions? I'm interested in the social issues of the republic, since there really was a difficult situation with regards to the labour market. Frosted Flake fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Aug 26, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
Can someone explain the Hippodrome Riots of ~530? Apparently half of Constantinople was destroyed and tens of thousands were killed, all over sporting rivialry. I can understand hooliganism, but the scale of destruction is insane.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2012 05:24
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I don't know it in great detail, but Justinian was unpopular at the time and the riot turned political. First it was just a mob assaulting imperial power, then some of the senators saw it as an opportunity to overthrow Justinian and started pulling strings and making everything worse. The chariot teams sort of formed political parties, so it was more like a civil uprising than a soccer riot. That's really interesting. Did Green and Blue have different political views then? I wonder which one was loyal to Justinian (if any).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2012 14:58
|
|
|
How did the Roman tax system work? With so many subjects, there must have been a huge tax base right? How large did the civil service have to be to manage it all?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jun 2, 2024 01:49 |
|
|
When did the Byzantine nobility start changing their names from, for example Claudius and Florentinus to Peter and Paul? How did the cultural progression from Roman to Greek go?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2012 05:10
|
|