|
Appears so, this Latin dictionary says pīrāta is pirate. Pirata is still the word for pirate in Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish. I am not sure if it's labeled that way because of pirates, but given the amount of trade going through that area it would make sense.
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 08:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:47 |
|
|
How do you know Roman history started on April 21st? Isn't the earliest historical event supposed to be the Battle of the Eclipse 200 or so years later? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Eclipse
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 08:46
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:How do you know Roman history started on April 21st? Isn't the earliest historical event supposed to be the Battle of the Eclipse 200 or so years later? April 21st, 753 BCE is the date in the legend. If I wasn't clear, we know this isn't an accurate date, however the original settlement of Rome has been archaeologically dated to some time in the 8th century BCE, which 753 is right in the middle of. So, since it's close we go ahead and use it because it's fun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 08:50
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The Teutoburg Forest defeat definitely took the wind out of their sails but the idea that it stopped Roman expansion into Germania was invented by German nationalists in the 1800s. There just wasn't a strong enough motivation to keep messing with it. The entire idea was to make the Elbe the border, and that by doing so it would also end the threat of German raiding. There wasn't really anything in Germany that the Romans cared about, so it didn't take a lot to kill the plan. If the Romans had really wanted Germany for some reason they would've conquered it. Rome just going "eh, why bother" is a narrative I just don't buy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 10:52
|
|
|
Potzblitz! posted:I don't get this. It's not like Germany was especially poor or barren. Also, there was amber which was worth a fortune and which the Romans definitely wanted. Also, the defeat at Teutoburg Forest was humiliating and Rome's usual reply was to try to revenge-conquer the enemy later. Also, it's not like those German raids stopped coming after Teutoburg. Germany's not especially poor, but other than amber there was nothing there that Rome couldn't get elsewhere. Amber was valuable but not enough to justify the conquest of a huge new province. It's not the only example either, Rome conquered Scotland and then left and walled it off because it wasn't worth the trouble. They also abandoned parts of Dacia that weren't worth holding. Germania was not inherently any more difficult to conquer than Gaul, it's a mythology that's been built around the Germans (and around the Scots as well). It was, however, less valuable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 10:59
|
|
|
Base Emitter posted:I wonder how many just set up housekeeping wherever they found themselves and went native... From what I've read the Romans loved their pepper and that came from India. They(the rich ones anyway) also loved showing off how much they could afford by throwing a shitload in their food. Edited because I'm an idiot for trying to quote when I'm in a rush to get to work. Retarted Pimple fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Jun 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 11:07
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Germany's not especially poor, but other than amber there was nothing there that Rome couldn't get elsewhere. Amber was valuable but not enough to justify the conquest of a huge new province.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 11:10
|
|
|
From all I've read about the legions, they consisted of 4500-5500 soldiers on average. Does this include just combat soldiers or did it also include support, such as the baggage train (Did they have baggage trains?), cooks, surgeons, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 11:14
|
|
|
Potzblitz! posted:That still leaves the issue of border security and German raids. It just seems (in hindsight, granted) that Rome could have avoided a boatload of trouble by conquering and romanizing Germany. Did any Roman later ever voice regret about not putting down those uppity Germans when Rome still had the strength to do so? I don't know any offhand but I bet someone did.  Hindsight is always dangerous with history. To us, conquering Germania seems like an obvious move that might've helped the west survive, but at the time it obviously didn't seem like that enough for anyone to really pursue it.Keep in mind, the Teutoburg Forest wasn't a conquest expedition. The legions were out on basically bandit patrol and going home, Arminius just served as a scout and led them into the trap he'd set.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 11:30
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I don't know any offhand but I bet someone did. 3 Legions on bandit patrol? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 11:35
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Germany's not especially poor, but other than amber there was nothing there that Rome couldn't get elsewhere. Amber was valuable but not enough to justify the conquest of a huge new province. From what I have read, agricultural technology also played a role in this. The soil in Germany is heavier and denser than what you find further south, and the Romans only had ards available, which are ill-suited for German soil. The difficulty of tilling the soil would thus be an additional obstacle for the Romans. Post-Roman agricultural developments like the introduction of the heavy carruca plow changed this. Can't find the source, but the carruca is supposedly first mentioned in a document from Northern Italy dating to the year 642.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 11:37
|
|
|
Potzblitz! posted:That still leaves the issue of border security and German raids. In that map posted few posts above, you can see all the tribes - it's not like Germans were the only ones around. Conquering Germany wouldn't solve those two problems, there would always be raids from the bordering peoples. The Rhine was a very good position that could be fortified and defended without HUGE trouble until the great migrations started.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 11:37
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:3 Legions on bandit patrol? They had their summer quarters deep in German territory in order to be intimidating. While there they'd clean up bandits and other assorted trouble. They were moving to winter quarters when Arminius tricked them into thinking there was a rebellion and led them off into a trap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 11:37
|
|
|
Potzblitz! posted:That still leaves the issue of border security and German raids. It just seems (in hindsight, granted) that Rome could have avoided a boatload of trouble by conquering and romanizing Germany. Did any Roman later ever voice regret about not putting down those uppity Germans when Rome still had the strength to do so? Even if they had expanded their borders to the Urals would it have mattered? They were not going to fully Romanize all the Germanic and Slavic peoples. There was always going to be another barbarian tribe behind the border, ultimately the Huns. Rhine was at least some sort of strategic barrier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 11:39
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:From all I've read about the legions, they consisted of 4500-5500 soldiers on average. Does this include just combat soldiers or did it also include support, such as the baggage train (Did they have baggage trains?), cooks, surgeons, etc. Yes, they had baggage trains. Baggage trains in ancient warfare are really just cumbersomely mobile bases of operations. The ultimate target in an open field battle was your enemy's train. The ill-named Marian reforms actually had their greatest effect on the baggage train situation, though today armchair historians get excited about equipment. One of the interesting things about the Republican army was that legionaries were allowed to bring lots of stuff with them. As a gentleman farmer, there was nothing stopping you from going off to war with your own wagon and a slave to rub your feet and scrub your armor. So their baggage trains were horrific. Marius' "mules" (what they apparently called themselves) reduced that to a more manageable level, with the men now carrying much of what they'd need for a few days at minimum. Today, modern infantrymen still follow this concept. But even post-Marius legions had massive baggage trains which operated as their base of support. The commanders' tents, siege bits that had to be pre-manufactured, tools, anvils, etc etc. The 4500-5500 includes everyone under the colors. Surgeons, cooks, carpenters, smiths, etc. Most of those will also be on the fighting line. The non-legionaries in the train would have included merchants, slave traders, scavengers, harlots and the usual riffraff of camp followers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 14:57
|
|
|
For those of you interested in the Peutinger Map: http://peutinger.atlantides.org/map-a/ Talbert, who did the Barrington Atlas, wrote a monograph on the TP that broke down the network it represented and included a whole website with its digital equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Even if they had expanded their borders to the Urals would it have mattered? They were not going to fully Romanize all the Germanic and Slavic peoples. There was always going to be another barbarian tribe behind the border, ultimately the Huns. Rhine was at least some sort of strategic barrier. The Elbe would have been a better one, that eliminated the 200 or so mile land gap between the Danube and the Rhine and left the Rhine as an additional fallback. I don't think anyone should be claiming it would have saved the empire from the Huns or something, but it would have avoided the Marcomannic wars and potentially left the empire in a better position to fight the Huns. Rome still would have been fighting amongst itself all the time so odds are history would be similar, but different. Maybe Rome lasts longer, maybe it stays more governmentally whole till the middle ages, who knows, its fun to speculate about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:It's not the only example either, Rome conquered Scotland and then left and walled it off because it wasn't worth the trouble. They also abandoned parts of Dacia that weren't worth holding. But...but I thought Hadrian's wall was because the Scots were so inhumanly badass that they were like "oh man we conquered the celts but the Scots are just too badass for us let's build a wall to keep them out" at least that's what all the true Scotsman keep tellin me
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 00:20
|
|
|
Yeah thats what the Romans said, but we know the truth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 00:25
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:But...but I thought Hadrian's wall was because the Scots were so inhumanly badass that they were like "oh man we conquered the celts but the Scots are just too badass for us let's build a wall to keep them out" Agricola was actually pretty close to conquering the whole island when he was unexpectedly recalled and advancement stopped. The myth about the Scots being hard to conquer is pretty much the same as for the Germans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:But...but I thought Hadrian's wall was because the Scots were so inhumanly badass that they were like "oh man we conquered the celts but the Scots are just too badass for us let's build a wall to keep them out" Wait you can actually understand what a true Scotsman is saying?!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 02:28
|
|
|
Now that I think about it, why didn't the Roman's conquer Ireland?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 02:40
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Now that I think about it, why didn't the Roman's conquer Ireland? Not a fan of dark beer
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Now that I think about it, why didn't the Roman's conquer Ireland? That is a bit of a mystery. There's a growing body of evidence that the Romans did indeed venture to Ireland with a small expeditionary force at least once, but didn't stick around. I'm not sure what kinds of resources would've come from Ireland so it might've just not been worth the trouble. Also, that period of the apparent Roman expedition was near the end of Roman expansion in general. Trajan's conquests are the only significant expansion that occur after the period (~80-90 CE) when the Romans appear to have checked out Hibernia. There was definite trade and contact, regardless. This was also Agricola, by the way, who gets sadly neglected. He was really responsible for the full conquest of Britain, he conquered Scotland, and probably went over to Ireland and decided not to bother. Tacitus is our main source on Agricola: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agricola quote:24 This matches up with the archaeology and also a legend of an Irish king that was banished to Britain, then returned with some foreign soldiers. Using an alliance with an exiled king as a pretense for conquest is the kind of thing the Romans did all the time. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Jun 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
What were the Romans relations like with the Middle-east? Seeing as how they had extended all the way to Egypt there must have been some sort of contact and Persia (Was it still Persia by the time the Romans had expanded that far?) would have been nearby too, you'd think there'd be a lot of conflict. Especially is Persia was still kicking around since the Romans would have expanded right into their back yard, or whatever replace Persia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 02:57
|
|
|
Grand Fromage I've spent the last week looking for something and can't find it. About ten years ago I read a translation of Pompeiian (?) scroll that alleged to be the "resume" of a centurion gunning for a primus pilus spot. Have you ever heard of it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 03:08
|
|
|
Ya'll should read the Agricola, I hadn't actually read the source material before and it's great. Especially since it's easy to imagine the Romans as one unified group that all believed the same things. Tacitus is making GBS threads on Rome and Romans all over this book. I haven't heard of what you're talking about physeter. The Vindolanda tablets might have it. http://vindolanda.csad.ox.ac.uk/ That's where I'd expect something of the sort to survive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 05:06
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Ya'll should read the Agricola, I hadn't actually read the source material before and it's great. Especially since it's easy to imagine the Romans as one unified group that all believed the same things. Tacitus is making GBS threads on Rome and Romans all over this book. I'd like to hear a word or two on the subject of historical bias. Obviously the Romans had theirs, being that they saw themselves as a spreading diamond surrounded by poo poo. Yet some historians seem to be oddly...I don't know if impartial is the right word, but they seem to at least try and get at certain truths, particularly when speaking about enemies of Rome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 05:43
|
|
|
It's not really that different than today. You can find a ra-ra  #1 history book or one that talks about America doing lovely things to people. Depends on the author and circumstances.The main difference is that most of the people the Romans fought didn't have writing of their own, or nothing survives about their point of view, so we're left with sifting through biased Roman writing to try to figure out how an entire foreign culture worked.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 05:46
|
|
|
Are there any legendary Roman warriors, or would their legionary style of combat more or less preclude any one guy getting a lot of glory/ being really badass? Like is there a famous Roman swordsman who was just boss as gently caress? Ginette Reno fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Jun 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 06:12
|
|
|
So Rome and Carthage. Had Carthage won the Punic Wars, would it have been in the position for similar expansion as Rome or did they lack some of the means, features and motivations of the Roman society that wouldn't drive them that much? I get this is somewhat hypothetical but just by looking at the map they had a similar geographic situation at the least - a massive rich city situated in the center of the Mediterranean, the nearby breadbasket of Sicily and also for Carthage, Iberia as a springboard for Western expansion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 06:54
|
|
|
Vigilance posted:Are there any legendary Roman warriors, or would their legionary style of combat more or less preclude any one guy getting a lot of glory/ being really badass? Julius Caesar mentions Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus in De Bello Gallico as two soldiers displaying exceptional bravery and selflessness when they are fighting and coming to eachothers aid. The Rome TV series later used their names for their principal characters. Also from Caesars description it seems like Pullo was the hotheaded one while Vorenus was more calculated. I also vaguely remember something much older, a legend about a guy in a war in the very early days, probably when there was still a king, who was fighting a glorious last stand on a bridge, allowing the rest of the army to escape or something EDIT: I looked around on google for the last story: The romans chased the last king (Tarquinius) out of the city, and he went to look for help with the Etruscans. The Romans forgot to close one bridge leading into the city. One guy, Horatius, said he would defend the bridge while others cut the ropes to destroy it. During his heroic defense some of his friends came to help him but he shouted at them to go back to the city. He held of the army by himself, and when the bridge collapsed he swam back to Rome with the help of the Gods. The Etruscian army was so impressed that they promptly returned. This story is 100% legend off course. kanonvandekempen fucked around with this message at 09:23 on Jun 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 09:18
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:So Rome and Carthage. Had Carthage won the Punic Wars, would it have been in the position for similar expansion as Rome or did they lack some of the means, features and motivations of the Roman society that wouldn't drive them that much? Based on the scant information we have, they had a very similar political system to that of Rome with one notable difference: Carthaginian "senators" ascended through pure wealth rather than land ownership. It appears to be have been a primarily mercantile state as opposed to agrarian. While the Romans themselves became focused on trade, their largest expansion was done as (or as a result of being) an agrarian society. Also, Carthaginian soldiers were mostly mercenaries. There doesn't appear to have been a respectable Carthaginian levy, though some people theorize that the citizen-soldiers went into the navy instead. Didn't do them much good in the end. Rome gets alot of mileage over the centuries just on espirit de corps...Romans kind of invent the modern concept of an army, from medals to latrine duty. Carthage has no conception of this really, their armies appear to have been wealthy adventurers and mercs. I always think of conquistadors. Of course we could be wrong, in truth no one can even describe the relationship between the Barca clan and the Carthaginian "senate" because we have no idea. So without a strong army, or the food to grow more of them, probably not ever going to go beyond a wealthy Phoenician maritime empire.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 13:24
|
|
|
Girafro posted:What were the Romans relations like with the Middle-east? Seeing as how they had extended all the way to Egypt there must have been some sort of contact and Persia (Was it still Persia by the time the Romans had expanded that far?) would have been nearby too, you'd think there'd be a lot of conflict. Especially is Persia was still kicking around since the Romans would have expanded right into their back yard, or whatever replace Persia. Whilst the Romans were in power in the Near East, Persia was controlled by the Parthians, and the Romans did indeed come into conflict with them and regarded them as formidable enemies. Amongst other things, there were always disputes over whether Armenia should be ruled by a Roman or Pathian puppet. The most famous episodes were in 53 BC, when Crassus (famous for being incredibly rich and defeating Spartacus' slave rebellion) crossed the Euphrates but was defeated and killed at Carrhae, and much later at the beginning of the 2nd century when Trajan actually temporarily conquered the western part of the Parthian kingdom, Mesopotamia, and made it a Roman province. That cemented Trajan's status as a True Roman Hero, but they couldn't hold it. Hadrian, his successor, pulled back. Ultimately, the Romans never quite managed to subjugate the Parthians. The logistical problems of operating in the Iraqi/Syrian desert must have been immense for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
Was there any Roman or otherwise secular records of Jesus ever having existed? If you take the Bible's word for it, the events surrounding Jesus' crucifixion had a profound impact on Pilate, but I can't see how the crucifixion of a single man who claimed to be the son of God and gathered a following of people would be seen by Pilate as anything other than a threat to Roman rule. Thanks for this thread by the way, I've always been deeply in love with the history of ancient civilizations, so this is like giving a fat kid a giant chocolate chip cookie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
Thundercakes posted:Was there any Roman or otherwise secular records of Jesus ever having existed? If you take the Bible's word for it, the events surrounding Jesus' crucifixion had a profound impact on Pilate, but I can't see how the crucifixion of a single man who claimed to be the son of God and gathered a following of people would be seen by Pilate as anything other than a threat to Roman rule. Thanks for this thread by the way, I've always been deeply in love with the history of ancient civilizations, so this is like giving a fat kid a giant chocolate chip cookie. There is some by Suetonius, Pliny the younger and Tacitus on early Christians, Tacitus is the only one among them to actually mention Christ by name. But then he was born 25 years after the death of Christ. Suetonius mentions disturbances instigated by 'Chrestos' which may be a misspelling of Christus or may be someone else, it was a common slave name. These disturbances happened in Rome, after the death of Christ. There is also Flavius Josephus, a jewish-roman historian, who mentions John the Baptist twice (there are actually many indications that the Jesus figure was more of an offshoot of the cult surrounding John the Baptist in the early days, but that is a different discussion) and Jesus once. Most scholars agree that the John the Baptist quotes are genuine but that the stuff he says about Jesus has passages added to it to make it more conform with the bible. One of the problems with the passage is that it is never referenced in older texts until the 4th century: there are plenty of christian sources referencing Flavius Josephus, but none of them mention the fact that he talks about Jesus
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
Thundercakes posted:Was there any Roman or otherwise secular records of Jesus ever having existed? If you take the Bible's word for it, the events surrounding Jesus' crucifixion had a profound impact on Pilate, but I can't see how the crucifixion of a single man who claimed to be the son of God and gathered a following of people would be seen by Pilate as anything other than a threat to Roman rule. Thanks for this thread by the way, I've always been deeply in love with the history of ancient civilizations, so this is like giving a fat kid a giant chocolate chip cookie. No, not of Jesus himself as far as I know (and I think we'd all know if something like that was discovered). There are references to very early Christian beliefs in the Christ or the Logos, but the historical narrative of the Gospels appears to have originated in the 100-200s CE as an allegory for Jesus's metaphysical sacrifice in Heaven rather than purporting to be faithful to physical facts. Early Christianity seems to have believed that the entire sacrifice took place in Heaven, not on Earth. St. Paul in particular never talks about Jesus as though he was ever a physical being, which began to raise eyebrows when we found a dialogue written by Minucius Felix, a Christian, in the late 100s CE between a Christian and a pagan that does the same thing and also specifically denies that the whole crucifixion thing happened at all. Actually, the Christian character treats it as a common slander/misconception and takes offense at the idea of Christians worshipping a criminal. There are several other texts that seem confused on this point one way or another, but it's pretty clear that pre-Gospels Christianity was very, very different in its conception of Jesus compared to post-Gospels Christianity. Why did the post-Gospels point of view win out? Well, I have a few theories. The Crisis of the Third Century was a major turning point in Christian history - that's probably when it became more than a relatively small sort-of-mystery religion. The accounts of the Gospels are more appealing to the poor and hopeless (of which there were a huge number at various points during the Crisis) than the Judeo-Platonist stuff that inspired them, so perhaps the old view fell by the wayside as the large numbers of converts that believed completely in the Gospels began to dominate the churches. There's still plenty of this Judeo-Platonism in the Bible though, such as the Holy Ghost and various concepts in many of St. Paul's letters. It's been a couple of years since I studied the origins of Christianity in any depth so I hope I remembered everything correctly. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Jun 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
Thundercakes posted:If you take the Bible's word for it, the events surrounding Jesus' crucifixion had a profound impact on Pilate, but I can't see how the crucifixion of a single man who claimed to be the son of God and gathered a following of people would be seen by Pilate as anything other than a threat to Roman rule. It seems very unlikely that the evangelists would have known the Roman prefect that closely to have been able to record his private words and thoughts. Even less so with Pilate's wife, who is mentioned to plea for JC. But then - would Pilate have perceived all of those Messianic cults as a threat, either? A little religious division among those monotheistic weirdos should have kept the clergy dependant on Rome's support, I think. It was the violent anti-Roman zealots like Sicarii (literally daggermen) that were a bigger concern than a bunch of pacifist vagabonds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
Going to share some mediocre photos from my travels if you guys don't mind.  A Roman coastal village found in the middle of Lisbon. Lisbon was destroyed by an earthquake in 1755. Apparently a river ran through the middle of the city at some point. I believe in the process of rebuilding they found this, then someone bought it. Walking by you'd never think there was anything in there. It was quite cool and the floor was transparent. They used wooden pillars to support the old buildings and the water you see is from the former river than ran through there. If you suck it up it will just come back, apparently.   This particular area was apparently a "fish factory." They would stack fish in those square areas between salt/spices for the soldiers.  Link to album - http://s459.photobucket.com/albums/qq318/ChristoffTravel/Conimbriga/Lisbon/ I went to Conímbriga. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Con%C3%ADmbriga A Roman settlement just outside of Coimbra, Portugal. Apparnetly one of the largest/best kept in Western Europe? Had to take a bus to the city next to it and walk there.  It was pretty cool. I was free to just walk around and venture by myself. Hell, I could have trampled all over the mosaics and no one would have noticed. Album - http://s459.photobucket.com/albums/qq318/ChristoffTravel/Conimbriga/Conimbriga/ Someone mentioned Roman painting. I'm not going to bother sharing all my photos from Rome because just about everyone has been there it seems. But I'll share some from The Casa De Augustus paintings. They just recently excavated these paintings (So I was told. These pics are from 2006 btw) done on walls in the downstairs area of his apartment. They are viewable by the public and will probably be closed off to the rest of the world within this year. (So I was told)    Album - http://s459.photobucket.com/albums/qq318/ChristoffTravel/Conimbriga/Augustuus/ gently caress it here's 3 from Rome    Pantheon  Oh and the oldest active Roman light house in the world. "Torre de Hercules". In A Coruna, Spain. In all fairness it was rebuilt. Supposedly to the exact specs. The line running up the side is supposed to mark where there was a ramp that was probably used for bringing fire wood up. At the entrance under it there are ruins of the original light house. The stones were used to build a fort/prison in the city. Found this online  quote:Figure 1. Here we have one of the earliest images of the Torre de Hércules (the Tower of Hercules). It was constructed by the Romans in the second century BC Alright sorry to interrupt the Roman-chat. Please continue. Nostalgia4Dogges fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Jun 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:47 |
|
|
kanonvandekempen posted:There is some by Suetonius, Pliny the younger and Tacitus on early Christians, Tacitus is the only one among them to actually mention Christ by name. But then he was born 25 years after the death of Christ. Suetonius mentions disturbances instigated by 'Chrestos' which may be a misspelling of Christus or may be someone else, it was a common slave name. These disturbances happened in Rome, after the death of Christ. If I remember right, Chrestianos was likely used a pejorative (instead of Christianos) against early Christians. Christos meant "anointed one" in Greek and is attested from the 4th century BC used in a religious context but wasn't directly borrowed into Latin. Chrestus was a Greek epithet meaning "good" or "useful" that got borrowed into a common Latin slave name I think? Luigi Thirty fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Jun 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 22:28
|
|
