|
Ya the Romans way of war was much closer to our modern idea than any of their contemporaries. Weird how that worked.
|
#
¿
May 30, 2012 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 15:17 |
|
|
canuckanese posted:Sort of, there was generally always a conservative party who wanted Rome to return to the old ways, and there were always people who were more liberal. There were never any true defined factions, but there were always distinct groups with opposing viewpoints, these usually centered around certain individuals with tons of charisma/clients. one amusing thing: Caesar was kind of a hipster. There was a crowd of young Roman nobles who ran around together and created their own culture to mark their generation/clique. their togas were looser than normal, they partied all night, with some risque dancing, and they had strange hand signs and slang. Their parents saw Rome rise as a super power with extreme wealth and they were the first generation to just kind of expect things to be that way. It's startling similar to a lot of our culture today.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2012 21:53
|
|
|
Rome is really good and the costuming/sets is super accurate and cool.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
General Panic posted:Years ago, someone I knew at university who was studying classics told me that the Romans didn't have the same attitude to boasting/modesty we do - they thought that if what you were saying about yourself was true, it was fair enough to tell the world about it. You could look at a lot of our culture today and conclude the same thing if you only had biographies on Donald Trump and rap videos to go on.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2012 21:08
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted: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? this is from last page but I'm interested in this too. It seems like Peters and Pauls and Johns just sort of pop up in in the Greek Empire. Did everyone that had a kid during the reign of Constantine just jump to these christian names for their kids and that was that? Did any families Hellenize their names from the latin origin to fit in better?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2012 14:50
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I love picturing Diocletian coming back and just shouting CHRIST NOT THIS poo poo AGAIN at everyone. Every time I hear someone swing to the opposite of the "Great Man" theory (what is the official name for that, circumstantial history?) I think about Diocletian and how that system fell apart almost overnight without his personal touch. Then again, by all accounts, during a vast portion of Imperial history life would have chugged along unchanged if they'd appointed Caligula's horse to the purple. Maybe better since horses don't spend money on pleasure domes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Maybe they were more civilized. I started typing an answer to his question and realized I was swerving into weird  territory when in the second paragraph I started wondering why the hell we bother with the current system.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
Captain Mediocre posted:I was debating with someone today about free speech, who tried to convince me that the Roman Republic was the golden age of free speech, where you could say anything you liked without punishment Cicero was executed and had his writing hand nailed to a door. The grachi were killed for their land reform. It was an accepted tactic to have your supporters physically remove or beat your opponents during election debates. Then there's the fact that over 99 percent of the people in Rome and the empire has no voice at all except for occasionally forming a mob around a top guy. Plus slavery. Sure most of this was not really legal but no one in the US is afraid of being dragged of a stage and stabbed for their speech.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
I know drawing comparisons is not good scholarship but I think their views on gladiators is pretty close to to the view on pro athletes today in many ways. Certainly not exactly the same but I don't think it's unrecognizable.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
this is not a real professional thing, obviously not historically accurate and incredibly nerdy but if you want to try legion vs phalanx, get a copy of Rome Total War and setup a custom battle using the correct troop composition and number for each side. Its much easier to win as the Romans becauses you have smaller groups to move and holding back a reserve works much better and those fresh troops applied to the right spot generally win the battle. If you throw in the auxiliary to harass and annoy it makes a big difference too because sometimes the hoplites get out of formation chasing them. It does get much more difficult if you change the phalanx to the Macedonian version and include some of their heavy cavalry since they tend to slam into your rear while you're stuck ineffectually fighting the spearmen. However, if you set a cost limit to the battle, the Romans generally have a larger number of troops.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2012 16:16
|
|
|
I am actually interested in that too, but not just the army. I know they had business and no-business days that ran on some kind of yearly(?) schedule but no weekend concept. Obviously someone in office or on campaign is putting in different hours and not working a schedule entirely of their choosing but does anyone have any good details on Roman working life?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2012 23:54
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:How clearly defined were the separate domains of the roman gods? Was it as simple as one god for each individual aspect of life, or was there a lot of overlapping? Its very vague and complex. Alongside the big state deities you have gods of local rivers/fields/whatever, ancestor family spirits, various imports like Isis and Mithras plus maybe some hang over local gods that are semi-merged with the others brought from outside (so you worship "Jupiter" but to you hes also whatever local big sky god your great grandparents prayed to and has some small differences from the "Jupiter" worshiped on the other end of the Empire). Then there's the weird stuff like Fates and Furies that are more like natural forces and not fully humanized and viewed kind of differently. Then you've got stuff like changes over time and the varying view points because this belief system was followed over 100s(1,000s?) of years by a wide array of people. For example, how Athena's domain over war is different from Ares' and then how the Roman war god Mars is a different combination but modern people just say "oh ok Ares = Mars".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
to me the creepiest thing is how the Mycenaean palaces had no defensive perimeter and their cities just sat out in the open pretty much like our cities and houses today. Then you see things change and the settlements that remain feature defensive fortifications and the cities had town walls all of a sudden.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2012 16:21
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:After the defeat of the Magyars there was really no major migration event into Europe that was considered to be a straight up migration. After that it was straight up invasions, it's an odd change. enough room = migration not enough room = invasion ?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Hmmm, I guess that makes more sense than horse archers being some kind of overwhelming force of war that it usually gets treated with on this board (and by me sometimes). Horse archers are expensive. And while they're good at raiding, in order to work effectively in pitched battles, you need good leadership and coordination. They also require a certain lifestyle. When the Mongols settled in conquered lands, those skills were gone in ~2 generations. You need people living on a huge grassland riding and shooting their whole lives to field a horse archer army. Its hard to keep that up when life is 100x better living somewhere more hospitable. its like a twilight zone episode where a mongol khan falls asleep in a sacked city and wakes up trying to defend it from those drat horse nomads.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
sullat posted:There was an anecdote about a hetaira that was being tried in Athens for blasphemy; the defense attorney had her strip down in court with the argument that someone so good lookin' was so favored by the gods that they couldn't possibly be guilty. Ah yes, the inverse glove don't fit argument.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
I think they go together. It's like if the us never really integrated the Irish or Italians but they made up the majority of the army, you might see the airforce getting pissed and trying to replace the President. Its obviously an imperfect analogy but the combination of not accepting the Germanic tribes with them making up the majority of the military was a baaad combination.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Stories like that are so amazing that it's tempting to suspect it as just a folk origin of a piece of geography. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masada That would be Masada where they built an earth ramp over the wall.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
kind of fluffy but fun to consider: There have only been a few points in history where you had two hugely influential figures like Augustus and Agrippa who actually got along personally and worked together their entire lives. Agrippa never made the power grab you often see from talented and respected generals after a civil war and Augustus never had Agrippa executed or exiled out of paranoia over his popularity, which is what dictators tend to do if their generals don't overthrow them first. Obviously, no one can really say why it worked out like that but its neat when the most cynical possible scenario doesn't happen.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
Justinian and Belisarius were close to the Augustus Agrippa relationship but Justinian did lose faith in him for a while and had some kangaroo court send him into exile (or something). He was recalled when the poo poo hit the fan and I think they made up before their deaths.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Besides, I'm was referring to all history, not just Roman...Ho Chi Minh and Vo Ngyen Giap, maybe? I'm not sure how close they were. Dictators Maybe like Jobs and Wozniak? Balmer and Gates?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:Which countries where they dictators over? Stalin kept Beria quite close and didn't kill him off in any of his purges. Microsoft and Apple which have the net worth of small countries I suppose haha.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
Augustus was the greatest emperor because he managed to not die longer than his peers. George Washington was the choice for commander of the US army and first president because he was the tallest guy in the room. Does anyone know any other "great man reduced to simple biological advantage" sayings? His longevity certainly helped pave the way for the empire but considering the fate of a lot of his predecessors it was his skill as a politician that kept him around long enough to exploit that biological advantage. J. Caesar could have had the potential to live 500 years and it wouldn't have changed anything. Xguard86 fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Jan 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:Well this is more of a disadvantage but Gustavus Adolphus who changed the course of the 30-years war died because he was a fat gently caress, when he lay wounded on the battlefield at Lützen he was simply shoot in the head instead of being taken as a captive since he was too heavy.Furthermore the reason that he was so separated from his troops was also because he led a cavalry charge right into heavy fog while being myopic. I read this in the voice of your UN and it was amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
CoolZCBD posted:What was the Romans best fighting technique and how did it compare to all the surrounding barbarians? On a long drive I was skimming through XM radio and landed on the catholic station, of all things, because they were discussing legionary training. One of the guests had gone to Rome and gone through a faux-training camp for legionaries. Of course, the primary focus was marching and groups stuff but they talked about the individual stuff as well. They did a lot of work with the shield, especially developing the shoulder strength to keep it in the correct place along with punching with that metal boss. obviously in just a week no one was a shield master but the trainers could move pretty well and put some force on their swings. The sword part was based on thrusting from behind the shield with some slashing cuts targeted at the legs if possible, which was apparently very effective because it was fairly unexpected. They only had a few sword swings and tagets but drilled them in various combinations, very similar to boxing. At the end, they gave them some padded stuff and had them go at it. The premier strategy was slamming into people with a shield followed by a quick thrust or slash at the legs/arms. Obviously no one knows what the Romans really did but it all sounded pretty plausible.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
not to mention all the opportunistic hangers on whispering in your ear about how its your right, nay duty, to throw a bitch'in party for your loyal supporters.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
Cervixalot posted:And that you should clear out the Empire's coffers, and gladiate against cripples and invalids for sport Wwhd what would heracles do?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:How much of a Roman individual's wealth depended on owning land? I am not an expert but from what I understand: the richest of the rich had a ton of land and usually financial interests in trade so a lot of everything. The really old families had a lot of land but were often cash poor so they were "rich" but with not much in liquid assets. Then you go down the ladder and get the rich guys who may be freed slaves or from less spectacular lineages but are personally talented. They have more cash but less land and therefore were socially inferior but could buy and bribe their way up the ladder. Rome was pretty flexible about class and rank so the son of a rich man could hold higher offices than his father, especially with enough $ behind him. Part of your class was how much land you owned so you have to remember that it wasn't just buying and owning to produce but sometimes more to show your wealth and meet that next level quota. Or keeping otherwise unprofitable holdings to cling to a higher rank. From primary sources, it looks like it was fairly difficult to turn anything but a modest profit from an estate but it wasn't cut and dry because it could produce a lot of what it required internally and being "upper class" meant you could borrow from other rich guys and hold it together.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:Note that "pretty flexible about rank and class" still means extremely oppressive in modern terms. ya sorry I should have said that. To us they would be petrified wood but compared to other cultures it was extremely open. One interesting point in the wealth thing is Crassus. He was the richest man in Rome and one of the richest men ever (as compared to his time/place). However, he was always viewed as kind of an also ran because he wasn't from an ancient family and he hadn't won any battles for the state. Today, especially in the US, we value wealth above pedigree and generally above glory/fame so its hard to understand but being rich then was different from now especially if you were "just" rich.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
Haha yeah, I don't blame them our view is so obscure and it's natural to think you're Cicero and not the pauper we'd all probably actually be.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
drat I forgot about that. Well there you go shits complicated
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
I like to think that if you showed some Romans our TV shows about them, they'd loving love spartacus and watch every episode twice. I dont think women's tits were falling out in the arena every five minutes though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
I think it was Caesar that had his whole body plucked below the chin.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
The People's Crusade was pretty ridiculously dumb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Crusade
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
malaria was a huge deal in Italy until the 20th century thanks to the Pontine marshes. We dont think about malaria above the tropics but it made a large part of the peninsula unlivable and killed or sickened a ton of people. The Romans tried to drain them over and over and always failed. It was a big deal when the fascists did it because they could claim to have surpassed the Romans and it was actually not a lie or exaggeration for once. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontine_Marshes
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
I too listen to Hardcore history haha.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
If you're american and don't get suicidal ambition, I want to move to your town. More seriously, a lot of these guys ended up in positions where if they didn't take the purple they'd be killed as a threat to whomever did, no matter how much they swore second was good enough.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
I don't think US slavery was ever quite self sufficient. They resisted attempts to ban importing slaves because they knew it would kill slavery in a generation or two.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
Oops guess I was confused by the aggregate "Americas" number.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 15:17 |
|
|
its also possible that the peace and uniformity of the Empire would have led to stagnation as you didn't have all those small states desperately competing with each other with the overall result of Europe throwing all kinds of things in technology and government to see what worked and eventually producing all those innovations.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2013 15:59
|
|