|
What was Rome's relationship to the area now known as Ethiopia? Did Nero ever plan an invasion, or did I read that wrong?
|
#
¿
May 24, 2012 14:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 08:52 |
|
|
Pfirti86 posted:What was Rome's relationship to the area now known as Ethiopia? Did Nero ever plan an invasion, or did I read that wrong? Nevermind, I finally found a source on this - fascinating: http://books.google.com/books?id=I2...thiopia&f=false
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2012 15:30
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Did Rome ever have an empress? (I know the Byzantines did, but you can't have a Roman empire without Rome Not to pre-empt the OP, but no, there was never a singular reigning Empress of the Roman Empire. There were however several very powerful women who wielded significant influence during the rule of their husbands or sons. Livia and Agrippina the Younger are two earlier ones who many are familiar with, but the most powerful was probably Julia Avita Mamaea (the mother of Severus Alexander). She more-or-less ran the Empire through the 220s, had her moron sister Julia Soaemias murdered by praetorians (Julia Soaemias also held quite a bit of power during her own son's reign), and even held the title consors imperii. This made her a de facto Empress in the sense that you're looking for (though there was still a reigning emperor in the person of her son). Of course, she only managed to get her and her son lynched when their military campaigns didn't work out so well. Thus ends the Severan dynasty, and thus begins by far the most interesting period of Roman history. Foyes36 fucked around with this message at 23:08 on May 24, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 24, 2012 23:04
|
|
)
|
Octy posted:What happened to the senatorial families? I think most of the original patrician class was gone by the end of the first century AD, but were there any notable descendants of other old families still around in AD400-500? Or had their bloodlines simply merged with the Germans and everyone else to the point where we can't really speak of them as being a real descendant of a family that was around during the time of Trajan or whoever? There are attempts to trace the royal families of Europe back to a senatorial family that popped up around the 300s. This is called descent from antiquity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_antiquity) and has thus far proven to be elusive. In particular, if you go back far enough enough in Charlemagne's line, you run into a certain bishop Arnulf of Metz (you eventually have to switch to the maternal line to get here). From records, Arnulf was a son of a Arnoald, who himself was a son of Ansbertus - a Roman senator in the 500s. This part is disputable though, and many think this lineage was invented to promote the prestige of Charlemagne. From here, some sources allege that Ansbertus was the son of Ferreolus, who was the son of Tonantius Ferreolus, who was the son of another Tonantius Ferreolus, who was the son of another Tonantius Ferreolus, who was the grandson of a certain Flavius Afranius Syagrius. This guy was a patrician (like you were looking for, as the Syagrii were fairly prominent in Gaul) and the urban prefect of Rome. The line sort of ends there, right around 369 AD. Of course, I guess this doesn't go back to the patricians you're thinking of (the Julians, etc.), but it's about the best the West can do with a direct lineage. Like the OP said, many of the families just sort of disappeared from the written record after a while, probably intermarrying with others without record and continuing their progress to today. Many of us in the West probably are direct descendants of at least one prominent Roman family if you start skipping between paternal and maternal lines and go back far enough. Sadly, it's impossible to know for sure. Edit: Sorry OP, but the Roman Empire really fell in 1806. Or 1917. Translatio imperii motherfuckers  .
Foyes36 fucked around with this message at 13:40 on May 25, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2012 13:35
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Charlemagne practically made an industry of setting himself up as the legitimate successor of Rome and the new Roman Emperor, so I would not trust this lineage in the slightest. Oh I don't either, and perhaps I should have voiced my doubt more strongly. Hell, the Habsburgs had a family tree that claimed direct descent from Augustus. That's loving bold.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2012 14:32
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:More then likely there is not a single traceable member of any Roman Imperial family anywhere, let alone a patrician family. Traceable sure, though DFA is a hobby among genealogists. But direct decendents certainly exist.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Medical technology, specifically, was unsurpassed until the 1800s. I would say the discovery of antiseptics was the first major medical breakthrough that surpassed Rome's medical knowledge, though the Romans were vaguely aware of the concept too. There's talk in Roman sources of using boiling wine to prevent infection. They didn't understand how but they knew heat/alcohol could be helpful. I would agree in terms of efficacy, but the Renaissance lead to huge advancements in knowledge of anatomy and physiology. Rejection of the humor theory (begun by Paracelsus), rejection of Galenic anatomy (thanks Vesalius), breakthroughs in figuring out circulation and oxygenation (Harvey), and conceiving the body as a purely mechanical structure (Boerhaave, etc.) all represent enormous advances over the Romans. Plus by this time we do have a few actual drugs that can treat certain diseases and symptoms (things like willow tree bark for inflammatory diseases, digitalis from foxglove, cinchona for malaria, etc). Clinical trials were pioneered by the British with their scurvy experiments in the 1700s, and Jenner (among others) began vaccinating against small pox years before 1800 (something that would have REALLY helped out the Romans ~160 CE!). Galen was still worshiped until the 1800s, and plenty of doctors still advocated bleeding for many illnesses (e.g. Benjamin Rush). Your average 17th or 18th century doctor knew far more than your average Roman doc or even Galen. Too bad it didn't help many people (knowing better what an anatomical structure is doesn't do much for you when you still can't operate safely or know what causes a pathology, or don't have access to real pharmaceuticals that can help), but it did lay most of the groundwork for the breakthroughs of the 1800. Sadly much of that involved rejecting Galen completely. Foyes36 fucked around with this message at 14:25 on May 26, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2012 14:22
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Wait, what? I must not be as educated as I thought I was about Rome, I thought the position of emperor just passed down from father to son? De facto this is what often happened (or at least it was passed down to adopted sons, a passage from biological father to son didn't happen until Vespasian died, which was nearly a 100 years after the foundation of the principate, and it's rare to find orderly succession from father to son until the Dominate, Marcus Aurelius to Commodus and Septimus Severus to Caracalla/Geta the most famous examples). But formally speaking, there was no de jure procedure for inheriting the empire (like there is, for example, with the British crown). The office of 'Emperor' (at least for much of its use) wasn't so much a single title as it was a complicated collection of offices that effectively concentrated most power into one man. Why? Because Romans loving hated kings, and the idea of a de jure monarchy was abhorrent even to the staunchest supporters of Augustus. The office of Emperor provided a convenient fiction for 'maintenance' of the Republic, even though it was in effect a monarchy. So there was no automatic inheritance like one would see with a kingship. The Senate reserved the right to approve new Emperors, but this was often predetermined by outside causes (for example, effective control of the military, or purchasing the support of the Praetorian guard). The few times the Senate had real discretion in appointing a new Emperor, they always managed to gently caress it up (read up on Pupienus and Balbinus, perhaps the most underwhelming dynamic duo ever cobbled together). Most emperors named heirs (often with the title of Caesar, sometimes as co-emperors), so it was clear who they expected to succeed them. Effectively, emperors only ruled so long as they had support of the various legions around the empire and the support of the various political entities of the day. The year of the four emperors (69 CE) is a good lesson in what it exactly takes to seize and keep the office. Foyes36 fucked around with this message at 01:26 on May 28, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 01:18
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:There are a precious few times when the attitude of the general public is mentioned, and they always seemed to like him. After he was gone, plebeians risked being executed in order to put Nero statues back up. One of the most interesting things to come out of this was the rise of the Pseudo-Neros. At least three of them seem to have attracted strong enough followings to be recorded in history. Only the first one ever amounted to much, but fake-Nero pirate is sort of a badass resume - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Nero
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 04:00
|
|
|
teagone posted:Were there ever any specific units/legions of the Roman military that performed tasks/missions equivalent to modern-day special forces, e.g., SEAL teams, British SAS, Delta Force, etcetera? Maybe not quite what you're looking for, but there was a spy service during part of the Empire. There's not much known about the Frumentarii, but they were sort of an internal security branch that seemed to mostly spy on fellow Romans. They were originally in charge of collecting wheat in a given province; such a position naturally lead to a lot of contacts and knowledge of the area, perfect for recruitment into a spy service. Hadrian more-or-less turned them into a formal branch of the Imperial bureaucracy, but they were hated by Roman society and eventually disbanded by Diocletian. For other special forces, occasionally the Praetorians could be used (though they were as capable as any legion, their performance in battle occasionally suffered due to lack of experience, though this reputation for parade-ground-over-real-battle is exaggerated). Speculatores would be used by military forces for covert spying and action against enemies in the field and among the legions - they wore plain clothes and could be used to liquidate undesirable people. Edit: There was a later service too, called the agentes in rebus. That literally translates as 'People Active in Things' (what a fuckin' badass name for a spy service), and while their formal role was to act as couriers, they were outside the control of provincial governors and were effectively a secret police loyal to the Emperor. Wikipedia says they lasted till the 8th century, but who knows? Foyes36 fucked around with this message at 06:03 on May 28, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 05:55
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:In your opinion, who was the "best" Roman emperor? What about "worst"? That's a pretty subjective question, akin to asking modern historians who the best and worst US Presidents were. Nevertheless, you do usually get a cluster at the top and bottom. If you just go by how 'good' the empire was doing while they reigned, you can't really beat Antoninus Pius, even if he didn't have to do that much. For more active emperors whose conquests and policies benefited the empire by providing new sources of revenue and stability you gotta go with Trajan, Hadrian, Augustus, and Marcus Aurelius (though Marcus hosed up bit by going with his son Commodus over a more qualified candidate). I'm gonna on ahead and throw Claudius in the ring too - he had awful luck with his wives and personal life thanks to his disabilities, but he was really smart and worked extremely hard for the Empire. You could also make a case for Diocletian for decisively ending the crisis of the third century (though Aurelian did a lot of the heavy lifting) and being man enough to retire when he felt he had done enough (invoking Cincinnatus, though Cincinnatus didn't retire to a giant seaside palace in Croatia that STILL stands today), but quite a few of his reforms failed and the whole system he carefully set up collapsed in ten years. For the worst emperors, it's almost an even harder question. Nero*, Caligula, blah blah blah, but the Empire functioned fine for the most part under both (yeah, 69 AD wasn't so great, but it was quickly resolved in a year and led to a very stable Flavian dynasty). Elagabalus gets a lot of flack, but it's important to keep in mind that he was just a kid raised in a weird Eastern mystery cult who was just doing what he'd been taught to do his whole life. The historiography behind him is pretty confused too, and its hard to trust sources. For the worst, most inept, I'd go with the following: Caracalla, Commodus, Vitellius, Macrinus (just a dumbass really), Maximinus Thrax (gently caress Maximinus Thrax), Pupienus and Balbinus (lol), Trebonianus Gallus, Honorius (really had no idea what was going on, probably better off running a fruit stand), Joannes (just ridiculous), and Valentinian III. Some of these guys made decisions that really hurt the empire (like Valentinian III and Commodus), while others were just comically stupid (like Honorius) and let the empire fall all around them. So whatever you consider 'worse,' take your pick. Oh yeah, and Didius Julianus. Poor Didius Julianus. That guy just had no clue. *It's important too to keep in mind that the majority of people hosed by Nero were extremely wealthy aristocrats. The common people, by most accounts, really liked him and enjoyed his performances and eccentricities. Nero was a bad guy personally, even with revised historical opinion looking beyond the bias of Tacitus and others, but he was a substantially better Emperor than most think. He'd be a goddamn hero to many today given his targets. Foyes36 fucked around with this message at 14:47 on May 28, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 14:42
|
|
|
General Panic posted:Not sure about that, but I think he was the emperor who got defeated and captured by the Parthians and ended up spending the rest of his life being the Parthian king's footstool whenever he wanted to get on his horse. Beaten, but you're thinking of poor Valerian. He was a distinguished enough chap, made Consul a few times in the Senate. Became Emperor much like anyone became Emperor during the crisis, but he wasn't totally incompetent like a lot of them were. He had a fair bit of military success in the East against Persia until 260, when he was tricked by Shapur (a Persian, not a Parthian, the Parthians had withered before that and were replaced by a militant neo-Persian faction that aspired to recreate the glories of the Achaemenid Empire) and captured during peace negotiations after getting smashed in battle. From there he disappears from the historical record. I wouldn't call him a 'bad' emperor, just a very unlucky one. Some say he became a footstool for the Persian king, others say he had molten gold poured down his throat, only to then be skinned and stuffed with straw. Certainly a conversation piece for any palace. Not everyone has a taxidermied Roman Emperor in their collection. Some modern historians suspect that he was actually treated rather well and sent to an obscure Persian city to live out his days. BORING. Either way, without new discoveries or archeological findings, we'll never know. I prefer the footstool story.  Hey, at least he got to keep the crown right? Thus begins the (looooooong) reign of his son Gallienus, during which the Empire nearly fell apart and the barbarians began really knocking on the door. One of my favorite parts of this time period are the so-called Thirty Tyrants. Supposedly 30 different men tried to claim the purple while Gallienus was emperor - of course, several of them are completely fictional and others never aspired for the crown (the Thirty Tyrants of Rome were fashioned to copy the well-known Thirty Tyrants of Athens). The Historia Augusta is almost a fan fiction of Roman history during this period, but it's often the only source for a lot of stuff - anyways, even authoring a 30 person roulette of would-be Roman Emperors (even if some of them are fake) really illustrates how bad poo poo got during this time. Read about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Tyrants_%28Roman%29 Some French dude spent time illustrating them all with portraits a thousand years later, coming up with some of the freakiest and ugliest images of Roman Emperors out there:  sbaldrick posted:This is more then likely not true. It's only based on some Christian propaganda. Valentinian III getting his army destroyed and his head turned into a drinking cup is true. Valentinian III was assassinated due to political intrigue, he didn't die in battle. But Nikephoros I probably did have what you describe happen to him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicephorus_I By a dude named Krum too. I don't think there's a more stereotypical Conan-the-barbarian-name out there - if I told you a Roman Emperor had his skull turned into a cup by someone, you could almost guess by pure chance that his name was Krum. Here he is dining with his new tableware:  Edit: Grand Fromage posted:I was going to do more background information here but why step on questions? I'll just answer whatever. There are a fair number of Rome people around here, to avoid making the thread a clusterfuck I would request you don't answer any questions. However feel free to expand on my answers if you think I left something important out. If I don't know something, I'll say so and you can jump in if you know. And if I'm wrong, correct me. I'm not going to get all MAD ABOUT POSTS, I just think it'll work better. Aw poo poo, sorry, I'll stop posting. Foyes36 fucked around with this message at 20:16 on May 28, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:The statistic I've heard is that no more than 10,000 words of primary source Roman material have ever been discovered (although I would assume this doesn't cover the Byzantine era). Primary source (like, not copied things but literally an 'original' Roman source from the period of classical antiquity) is nearly impossible to find. Papyrus doesn't last forever unless you keep it dry and in the dark - hence why the Dead Sea scrolls are so fascinating to scholars. Also, why a lot of the oldest written things we have can either be found in Egypt (the Papyrus of Ani - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_of_Ani) or are clay tablets/stone carvings. There are a few Roman things out there though from (later) antiquity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_Papyrus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heracles_Papyrus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergilius_Augusteus
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 20:35
|
|
|
physeter posted:Since it seems current, here's a sperg on Roman nobility. This is typically not well understood, because textbooks often summarize it as “patricians were the upper class, plebians were the lower class”. And that’s a gross oversimplification. Solid writeup. Were all patricians expected to serve in the military too, or was it possible to go aedileship=>praetor=>consol with no command? And if aediles had to spend their own personal fortunes to maintain their office, does that mean taxes only went to the Senate? How exactly was the Roman tax system set up? One thing that fascinated me about the HBO series Rome was how acceptable criminal gangs (and gangs/mobs in general) were to the political establishment (like when Mark Antony pretty much commands Lucius Vorenus to take command of the gangsters on the Aventine Hill). It was like that was a legit job. How close was that to history? I know so little about the mid/late republic, the Roman constitution is really baffling.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2012 17:59
|
|
|
TEBOW 3 16 posted:How much did the Romans know about the Far East, India, etc., basically the lands they were kind of near but didn't conquer? I wrote up a big thing on this in the other thread, but you really have a lot of interest in this subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Roman_relations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Roman_trade Basically, China and Rome were vaguely aware of each other and would send a few embassies back and forth. Most silk came from China and quite a bit of Roman gold went to China, but it all passed between middlemen on the Silk Road so there wasn't much direct interaction. Romans were much more in touch with the many states that made up India (especially once they figured the monsoons out), and had trading posts all over the Indian cost for many years - even after the fall of the Western Empire.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2012 23:34
|
|
|
Bombtrack posted:So where did the really rich Romans keep their money? There were bankers in Rome. They were originally moneychangers called argentarii, and were mostly equites. You could deposit money with them, and they would make loans for profit. Interest rates were between 6 to 10 percent during the late Republic/Early Empire. The Ptolomies of Egypt had a complex system too. I think these banks were pretty limited in scope though. Of course, much wealth was in kind, not money, so things like land/slaves/animals/etc would be held directly as they represented both value and the actual capital needed to generate more wealth. Gold doesn't take up a lot of space, so I imagine that very wealthy Romans could easily store it somewhere in their villa or town house and have a few trusted slaves guard it. Temples and public buildings often served as depositories due to their sacrosanct position in culture - this was also true in Ancient Greece. We know that Romans would often keep a lot of cash gathered in one spot - coin finds in Britain and elsewhere confirm that. Foyes36 fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Jun 5, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2012 02:15
|
|
|
euphronius posted:another guy who is not important Poor Lepidus. He really was the Andrew Ridgeley of Rome.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
Girafro posted:Alright, makes sense. So it was basically just a sort of dick waving competition where the name was used just to be a one up then? To be fair, most historians are wary to label Charlemagne's realm as the HRE, or even title Charlemagne as the first HRE. The title of emperor in the Carolingian sense eventually became the plaything of some minor Italian princes before it died off in the 900s. The real HRE (though certainly connected with the Carolingian empire, through Louis the German) started with Otto (son of Henry the Fowler), who was crowned almost 40 years after the last 'emperor.' But yeah, while the HRE liked to maintain the fiction that it was a direct continuation of the Western Roman Empire through translatio imperii, it rarely had direct control over Rome and it certainly didn't operate like the traditional Roman Empire. It was a Germanic country that never really quite figured out how to centralize and unify like her brothers in France. The HRE is an absolutely fascinating subject in history and one that I think gets ignored by quite a few general history classes (seriously, gently caress that quote by Voltaire), but not really appropriate for this particular thread. It's really the history of Germany. Hippopov posted:Could you explain all these formal end dates for the Roman Empire to someone whose knowledge of European history stalled out sometime in middle school? 476 CE: The last legal Western Emperor (Romulus Augustus) is displaced in Rome by the barbarian Odoacer, ending the part of the Roman Empire that contained Rome. This is the traditional 'fall of Rome,' though it wasn't really a huge drastic thing to the people living in Rome at the time. 480 CE: Death of Julius Nepos, a previous legitimate Emperor of the West who was displaced by Romulus Augustus. While he never regained control of the Empire, he never dropped his claim until he was murdered. 487 CE: Death of Syagrius, the last Roman official in Gaul and ruler of a rump state in what is now northern France. These can all be considered the 'fall of Rome,' though traditionally 476 is the most commonly cited one. For the East: 1204 CE: The sack of Constantinople during the 4th Crusade. A rival Latin Empire is set up, though the original Empire eventually kicks them out of Greece and reclaims Constantinople. This event is more-or-less a death blow to the Eastern Roman Empire, which limps along as basically just Constantinople plus the surrounding area and a few other territories scattered across the way. 1453 CE: The fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire. Often considered the end of the high middle ages as well. 1460 CE: The fall of Trebizond to the Ottoman Empire. Trebizond was an independent state that had its origins in the sack of 1204, but was distinctly still 'Byzantine.' 1806 CE: The collapse of the Holy Roman Empire, thanks to Napoleon kicking the whole crusty edifice in the face. Really not the 'Roman Empire' as classically defined, but they were considered by many to legally be the heirs to the Western title given up by Romulus Augustus. 1917 CE: Since we're having fun with translatio imperii, this is when the Tsars of Russia were overthrown during a revolution. They were eventually shot in a basement by Bolsheviks. 1918 CE: Fall of the Hapsburg dynasty in Austria after WWI. The Hapsburgs (okay you nerds, the Hapsburg-Lorraines, as the senior male line had died out) pretty much owned the title of HRE until they were forced to give it up in 1806, and if there ever was a revival of the monarchy, they were the strongest claimants to it. Foyes36 fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Jun 13, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2012 13:19
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:you can argue that the Vatican represents the surviving Roman state. And even that is ruled by a German! I was just about to post on the fall of the Roman Senate, as I think it's fascinating that it managed to kick around until the early 600s. I guess if they really wanted to bring back the Roman Empire, they would have to marry the heir of the Hapsburgs with the heir of the Romanovs. I don't think those two lines interbred as much as others out there, though I know more than a few Russian Empresses were German (and some even with British lineage through Victoria). Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Didn't some Byzantine Emperor take back Italy? Yes, during Justinian's reign and the campaigns in the west (which hosed Italy far more than the barbarians ever did by the way). It was eventually lost in the 700s, but it was a part of the greater entity known as the Exarchate of Ravenna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exarchate_of_Ravenna). Foyes36 fucked around with this message at 14:03 on Jun 13, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2012 14:00
|
|
|
Octy posted:Then again, I just checked Wikipedia and it looks like the current head of the house is doing alright. Oh yeah, they're still around. Officially though they are as common as you and I, mere citizens of Austria. The patriarch of Habsburg-Lorraine for a long time was a guy named Otto, but he died a few years ago. Now his son Karl heads things up.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2012 14:07
|
|
|
euphronius posted:If there was an unbroken chain of emperors between Romulus Augustus and Charlemagne I would say we would consider the HRE to be the Roman Empire. Good point, but sometimes breaks occur in reigns. The English Commonwealth, France during the Revolution and before the restoration of Louis XVIII, Spain after Franco but before Carlos, etc. Of course these all happened in geographically and culturally unified countries - the HRE is a pretty different case.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2012 14:42
|
|
|
Redczar posted:Since we're still vaguely on the subject, why (according to wikipedia) is Charlemagne not considered the founder of the HRE? All I saw to support Otto being considered the founder was he wasn't of Charlemagne's dynasty, and there was a period with no Emperors. Can someone explain this, because to me it seems perfectly legitimate that Charlemagne should be considered the founder. (Hopefully this isn't getting too off topic). I'll do a writeup on this later, but essentially the character of the Carolingian Empire was radically different from that more-or-less refounded by Otto, and even the title of Emperor is somewhat different.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2012 22:42
|
|
|
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. Probably are some decedents of bastards running around. Plus these people had large families that aren't as well documented a few generations back - while the direct (legitimate) lines are certainly dead, there are quite likely many decedents of the more obscure relatives. It's just that it's nearly impossible to trace.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:There are a whole lot of papers that have been found which no one has ever translated or read, so there might be, at least, more fragments to find. A lot of these papers are fragmentary or everyday paperwork, and there aren't many people who are willing to sift through it in the hope of finding something amazing. See, I've heard allusions to this document trove before, but I'm curious where it actually exists. Random national libraries across Europe? Old university vaults? Ancient churches? Can you link to some sources on it? It seems like a fuckin' goldmine for any graduate student in the field.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2012 17:57
|
|
|
Smirking_Serpent posted:How true is the ending line of Patton – the story about a slave standing behind a general during a triumph and whispering that all glory is fleeting? I've always heard that was apocryphal*, but the Popes in Rome have a similar tradition during a papal coronation, where the master of the ceremony would stop and shout "Sic transit gloria mundi!" Really not a bad line to remember. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic_transit_gloria_mundi The theme of course is also heavily represented in western art, particularly from the Middle Ages - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_mori *Wikipedia indicates that this was a legit practice. The citation for this practice is from Tertullian's apologetics, which I don't have to independently check. Memento mori indeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Triumph#Processional_order_and_rites Foyes36 fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Jul 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
Vigilance posted:Take my words with a grain of salt since I'm no expert but didn't a lot of Roman Emperors get killed by their own guards? You can see a good list detailing the relationship between the Guard and the Emperors. More often they were abandoned by the Guard, but some were in fact killed directly (for example Caligula): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praetorian_guard#Relationships_between_emperors_and_their_Guard
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2012 04:18
|
|
|
All I know is that if I go see a doctor with a complaint and they start quoting Galen or something, I'm finding a different clinic.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2012 04:26
|
|
|
Vigilance posted:Romans knew about China, right? I mean I know they did at a certain point because Justinian or whoever it was stole/acquired knowledge of the silk trade from the Chinese. The wikipedia article on this subject is pretty exhaustive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Roman_relations The gist of it is that, yeah, they were vaguely aware of each other and a few enterprising people even made it all the way to Rome/China, but they were so far apart and separated by a variety of unfriendly kingdoms (e.g. Parthia/Persia) that they never really interacted much face-to-face. The biggest impact the Chinese had on Roman culture was through the trade of silk, which became such a desirable luxury good that Roman men would complain that their wives were spending them into penury. Conversely, Roman glassware has been found as far as the island of Japan (and I believe in Korea as well).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2012 04:42
|
|
|
Here's another good article on Roman-Chinese contacts, very detailed and complete - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/eastasia/romchin1.asp
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2012 14:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 08:52 |
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:E: What part of Herodotus is it in, do you remember? I just did a search with an online copy and don't see anything about sailing around Africa. I don't recall it in Herodotus, but the The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea indicates ports pretty far south in Africa and a general understanding (though it comes off as speculation) that eventually one could round the continent and go back up towards Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periplus_Maris_Erythraei
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2012 01:47
|
|