|
The real treasure in the Sahara is likely to be on the West Coast of Africa, we know the Carthaginians probably had some outposts there. Assuming they weren't literally blown into the Atlantic Ocean, they could still be there and very well preserved. Fun fact: "gorilla" is the only Carthaginian word that survives to modern usage in English.
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:23 |
|
|
Is there any truth to the rumor that the Romans salted the earth after burning Carthage to the ground?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 22:58
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:Is there any truth to the rumor that the Romans salted the earth after burning Carthage to the ground? It's an exaggeration just to get across the point of total destruction against what was basically the boogey man of Rome. Just the sheer magnitude of it makes it implausible, salt was a valuable commodity back then, they wouldn't use tons of it to ruin good land. Also Carthage once again soon afterwards became a thriving Roman city.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:I've read that most large animals where gone for North Africa/Egypt before the Romans fully controlled the area. I know Egypt was pretty much emptied by the time Alexander got there. It's probably hard to pin down, but Romans didn't go to sub-Saharan Africa at all as far as we know, yet had plenty of big African animals for the arenas. They must've still been living in North Africa for them to have access. Alan Smithee posted:Is there any truth to the rumor that the Romans salted the earth after burning Carthage to the ground? No, never happened. The (written later) account of the destruction of Carthage is interesting in how reluctant it portrays Scipio. Weeping as Carthage is razed to the ground. physeter posted:The real treasure in the Sahara is likely to be on the West Coast of Africa, we know the Carthaginians probably had some outposts there. Assuming they weren't literally blown into the Atlantic Ocean, they could still be there and very well preserved. There may be Roman stuff around there too, we know they went at least as far as the Canary Islands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 01:06
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:The Berbers in the 11th century pretty much caused the decline of irrigation in North Africa. Large parts of it where pretty much no mans lands up till that point but the rise of the Almoravid and the Almohad dynasties where pretty nomadic based and caused large scale abandonment of irrigation. Not really, the berbers actually maintained these techniques well after converting to Islam, the whole thing went belly up before the Almohad or Almoravid dynasties however. It was destroyed when they "voted" [long story, this is based around the concept of Bai'ah a form of popular vote for giving legitimacy to a caliph] on the Abassid Caliph instead of the Fatimid one, the latter in anger unleashes the Banu Hilal tribe upon north africa, which isn't really just an invasion but something akin to the germanic migrations, the whole face and character of north africa became much more arabized due to that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 01:13
|
|
|
What is the probably the most unusual/obscure outpost the Romans had on the farthest reaches of their empire that people don't typically talk about?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 01:58
|
|
|
Roman Crimea? Cyrenaica? Felicitus Iulia?
euphronius fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Jun 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 02:02
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Roman Crimea is a good candidate, it often isn't even on the map. The Canary Islands and Orkney were both briefly within the empire. Azerbaijan and Georgia were both partly Roman, and Armenia floated back and forth. Muziris in India. Socotra was not Roman controlled but definitely within the trade sphere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
Septimius Sverus made a brief campaign into the Libyan desert into Garama. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septimius_Severus#Military_activity
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 03:04
|
|
|
Kaal posted: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 Pirates in the Red Sea you say? Clearly nothing has changed for 2000 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 04:33
|
|
|
Octy posted:Pirates in the Red Sea you say? Clearly nothing has changed for 2000 years. Geography is magic. That's been the main sea route to the east forever, find a place with tons of trade + restricted sea lanes and pirates shall appear.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 04:55
|
|
|
I've been reading this amazing thread since it was first posted, however, I have a silly question: did the Romans have any drugs besides strong wine? I'd imagine some writers would have commented/complained about the various intoxicants the lower classes indulged in, or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 05:28
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Basically Rome owned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 06:03
|
|
|
Jimmy Smuts posted:I've been reading this amazing thread since it was first posted, however, I have a silly question: did the Romans have any drugs besides strong wine? I'd imagine some writers would have commented/complained about the various intoxicants the lower classes indulged in, or something like that. I'm not versed on this really, they probably did. I know the first record of marijuana is in Herodotus, he mentions that the... Scythians or Sarmatians, whichever was around then, as part of their mourning ceremony. They'd build a reasonably sealed tent with animal skins, bring in hot rocks and throw cannabis on it, then inhale the fumes and have experiences. It's the earliest mention of hotboxing that I'm aware of. I'm not sure what sorts of drug plants would've been in Europe and able to produce a high naturally. We can reasonably assume anything that was available was being used by somebody. There wasn't drug prohibition or anything. Alcohol was definitely the drug of choice though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 06:07
|
|
|
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'm not versed on this really, they probably did. I know the first record of marijuana is in Herodotus, he mentions that the... Scythians or Sarmatians, whichever was around then, as part of their mourning ceremony. They'd build a reasonably sealed tent with animal skins, bring in hot rocks and throw cannabis on it, then inhale the fumes and have experiences. It's the earliest mention of hotboxing that I'm aware of. That's kind of mindblowing, really. What, 425 BC at the latest? The practice of hotboxing is literally older than Christianity. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 08:15
|
|
|
A minor mindblower that I had forgotten about, this bridge in Trier. That's a Roman bridge. Note the cars driving across it. It's been reinforced and rebuilt, but the foundation is still the original Roman construction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 08:31
|
|
|
Kaal posted: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. Kind of related, I heard that through all the marching with heavy backpacks and other physical activities the roman legions did, they were physically par with a modern day athletes; so basically, the average roman citizen (hence citizen, not the "lower" classes) was as fit as a professional football player. Is there some truth to this? Chikimiki fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Jun 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 10:26
|
|
|
The legions were still only a fraction of the society (especially after Caracalla) but yeah, you had to be fit to do what they did. I'd say a marine is probably a better comparison than an athlete. Especially like NFL players, those guys are some sort of steroid fueled ubermensch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 10:34
|
|
|
But they subsisted on a mostly grain ration right? I imagine some meat got thrown in but they would be more lean as opposed to muscular weird question, since they tended to march a lot, what kind of anti-athelete's foot treatments did they have?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 10:52
|
|
|
What are some of the larges misconceptions that lay people have about the ancient Romans? My catholic school religion classes always insisted that the Romans kept meticulous records and that there is evidence outside of the Bible of a guy named Jesus being crucified. Is this true? edit- Jesus question asked and answered two pages ago. rivid fucked around with this message at 12:02 on Jun 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 11:36
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I'm not versed on this really, they probably did. I know the first record of marijuana is in Herodotus, he mentions that the... Scythians or Sarmatians, whichever was around then, as part of their mourning ceremony. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 13:00
|
|
|
This is a silly question but if you were going to travel to a roman village from outside the Roman territory, what will it border policy be like? Better put,What was their Border Policy like? Did they try to restrict immigration like nowadays or did they just let anyone go through? Did they even bother protecting their borders in-case of invasions?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 15:49
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:But they subsisted on a mostly grain ration right? I imagine some meat got thrown in but they would be more lean as opposed to muscular Most people survived on mostly grain, but there'd be a lot of forage too. Hunting would've been important to supplement the legion. But you're right and that was kind of what I was trying to say, they likely wouldn't have been huge bulky guys. Raw physical strength was not as useful as endurance. I have no idea about the second question but caligares breathed well, so that might've taken care of the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Legionaries in the Principate and Dominate stages lived in settled forts. They would have had regular quality meals. Not on campaign of course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:A minor mindblower that I had forgotten about, this bridge in Trier. How did Roman bridge building work (if you know)? I remember reading about some giant rear end bridge they built in Dacia to help them invade.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 16:44
|
|
|
Speaking of Roman diet, I remembered this article from last year. Prepare for fecal matter! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13781202 The only thing of substance it really says though is vegetables were quite preeminent in the waste. rivid posted:What are some of the larges misconceptions that lay people have about the ancient Romans? It came up some pages ago but slavery is probably up there. When people think of slavery they think of slavery in the Confederacy, which is basically one of the most dehumanizing forms of slavery that ever existed. It seems like an oxymoron to say slaves had rights, but yeah, basically Roman slaves had many more rights, especially after the Servile wars when legislation was passed to ensure slaves were not treated too harshly. Roman slaves could earn money, and in fact buy their freedom with it. Freedmen made up a distinct social class and eventually a large part of the Imperial bureaucracy. Basically I'm just going to quote my old post Amused to Death posted:I always found the Roman attitude towards slavery to be interesting, especially when compared to backdrop of slavery in the say the 18th and 19th century. I mean no doubt a lot of slaves were in brutal condition, yet at the same time there was appears to be a general respect for slaves, I mean they could actually earn money and purchase their own freedom, and a large part of the Roman civil service was freedmen. There was also legislation to protect slaves, a few mentioned in "Roman Civilization Volume Two: The Empire" Also gladiators. Gladiator deaths were much more rare than people think, in fact substantially more given the fact a lot of people just generally think all the gladiators would be left dead in a heaping pile with one victorious one left standing at the end of games.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 16:48
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Like the Spartans, Romans preferred their frontliners to be alot older than the 18-25 demographic we use today. A guy wasn't useful before 25, dependable before 30, and was about perfect in his late 30s to early 40s. Where perfect is defined as hard as a rock, meaner than a sack of wolverines and has survived exposure to most pathogens and minor injuries. A fresh green legion of 5000 guys going up against a 15+ year veteran legion with only 3500 men would still be in very deep poo poo. None of them were really NFL material though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
Kaal posted: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. Sometimes they could be somewhat puritanical though. I believe it was Livy who wrote about the Bacchanals (basically cults of people who got drunk and had orgies) which some Roman senators believed to be a grave danger because they believed that, aside from getting drunk, they also committed numerous crimes and plotted against the Senate. If I remember correctly, I think a lot of this was spread around by Cato the Elder, who thought that Hellenic influences on Rome were corrupting the people. Kind of an ancient version of "THIS IS ARE COUNTRY" 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
Augustus was a crazy social conservative.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 19:46
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Augustus was a crazy social conservative. Were there political factions in Rome?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
Kaal posted: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. There were individuals who could certainly be described as "blood-thirsty party animals", notably certain emperors like Tiberius, Caligula or Nero, but they weren't exactly typical (or approved of) - and that's if you believe all the stories Tacitus or Suetonius wrote down about them. It's a bit like someone in the future making a TV series about life in the 21st century and portraying everyone as having a lifestyle like Kim Kardashian or something, if Kim Kardashian was also into poisoning people regularly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
General Panic posted:...if Kim Kardashian was also into poisoning people regularly. She would suddenly be so much cooler.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Were there political factions in Rome? 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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:23 |
|
|
What is the difference between the title of "Augustus" and the title "Caesar?" Are they sort of interchangeable? I was blessed/cursed with Augustus as a middle name so this is pretty personal in a way, what are all the different meanings and such associated with that name?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 22:33
|
|
