|
FizFashizzle posted:Soldiers never go hungry. I thought Alexios gave them permission to forage?
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
He meant kings or popes don't punish soldiers much when its entire armies misbehaving, it tends to go badly for the ruler.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:I thought Alexios gave them permission to forage? Horses forage, right? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Venice_-_St._Marc%27s_Basilica_10.jpg
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 01:31
|
|
|
Eggplant Wizard posted:Villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum. Yes, they're working on them. It takes a long rear end time to get a text out of even a good papyrus, and I imagine a charred, rolled up one is much worse. Most of the texts are Philodemus, a late 1st century BC Epicurean philosopher in Campania. I know that some more Ennius (wrote the first Latin hexameter epic, the Annales, a history of Rome from its founding to his day) been found and is being worked on as well. It's way too early for publication yet so I have no idea what else may have been found, or what state the excavation is in now. I do know it's actively being worked on, however. There also may be another library still buried in there, we only found the Latin one and usually villas like that have both a Latin and a Greek library. It is a huge pain to read them, unrolling them is difficult at best and destructive so work is being done on using MRIs and stuff to scan them. Sadly a lot were burned when the villa was excavated, the workers thought they were just charcoal and threw them on the fire to keep warm. Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:How did the Crusaders get away with sacking Constantinople? Did the Pope excommunicate them? By that point the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches had fully split and the Pope was fine with it. The Romans and western Europe were not on great terms. sbaldrick posted:The account of the Crusaders showing up in Constantinople may be one of the best thing I've ever read. How overawed and amazed they where at the city. Richer then any other in history (a little hyperbole but not by much given the city wasn't sacked for 900 years and had the wealth of the Empire in it). Got a link? I've read about it but I don't think I've ever seen the primary source. Jazerus posted:Actually, I'm curious - has much work been done to try to find legionary mass graves made after battles? I'm sure someone has, but they're really hard to find. All the ones I know of were accidental discoveries. There's really nothing on the surface to look for, and the territory to scour is basically all of Europe so. What does happen is someone's trying to narrow down where a battle happened, they have a rough idea, and will go metal detectoring. Get a hit, dig up a bit of Roman armor, find a few skulls and presto, we have a grave site and a confirmation of the battle's location.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
Basically what happened is that the crusaders were supposed to go through egypt, then some pretender to the Byzantine throne promised them the world if they'd just install him as ruler instead. Constantinople actually raised the money that was demanded, but the crusaders decided they were there so they might as well attack anyway. When the crusaders returned to Rome with all their money (and a huge army), the Pope, who'd originally adopted a policy of "what the poo poo, guys" was all "hey great job over there.....yeah."
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 01:34
|
|
|
Twat McTwatterson posted:It's incredible when you really think about it. Christianity is a fascinating subject- its history, lore, mythos. And its level of importance in history cannot be shied away from. It's still here and arguably stronger than ever. Yeah. Nobody ever mentions Constantine the Great in church, but without him Christianity would be nothing like it is now. He should rightfully be the second most important person in the religion after Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 01:34
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I'm sure someone has, but they're really hard to find. All the ones I know of were accidental discoveries. There's really nothing on the surface to look for, and the territory to scour is basically all of Europe so. What does happen is someone's trying to narrow down where a battle happened, they have a rough idea, and will go metal detectoring. Get a hit, dig up a bit of Roman armor, find a few skulls and presto, we have a grave site and a confirmation of the battle's location. Were Roman soldiers buried with their armour or was it recycled? What does a roman burial chamber contain?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
I think Constantine's role is overstated. He used Christianity as a political tool more than anything. His justifications for constantly waging civil war was "defending christendom." His deathbed baptism likely never happened. The council of Nicea was really just to avert a civil war. If you really want a number two (if you're assuming Jesus actually existed), look no further than Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan. He was a late to life convert to Christianity, and had Theodosius eating out of his hand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:The 4th Crusade has got to be one of the most shameful events in all of history. Putting aside the civilian losses during the sacking, which were considerable, the amount of priceless artifacts and long-forgotten knowledge that was maliciously destroyed in the orgy of violence can never be properly estimated. The fact that this tragedy was completely senseless and easily avoidable just makes everything that much worse. I believe those crusaders got excommunicated by the pope, but the whole history of the crusades is just one tragic gently caress-up after another.  : Hey, western Christendom, we could use a little backup. Could you send us, like, a hundred of your most elite knights? : Yeah, sure thing bro-emperor. Hey, listen up, anyone that wants to go kill Muslims gets a god-pardon for their sins. : Me and tens of thousands of my poorly-armed buddies want to help! (also we killed a bunch of jews along the way, those are almost muslims, right?) : Uhh, sure, whatever. Go for it. : The gently caress is this? You're not staying in our city! : Fine, screw you guys, we'll do our own thing. Oh, whoops, we kinda *years pass* : Hey, guys, feel like doing another crusade? Retake the holy land, all that jazz? Let's go hire a boat.:human being: : Sorry, our fine Italian boats don't work for free. : ...hey, aren't you jerks in Constantinople rich as gently caress? : ...yes? : KILL MAIM BURN KILL MAIM BURN!
lobotomy molo fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Jun 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Were Roman soldiers buried with their armour or was it recycled? What does a roman burial chamber contain? They would recycle usable equipment, but if it was garbage it seems they'd bury it. Sometimes you just couldn't haul it all back to a fortress and had to leave it behind. Some would also just get lost. This is all assumption based on what we find, since there isn't that much military material that survives it looks like it was recycled. Burials depends on the era. Classical Rome was mostly cremation, so a family tomb would have urns with ashes and statues/inscriptions. Later when full body burial became more popular we get ridiculously intricate coffins.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 01:42
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:There also may be another library still buried in there, we only found the Latin one and usually villas like that have both a Latin and a Greek library. It is a huge pain to read them, unrolling them is difficult at best and destructive so work is being done on using MRIs and stuff to scan them. I was under the impression that we found the Greek one (hence the amount of Philodemus). But given that I've heard Ennius has popped up in there, maybe it was a mix. The assumption was that there'd be a Greek library and a coordinated Latin library, but I don't know how true that is- from what I know, I thought the assumption was based on things like the libraries in the big public buildings of Rome. I don't know that a normal house would have twinned ones like that, even a big villa. I didn't know about the charcoal-usage of them, though 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 02:06
|
|
|
Eggplant Wizard posted:I was under the impression that we found the Greek one (hence the amount of Philodemus). But given that I've heard Ennius has popped up in there, maybe it was a mix. The assumption was that there'd be a Greek library and a coordinated Latin library, but I don't know how true that is- from what I know, I thought the assumption was based on things like the libraries in the big public buildings of Rome. I don't know that a normal house would have twinned ones like that, even a big villa. Maybe it was the Greek one, I don't actually remember. I know it was just one or the other. I think a lot of villas have the two libraries, but who knows until the rest of it's excavated. Last I read they're going to try to scan the rest with ground penetrating radar or something and see if they can find the other library that way. They don't want to excavate any further until they've figured out how to read the scrolls, don't want to damage them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
Big Cheese, what's your favorite bad movie about Rome? If your answer isn't "The Last Legion," go watch it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:For the most part the legions were effective against whatever they came up against. The tactics of the legion itself evolve but I don't recall any time when a specific opponent changed things. Heavy infantry was never able to deal effectively with horse archers, this remained a problem until gunpowder weapons. Generally speaking the training, discipline, and technology of the legion was able to defeat anything they came across. Until late antiquity almost every Roman defeat is 1) massively outnumbered 2) ambushed or 3) horse archers. I know this is a few pages back, but I seem to recall reading something about how the raw cutting power of the Dacian falx (basically a straightened, two-handed scythe with an inward-curving blade) caused legionary helmets to be redesigned through the incorporation of additional reinforcing bars to help the helmet keep its shape, and simply put more metal in there for the blade to cut through. If I'm wrong, though, let me know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:As bad as it was, it was nothing compared to the Mongol sack of baghdad. The rivers ran black with ink from all the books that were destroyed, and they even destroyed all their irrigation systems. Actually, there's an excellent paper somewhere that indicates that Baghdad was well in decline before its conquest by the Mongols. The whole "Baghdad and Civilization Raped by the Mongols" story isn't historically very accurate, any more than most of the "X and Civilization Raped by the Mongols" stories.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 02:34
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Actually, there's an excellent paper somewhere that indicates that Baghdad was well in decline before its conquest by the Mongols. The whole "Baghdad and Civilization Raped by the Mongols" story isn't historically very accurate, any more than most of the "X and Civilization Raped by the Mongols" stories. Link that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Big Cheese, what's your favorite bad movie about Rome? I haven't seen that one. I haven't actually seen any of that wave of six or seven lovely Rome movies that all seemed to come out at the same time a couple years ago. I love Gladiator, and appreciate the mix of accuracy and total ridiculousness. The Robe was the worst Rome movie I've seen, I took a class on film depictions of the ancient world and that was one of them. Ugh. On the other hand, I was watching HBO's Rome for class credit. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Actually, there's an excellent paper somewhere that indicates that Baghdad was well in decline before its conquest by the Mongols. The whole "Baghdad and Civilization Raped by the Mongols" story isn't historically very accurate, any more than most of the "X and Civilization Raped by the Mongols" stories. If anything you'd think that a civilization at the height of it's power would've been much more able to resist mongol invaders.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 02:40
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Big Cheese, what's your favorite bad movie about Rome? Last Legion. Holy poo poo. That is by far one of the worst movies I have ever seen; however it got funding is beyond me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:If anything you'd think that a civilization at the height of it's power would've been much more able to resist mongol invaders. Yeah, like Khwarezmid Empire, four different Chinese Dynasties, Korea, Kievan Rus, Kingdom of Hungary... Mongols were something entirely new, just like Roman Empire were to the countless barbarians and other nations they faced up against. And for my book, Genghis Khans' army would have swept over any Legion Rome could have pitted against it. Baghdad's destruction had nothing to do against it's level of advancement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
The Last Legion is 100% hilarious. It is such a wet dream for Britons who are very proud of the Roman period of Britain. Oh man. Then there's Romulus Augustulus becoming King Arthur's dad? Or something?. Highly recommended if you hate accuracy but love sweaty Colin Firth. One time when I was sick my mom brought home a movie called THE DRUIDS and it was like 3 hours long and ridiculously awful. It involved Caesar and Vercingetorix I think. Anyway don't watch it. Or do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Link that poo poo. Gunder Frank makes mention of it in p. 250 (Second page of the article) here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/20078469 The original research is by Abu Laghod, I believe, but it's been a while and I'll see if I can find the seminal paper. It's pretty much accepted by anyone who works in World Systems, which eschews nationalistic histories (and all their "X and civilization was raped by Y" stories) for a more rational view of the evolution of state entities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 02:53
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:If anything you'd think that a civilization at the height of it's power would've been much more able to resist mongol invaders. The Caliphate at that point was a minor party in Middle Eastern politics, basically a vassal of whoever happened to be really in charge. The Mongols didn't destroy a great empire or a civilisation, but they did destroy a hell of a lot of history and culture, as Baghdad still remained then the intellectual capital of the world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:If anything you'd think that a civilization at the height of it's power would've been much more able to resist mongol invaders. Horse archers, dude. If you think of pre-gunpowder war as rock-paper-scissors between infantry, foot archers, and cavalry, (a massive oversimplification but stay with me) then horse archers are like the "nuclear bomb" fourth option that the dick on the playground makes up to always win. In terms of range, endurance, and speed, nomadic horse archers were the tanks of the pre-gunpowder world. Combine this with Genghis Khan and his generals, who take up probably 3 or 4 spots on the "greatest 20 generals of all time" list and were all working together, and the Mongols become basically unbeatable by sedentary societies - as they really were for the most part. It almost certainly would not have made much of a difference if the Khwarezmids had actually been the great empire they're made out to be. This is straying a little far from Rome though, unless someone wants to talk about the complicated Byzantine-Mongol relationship. Edit: Another way to bring this back around to Rome would be to talk about the Huns! They were pretty similar to the Mongols, as most steppe people were, and they did rip up more or less any legion the Romans opposed them with aside from a very few exceptions. These were late-antiquity legions so they didn't have quite the same strength as the early Empire's, but still; the Huns tore up both the East and West, coming close to both Constantinople and Rome and sacking Sardica and Mediolanum (Sofia and Milan, now) in the process. Attila's ignominious death is one of those historical pivot points that your average person knows about but can't typically explain the importance of - well, imagine the sack of Baghdad happening to Roman-era Constantinople and you've got a good idea of Attila's immediate plans for his post-wedding campaign. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Jun 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 03:24
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Gunder Frank makes mention of it in p. 250 (Second page of the article) here: Well what if I don't believe in this "world-systems"?  Fly Molo posted:
So how's your alternate universe 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
Apparently the Mongols could shoot birds out of the air. This comes up enough that it isn't just apocryphal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
How's The Eagle? I don't know if it's worth a watch as I don't care for 90+ minutes of the loaf of white bread that is Channing Tatum
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 04:03
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Well what if I don't believe in this "world-systems"? Hey that's cool. This isn't an argument, I'm just presenting all these facts and poo poo, but cool stories are always cool, bro. Cool Mongol fact: For most of the early conquests, they were using bone-tipped arrows. How much does that gently caress up your Civilization technology tree?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 04:06
|
|
|
Why did the Romans use eagles as their emblem so much? (Apologies if this has already been asked)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
DerLeo posted:Why did the Romans use eagles as their emblem so much? (Apologies if this has already been asked) It's the bird of Zeus/Jupiter so that's probably got something to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 04:12
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:How's The Eagle? I don't know if it's worth a watch as I don't care for 90+ minutes of the loaf of white bread that is Channing Tatum The first ~20 Minutes of pure-Roman stuff is awesome. Then it degrades into the mystical quest for the holy
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
Eggplant Wizard posted:It's the bird of Zeus/Jupiter so that's probably got something to do with it. P. much. Eagles are boss so they got associated as one of Jupiter's aspects, and then used everywhere. And thus all the later states using eagles as their symbol. As for the Mongols, yeah, they would've rolled right over Rome at its height. The legions were never able to deal with horse archer armies. The Mongols also figured out siegecraft so the Roman fortifications, virtually impregnable to the people Rome actually did fight, wouldn't have worked. Add in a general like Subutai, who was probably every bit as good as Hannibal, and you're really hosed. FizFashizzle posted:Apparently the Mongols could shoot birds out of the air. It's definitely true. I've seen demonstrations by some nutjob in Hungary who decided to recreate ancient horse archery. He can do all that kind of poo poo, and he's not even as good as the real thing would've been. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Jun 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 04:56
|
|
|
How did Romans define the European continent? When did their world end and the middle east/asia/africa begin, and what terms did they use for these places (it probably changed over the years I guess)? Also what did they call the Sahara and what were the farthest reaches of the Earth that they knew about that you might not realize they were aware of?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 05:02
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:As for the Mongols, yeah, they would've rolled right over Rome at its height. Doubtful. There's no place to pasture your horses in the Roman Empire proper.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 05:08
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Doubtful. There's no place to pasture your horses in the Roman Empire proper. I know nothing of Mongol horse logistics, was just talking on a pure army to army scale. Horse archers were the bane of the legions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 05:18
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I know nothing of Mongol horse logistics, was just talking on a pure army to army scale. Horse archers were the bane of the legions. Yeah, the going explanation for the limits of Mongol expansion was that it tracked the ecosystems where steppe ponies could forage. The only way they moved beyond that was through cultural assimilation a la the Yuan Dynasty, the ilKhanate, or the Mughals. But I agree, if the Mongols met the Romans on an open field somewhere, they'd murder them. TildeATH fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Jun 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
How would Rome deal with serial killers? Did they have serial killers? I can only imagine how ridiculously hard it would be to find/deal with such people without modern science.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 06:07
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Yeah, the going explanation for the limits of Mongol expansion was that it tracked the ecosystems where steppe ponies could forage. The only way they moved beyond that was through cultural assimilation a la the Yuan Dynasty, the ilKhanate, or the Mughals. But I agree, if the Mongols met the Romans on an open field somewhere, they'd murder them. Agreed. Beyond that though there's another reason that the Romans never really adopted horse archery - the constant rain and humidity would cause Eastern composite bows to literally fall apart. They were limited to javelins, simple Greek bows and their complex ballista systems. Mongols would have experienced the same issues if they had ventured far enough west.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 06:13
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Apparently the Mongols could shoot birds out of the air. It is really hard to overstate the sheer skill of the steppe peoples in both riding and archery - modern recreations rarely capture both, even Lajos Kassai (the aforementioned Hungarian). If you want to get an idea of it, combine him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piP54uh_X60&t=55s except at much longer range with even faster rate of fire and ridiculous accuracy, with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSJ0LykFAp4&t=56s except 99% less flamboyant and without any free hands. A variant of the "behind the horse" technique that you can see at the linked point in the second video was especially common as a way to take cover from return fire and apparently the Mongols could still shoot quite quickly and accurately from such positions. I have no idea how they maintained that position without their hands free but it's attested enough that it isn't apocryphal either. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Jun 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 06:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
There are stories of being able to basically like hang under the horse's neck and shoot accurately behind you. It's loving ridiculous and yes, there are so many accounts that it's almost certainly true. Parthians were famous for being able to retreat, then turn around and shoot pursuers. The Parthian shot. Which is not where the term parting shot comes from, by the way. They just sound similar.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 06:52
|
|