|
Potzblitz! posted:By the way, it's also extremely implausible that there was no historical Jesus (Jazerus seemed to imply this). As to how the historical Jesus relates to the Jesus of the gospels... that's a very different discussion still. Sure, but there were a bunch of Jesus Christs walking around, and had been for several hundred years as part of the adoption of Greek ideas by similarly conquered Jews. I mean the phrase "Jesus Christ" literally means "Savior Messiah". I think that the point of argument here is that there's no compelling evidence that Jesus was a singular person. Tacitus is really the only historian that writes about the Christ-figure with credibility, and he wrote his Annals some 80 years after the Crucifixion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Tacitus_on_Christ Kaal fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Jun 20, 2012 |
#
¿
Jun 20, 2012 03:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 13:45 |
|
|
Augustus once ordered an army into Arabia Felix (modern-day Yemen) with orders to explore the region, secure a merchant route to India from pirates plaguing the area, and subdue the local population. To put it into perspective, Yemen is as far from Rome as New York is from San Diego. Prefect Aelius Gallus spent six months stomping around the desert thanks to a deceitful guide, and ultimately simply brought in a fleet to smash every port on the Horn of Africa.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aelius_Gallus It's the cyan blue area at the bottom-right of this map: 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2012 02:57
|
|
|
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. And as Grand Fromage points out, there were protected trading outposts even farther away. Pliny the Elder writes while standing on the Western shore of India, debating the various merits of the local ports. This is a man who was born in the Italian alps, soldiered throughout Germany and France, and died in the fires of Pompeii in 79 AD. The distance from Western Europe to India is 6,000 miles - nearly a quarter of the Earth's circumference.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2012 05:32
|
|
|
Yeah it was the Scythians. Though the Thracians and the Dacians were also quite aware of cannabis and had used cannabis religiously for quite a while. The other major drug was of course opium, which was used medicinally as well as religiously and recreationally. Indeed, Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antonius, celebrated as one of the best Roman emperors, is also well-known for being addicted to opium. Egypt supplied much of the Mediterranean with poppy plants (which were generally drank or eaten rather than smoked, at the time). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium#Ancient_use
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2012 06:29
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I have no idea about the second question but caligares breathed well, so that might've taken care of the problem. Yeah probably. Athletes foot is mostly caused by funky shared showers and basement locker-rooms. Romans were a lot better about being outside and keeping things aired out than we are. It's unlikely that they would have to deal with the problem. edit: I was curious so I did some more reading of Pliny's Natural Histories. In book 26 he talks about treating gout and many other maladies, but never mentions anything similar to athlete's foot. You might be interested in reading some of the material: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D26%3Achapter%3D64 Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Jun 22, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2012 16:35
|
|
|
rivid posted:What are some of the larges misconceptions that lay people have about the ancient Romans? A lot of television shows like Rome or Spartacus really like playing up the "crazy immoral pagan" angle. Romans weren't puritanical, and they didn't have the same kind of fixations about Christian sin, but they weren't the blood-thirsty party animals that we depict them as either. But it's good television that serves our modern fantasies.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2012 17:01
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:God I hope so. Fun and embarrassingly goony fact about me, Rome Total War is a large part of why I switched from Soviet history to Roman history. I had very little interest in ancient history prior to that game. Did you ever play the mod Europa Barbarorum? It's so sweet. I'd love to hear any comments you have about its balance between historical accuracy and gameplay. http://www.europabarbarorum.com/
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
Comstar posted:The Roman's ended up fighting a lot of different weapons, cultures, armies and I assume different tactics. Did they end up changing their strategy and tactics vs different opponents or were the various barbarian armies/peoples able to be fought the same way? A bit of both, as would be expected. The Romans were good at adapting the tactics and technologies of their opponents to their own needs. Their equipment was largely a compilation of Celtic and Iberian weaponry. Their organization was inspired by the Greek phalanxes and the mercenary armies of the Carthaginians. But like Alexander's empire before them, the Romans also took advantage of the limited avenues of communication; once they had figured out a winning combination on the battlefield, they'd happily use it over and over on new enemies with strategically obsolete armies. The largest change in their doctrines came about during the Marian reforms. This was largely a logistical improvement, but allowed the Roman empire to wield a truly professional military. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_reforms edit: I always liked making the comparison between the two most popular depictions of Roman combat: the film Gladiator and the HBO series Rome. https://vimeo.com/18187473 Gladiator is pretty good at showing off the absolute best equipment available to the Romans. They have the iconic "lorica segmentata" armor (all that awesome looking banded armor). There's the siege engines firing Greek fire, and the rows of well-drilled archers and heavy cavalry. But not all of this gear was universally available - it was expensive and many legions simply wouldn't have all the bells and whistles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uocQ8t9K9FA Rome is great at displaying the core strength of the Roman military: The well-drilled and flexible heavy infantry that could engage a wave of enemy attackers and come away with minimal casualties. They have the more traditional mail armor, and don't have a whole bunch of auxiliaries and specialist units, but that also allows their army to be a lot more responsive (Can you imagine Gladiator's massive set piece legion trying to attack a target 60 miles away? It would take Caesar's legionnaires only three days to march there) Basic concepts of communication and organization constituted major advantages - and indeed it's something that people still have trouble with (whether we're talking about a Free Syrian Army militia or a competitive FPS videogame team). Both films portray the dangers of allowing a battle to degenerate into a general melee. Whether it's Rome's Pullo leaving the formation in his bloodlust, or Gladiator's General Maximus who leads his cavalry into a deathtrap of axe infantry, it's pretty clear why the Romans preferred their methodical style of combat. Kaal fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Jun 25, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
For sure. And to add another addition to my little film history class, here's one of my favorite scenes from Rome portraying the Battle of Philippi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wQ_6cVXTQk It shows the scope of the major conflicts, and it's a cautionary tale of the kind of battle that would happen when Romans went up against other fighters that knew their tactics. 200,000+ legionaries fighting against each other in an evenly-matched civil war. Including the auxilia, historians estimate that half a million soldiers fought each other under the standard of Rome. They knew each other's tactics and each could counter the use of specialty units and other ranged attacks, so they were forced into a series of close-order battles. It was an absolute slaughter. But the film also portrays the importance of communication. In the dust of battle, even the generals had very little idea of what was going on. The only way of finding out was via couriers. In real life, the battle was ultimately decided because of a miscommunication that caused Cassius to believe he had lost the battle and Brutus had been killed. In reality Brutus had won a major victory over Marc Antony, and while Cassius' camp had been overrun it had cost Octavian's army twice as many casualties (18,000 soldiers) and Octavian was hiding in a swamp. At the same time, the Republican fleet had won a major victory at sea as well, cutting the Imperial legions off from supplies. But Cassius thought all was lost, and he committed suicide. Without his strategy and leadership, Brutus was forced to contend alone, and within three weeks he fell as well. And the Imperial Rome was born. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Philippi Kaal fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Jun 25, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 04:01
|
|
|
physeter posted:Also, the battle in Gladiator is like the worst. Their line disintegrates immediately, "Maximus" charges his cavalry directly into a forest and there's like zero reason to even advance the infantry in the first place since the Roman archers/artillery are pounding the poo poo out of the Germans anyway. But this is Ridley Scott, who in Robin Hood made Maximus charge down the highly defensible cliffs of Dover to attack the enemy in the sand. Yeah definitely. The actual tactics and strategies used in Gladiator should stand as an example of why the Romans didn't rush headlong into combat. But what I like about the film is that it's one of the few productions that has the money to put together a battle scene that shows off the full weight of an Imperial legion in the field. It would never happen like that, particularly not in Germania, but it's a good visual display.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
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? I think that the modern Starz series Spartacus is relatively accurate, all things considered. It's just that the HBO series just blows everything else out of the water and is in a whole different class. Older films like Kubrick's Spartacus and it's earlier companion Ben-Hur were quite accurate for their time. Their focus was always going to be on getting the scale right, and in that they're probably better than just about anything we have today (we'll use CGI to make things epic, but it just isn't the same as seeing tens of thousands of people running around on screen)*. But the writing was limited by the period and the historical awareness. I particularly like this clip from Ben-Hur for showcasing those attributes. And it also has one other thing that you won't find anywhere else - horse-racing. Arena races were as big of a thing as gladiator fighting (bigger, in many areas and time periods), but because modern audiences don't like horse racing it isn't common to include the sport in our films. We prefer boxing, MMA, pro-wrestling, and football - and our films reflect that (though an argument could be made that it is our animal protection laws that prevent us from making those types of films). Fortunately we have one film that focuses on the Circus Maximus rather than the Colosseum: *As a footnote: When Ben-Hur was filmed they experienced a very Roman arena-riot: quote:Seven thousand extras were hired to cheer in the stands.[10][143][154] Economic conditions in Italy were poor at the time, and as shooting for the chariot scene wound down only 1,500 extras were needed on any given day. On June 6, more than 3,000 people seeking work were turned away. The crowd rioted, throwing stones and assaulting the set's gates until police arrived and dispersed them.[155] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwi3xROzpSE Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Jun 25, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 17:58
|
|
|
physeter posted:Cato the Younger idolized his deceased ancestor, Cato the Elder. So he liked to dress like him as well, which meant wearing a very old fashioned manner of dress. It would be like the great-great-great-grandson of George Washington running for President while always wearing a tri-cornered hat and powdered wig in public. Yes, he really was that annoying. Well Cato the Younger was only the great-grandson of Cato the Elder, so it'd be more like dressing up as Theodore Roosevelt. But yeah Marc Antony and his little buddy was the tits. Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Jun 25, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Yeah, the going explanation for the limits of Mongol expansion was that it tracked the ecosystems where steppe ponies could forage. The only way they moved beyond that was through cultural assimilation a la the Yuan Dynasty, the ilKhanate, or the Mughals. But I agree, if the Mongols met the Romans on an open field somewhere, they'd murder them. Agreed. Beyond that though there's another reason that the Romans never really adopted horse archery - the constant rain and humidity would cause Eastern composite bows to literally fall apart. They were limited to javelins, simple Greek bows and their complex ballista systems. Mongols would have experienced the same issues if they had ventured far enough west.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2012 06:13
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Also, I thought the counter to horse archers was bring alot more archers wielding larger bows that could outrange the HAs. Horse archers were difficult to hit in the first place, and their composite recurved bows were the most powerful available. The Roman response was largely just to build walls and enlist horse archer auxilia from conquered areas. In many ways their response mirrors that of China earlier - similar actions from people in similar situations. Horse archers were potent tactical units, but they couldn't take fortified cities by themselves. I think that if the Mongols had proved to be a more significant problem that the Romans would have adopted the stirrup, horse and composite bow technology more earlier, or had a Marian Reforms Part Two.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2012 07:52
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:No, the pronunciation that the Legion uses in New Vegas is the classical Latin pronunciation. What we're used to is medieval church Latin. Kai-zar is the proper classical pronunciation of Caesar. See-zer is the ecclesiastical. I was vaguely aware of this, but I didn't really think about the lingual implications into just now. It also means Cicero was pronounced "Kick-eh-row". feedmegin posted:Kai-sar technically isn't it, i.e. c->z isn't correct. KAJSAR 
Kaal fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Jul 5, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2012 14:34
|
|
|
Morholt posted:Probably more like "Kick-eh-ro". Making every vocal into a diphtong is a very English thing. Technically speaking it would be kɪkɛro. But who's counting right?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2012 15:44
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:The International Phonetic Alphabet's [j] is the y consonant in English "yes", so it's worth clarifying what you're referring to. Yeah this. Really I'm just pulling your leg, since these types of phonetic disputes are pretty tricky to discuss entirely in writing, and usually come down to differences in pronunciation that incredibly minor. In all likelihood, citizens of Rome would have had unique accents anyway (just like New York City did prior to the rise of radio and television), and certainly Latin would have been pronounced differently outside of the city. Getting too fixated on a J vowel or an I vowel kind of misses the point.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
MeinPanzer posted:It didn't. The Romans mined and made use of huge amounts of iron. 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. Kaal fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Jul 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2012 22:00
|
|
|
Honestly, for all the amazing things that go on throughout the history of the Roman Republic and Empire, I would most love to see the beginning days when they're putting it all together. Fast-forwarding through the initial settlement on the Palantine and the trading markets along the Tiber, and beginning with the overthrow of the last king of Rome and the establishment of the Roman Republic. What a truly exciting time to be alive. Actually I remember writing up a "If I could go back in time to Italy" at one point for the SA forums. I decided on going back to Florence in the 1500s, where there was truly a chance for a single individual to have altered the course of history for the better. Such a dynamic atmosphere. It was written several years ago, and it's certainly rather Marty Sue-ish, but I still think it's an enjoyable bit of theory-crafting and historiography: quote:Assuming that I found myself in the middle of Europe on Jan. 1 1500, I would make my way to the new Republic of Florence, Italy, and ingratiate myself with Leonardo da Vinci, who will have just returned to the city. My extensive knowledge of science and engineering will make this a relatively simple procedure, though it will take time to transform my French into complex Italian. Kaal fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Jul 12, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2012 07:15
|
|
|
Vigilance posted:How seriously did Romans take their religion? From what I remember from my world civ class the Roman religion was more of a cultural/festive thing that wasn't taken nearly as seriously as people take their religions today. Like people would pay homage to the gods but it was more of a background thing to their daily lives and not a central focus like a lot of today's major religions seem to be. I mean it's all relative, but people had the same variety of beliefs as they do today. Some people don't care at all, some people make a big deal out of it, most people just show up. The idea that pagan gods were not very important is just a bunch of self-serving tripe in an attempt to make our current monotheistic religions look good.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2012 07:34
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Everyone with some modicum of sophistication knew that, and also that earth orbits the sun. But for your average uneducated person though that'd be like explaining global warming on a cold day. Rome was fundamentally a sea power for most of its existence, so the knowledge that the Earth was round would have been well-understood by everyone but the most provincial.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The Romans were quite aware the Earth was round. In fact the diameter of the globe was calculated very accurately by a Greek whose name I forget in like 400 BCE. When you see a statue of the emperor and he's holding a sphere, that's Earth. Wikipedia says there some dispute about whether it was Pythagoras or Parmenides, but either way it was well established by the beginning of the 5th century BCE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#Classical_Greece
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
I.W.W. ATTITUDE posted:I know that the term cesarian section was named after the method of baby Caeser's delivery, but I don't know if the operation was used with any frequency in ancient Rome, or what the survival rate was. Cesarean section was not a particularly rare practice, though the mother typically died when it was performed. Its purpose was to save the baby when the mother was expiring due to delivery. This remained true until the invention of penicillin in 1928. Kaal fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Aug 7, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2012 14:55
|
|
|
Also the horse archer relies upon the composite recurved bow - something that literally falls apart in the wetter Mediterranean and Western European climates.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2012 07:20
|
|
|
50 Foot Ant posted:I had read the wikipedia section on it, but I was hoping for more indepth information. I did a bit of Googling and came up with this beauty of a site. It's still an overview but it's definitely worth checking out: http://www.mariamilani.com/ancient_rome/Ancient_Roman_Currency_Economy.htm
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 03:37
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:Urine did have industrial uses, but Vespasian was also trying to reform taxation and the economy in general and decided that taxing piss would be a great idea. The world's first and last attempt at an "Outgo tax". Later emperors preferred taxing income.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:I think it's fair to say that the Spartans were a standing army, considering they were mobilised throughout the entire year. But I think the key decider is the separation between citizen and citizen-soldier. Pre-Marian, they had the citizen and the citizen-soldier. Post Marian they had the citizen and the professional soldier. The Spartans had nothing but the soldier. All primary industry was performed by slaves. If there's no peaceful citizen class, then is there any distinction in calling the spartan army professional? It'd probably be more accurate to consider Spartans as a warrior class than a standing army. They were more akin to the Celtic solduras nobility, or even the knights of the European medieval age; their life was focused upon martial pursuits, but they remained part of the larger community. They were citizen-soldiers - training separately and then called together into service when required. Also, Sparta certainly did have a free civilian class, though they were not citizens. They were called the Perioeci: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perioeci
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2012 09:43
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:I can try to field this topic. Awesome! Thanks for the post. However I would like to direct your attention to the true "apex" of ancient naval engineering: Ptolemy IV's Tessarakonteres quote:Ptolemy Philopator built [a ship] of forty banks of oars, which had a length of two hundred and eighty cubits, and a height, to the top of her stern, of forty-eight; she was manned by four hundred sailors, who did no rowing, and by four thousand rowers, and besides these she had room, on her gangways and decks, for nearly three thousand men-at‑arms. But this ship was merely for show; and since she differed little from a stationary edifice on land, being meant for exhibition and not for use, she was moved only with difficulty and danger. However, in the ships of Demetrius their beauty did not mar their fighting qualities, nor did the magnificence of their equipment rob them of their usefulness, but they had a speed and effectiveness which was more remarkable than their great size.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2012 04:04
|
|
|
I think that Tao Jones also hit upon another key issue - these sailors were veterans surely, but they weren't professionals in the modern sense. They were very capable, but at the end of the war they went home. They didn't have the kind of organization and uniformity of a professional force. If you compare the Athenian navy to that of the Carthaginians, you'll see the striking differences that are the result of institutionalization.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2012 07:48
|
|
|
If you've ever wanted to play Rome: Total War, today is the day for you! Today's Steam sale has Rome: Total War Gold (original + first expansion + patches) for $1.00! http://store.steampowered.com/app/4760/ Are you excited? I'm excited! Be sure to also check out the Europa Barbarum mod, it adds in tons of historical awesomeness. http://www.europabarbarorum.com/ Instructions for how to install it on the Steam version: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=200524
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
I am so checking that out! Learning history the fun way! 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2012 21:18
|
|
|
To put it another way, New York was just an island until America's economy grew enough to begin seriously exporting goods to Britain. Then it suddenly became a key port and grew like wildfire. Rome needed to fully digest Greece and build up its eastern economy before it could expand its trade into the Black Sea.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
Yeah it's only a buck so it should be easy for anyone to get it onto your account. I'd be happy to gift it to you if you provide your Steam account name,
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2012 04:02
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:
Alright awesome, I think I befriended you. http://steamcommunity.com/id/kaikaalel
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2012 06:07
|
|
grandfromage is my account there as well. I think I have a few gift games kicking around, I'll send a random one back.
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Are any of them good, though? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mghxZzWVO7A
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2012 06:45
|
|
|
Besides laser, there's a variety of ingredients that are quite disused in the modern-day: spikenard, garum, or lovage for example. There was also the use of rue and tansy, which aren't used now because they are poisonous (natural abortifacients).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
Munin posted:What time period and culture is it from then? What changed to make the model viable? It's from the Late Medieval-era. All the major powers did it, though France is particularly notorious for it. And it's mostly just a size thing - as galleys got bigger it became more economical to keep slaves. A Roman trireme might have 180 rowers, whereas one of Richelieu's galleys would have 500. Another major factor was that Roman galleys tended to be beached regularly to keep them dry - this allowed them to move quickly over the water and ram enemy ships. But the advent of gunpowder ended that practice, which meant that galley slaves could easily be kept aboard the ship.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:Wait why did gunpowder end the practice? I'm not sure I'd agree with the other folks about the impact of shore batteries. But gunpowder meant that galleys no longer rammed each other and therefore didn't need to be beached and dried either. There was some movement toward this even during antiquity with the building of large quinqueremes that relied on catapults and marines, but it took gunpowder to engender a seismic shift away from ramming.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
This is actually a practice that has continued to this day. Popular school mascot statues (for example my high school had a generic Spartan Warrior statue out front). It's most noticeable if you go to Civil War cemeteries - the bodies/horses of the statues are all the same template, while the head is sculpted specifically.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 13:45 |
|
|
Ceasar was a secret Kemetic*. Don't listen to the lies of the populist orators! *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_religion Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Oct 21, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2012 18:48
|
|