|
Squalid posted:Except in central and south America, where pellagra has almost never occurred in the past and almost never occurs today, despite corn making up a huge part of the diet. This is because treating corn with lime (the mineral, not the fruit) releases vitamin B3, preventing pellagra. While virtually all native American peoples had mastered the process in in prehistory, western society would be plagued by pellagra until the 20th century, when modern science finally discovered the cause of the illness. At times it reached endemic levels in Northern Italy, Southern France, and the American South, and is still a serious problem in parts of Subsaharan Africa. 
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 04:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 06:54 |
|
|
I'm not really sure where grits fit into the story I just shared. Grits are made from hominy, which is corn meal that has been Nixtamalizated, unlike polenta, which has not. The word hominy, btw, comes from Algonquian, and meant corn treated with wood ash. So obviously many Americans had adopted the Indian tradition, but it's use was uneven enough that 100,000 Americans still died of pellagra between 1906 and 1940.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yep, they're awesome as poo poo. Also the only example of a woman's direct writing we have from classical history, as far as I know. Mothers huh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 06:46
|
|
|
A bit late to the cultural change chat, but I watched a documentary recently called "Did Cooking Make Us Human?", which I think was from the BBC. Basically, cooking food makes it easier to be digested, which means an organism gets more nourishment than from the equivalent raw food. We spend less time eating and looking for things to eat and more time to do all that cultural stuff like interacting socially, writing poetry, etc. Apparently, we'd need to eat the equivalent of 5kgs of vegetables daily (I can't remember the exact weight, but it was ALOT) to obtain the required energy. That being said, they reckon cooking may have been discovered 2 millions years ago, so probably a bit beyond the time frame being discussed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 07:17
|
|
|
veekie posted:Mothers huh. Socks and sandals, Mom? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 07:56
|
|
|
And the underwear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 08:01
|
|
|
Elissimpark posted:A bit late to the cultural change chat, but I watched a documentary recently called "Did Cooking Make Us Human?", which I think was from the BBC. My cat doesn't spend very much time on acquiring food but he has yet to develop agriculture.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 09:59
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:My cat doesn't spend very much time on acquiring food but he has yet to develop agriculture. But he has. He even uses beasts of burden. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 10:13
|
|
|
As someone who studies Roman health & medicine, I've always enjoyed this particular Vindolanda Tablet. quote:18 May, net number of the First Cohort of Tungrians, of which the commander is Iulius Verecundus the prefect, 752, including centurions 6 It's pretty telling about the prevalence of certain communicable diseases within the army that eye infections have their own category separate from the sick and wounded. We find evidence of pottery marked as containing Collyrium, eye medicine, all across the NW provinces which suggests these problems were pretty endemic (if you have JSTOR access you can find more info here).
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 14:00
|
|
|
Eye infections were probably terrifying before effective treatments existed. And even a minor eye issue would've been super dangerous for a soldier. I bet that's part of why they have a special category.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 14:02
|
|
|
Hannibal lost an eye to an infection after he forced marched his army through a swamp.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
Elissimpark posted:A bit late to the cultural change chat, but I watched a documentary recently called "Did Cooking Make Us Human?", which I think was from the BBC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
So I'm hard pressed to understand why Sulla is viewed in a positive light by anyone. The argument seemed to be that he restored order to Rome, breaking tradition and law temporarily in order to restore it. That seems to be massively hypocritical to me because the faction that he represented in the Senate had no problem simply murdering anyone (like the Gracchis and their supporters) who tried to implement reforms (that Rome seemed to badly need) by the rules, escalating the situation until you had people like Marius and Cinna who understood that playing by the rules was going to be futile and probably get you whacked like their predecessors. It feels like all he did was suppress dissent to the real problems facing the Republic instead of actually trying to solve them, letting them fester and simultaneously laying the groundwork for people like Caesar to march against the civil government.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
tekz posted:So I'm hard pressed to understand why Sulla is viewed in a positive light by anyone. The argument seemed to be that he restored order to Rome, breaking tradition and law temporarily in order to restore it. That seems to be massively hypocritical to me because the faction that he represented in the Senate had no problem simply murdering anyone (like the Gracchis and their supporters) who tried to implement reforms (that Rome seemed to badly need) by the rules, escalating the situation until you had people like Marius and Cinna who understood that playing by the rules was going to be futile and probably get you whacked like their predecessors. He did murder the poo poo out of the Knights, who honestly kind of had it coming at that point if you factor in how much of a bloodbath roman politics could be on a nice day. Personally I like him because of the way he left Rome: drunk off his rear end, riding an rear end, and kissing his gay lover, all while giving the finger to the senators watching the procession.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
He was a conservative who stuck to his principles, did exactly what he said he would, then gave up the power after he was done making changes. Just because in hindsight the evolution of the Republic could be seen as vital to the health of the empire, doesn't mean it's quite as politically clear cut then. They knew the republic worked in the past, therefore all the problems must be caused by deviating from that. A call back to their glory days(and there's always glory days in the past, no matter the culture or the era).
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
Sulla was gay? I did not know that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
Probably was bi. Everyone of note seemed to be loving everyone(and sometimes everything for the kookier ones)
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Sulla was gay? I did not know that. Bisexual by our standards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
Sulla pulled a Cincinnatus, which no one expected. It was literally epic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:05
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Sulla pulled a Cincinnatus, which no one expected. It was literally epic. In a Greek/Roman history thread, something is only literally epic if it's in dactylic hexameter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
veekie posted:He was a conservative who stuck to his principles, did exactly what he said he would, then gave up the power after he was done making changes. This is a very good and succinct summary. Giving up his power at the end was the thing that really guaranteed him love to Romans, consider the way Cincinnatus was held up as the ideal Roman man for like, ever. Whether or not he even existed is up to debate, but Sulla definitely did and Sulla followed Cincinnatus' example very well. Now whether or not doing what he said he would and sticking to his principles were good things, that's another story entirely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
Yeah he gave up power but after he murdered everyone that could possibly enact laws not to his taste or get back at him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
tekz posted:Yeah he gave up power but after he murdered everyone that could possibly enact laws not to his taste or get back at him. In Roman terms, this makes him a highly effective politician.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
He also kicked rear end in Greece and Asia. And Africa.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
Sulla was also a badass. The personal foibles of upper class Romans were often overlooked if they managed to get the important things right, namely, being really ballsy and militarily competent. Mark Antony gets the same treatment. The plebs were absolute suckers for patricians that walked the walk, so to speak.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
Sulla was bad but Marius was even worse, being all senile and murderous. It's true though, his politics were conservative and didn't do anything to actually fix the problems of the Republic and he set a really bad example.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:In Roman terms, this makes him a highly effective politician. I know; which is why the whole Roman system seems to be full of complete bullshit and hypocrisy. On the one hand you're held up as this morally upright individual for giving up power; but it's done once it's safe to do so and having completely butchered the opposition. Sulla just comes off as a short sighted reactionary moron that hastened the Republic's end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
The Republic was doomed anyway, better to end it sooner than later since later means even more civil war. Sulla was also very complicated. On the one hand, the Julians were very much a Marian family, and therefore one of Sulla's targets. On the other, Julius Caesar was made flamen dialis against his will by Marius (and therefor barred from having a military career!) so after some convincing not only did he release the young Caesar from his flaminate (a type of priesthood) but he laughed as he did so, saying 'In this man I see many Mariuses.' Sulla also appeals to the modern historian since he came from poverty to become one of the most powerful men of antiquity; sure he was a patrician Cornelius, but his branch of the family was horribly impoverished by a long string of bad luck. Basically Sulla owns and the only people I like more than him from the death-days of the Republic are Augustus and Agrippa, bros4life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
tekz posted:
Ending the republic though is a good thing in my book. Killing scores of senators is also not so bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Ending the republic though is a good thing in my book. Killing scores of senators is also not so bad. Cato had it coming. Cicero was a legit tragedy though. He really wanted the republic to live up to its ideals. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:The Republic was doomed anyway, better to end it sooner than later since later means even more civil war. Can't really say either way, addressing the causes of the infighting and civil war might've stopped more coming in the future while still maintaining the Republic. Sulla murdered the wrong people IMO, he should've just done in all the idiots getting in the way of needed reforms like citizenship for the rest of Italy, unemployment due to the slave economy, land ownership etc because it cut into their bottom line.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Cato had it coming.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
tekz posted:Can't really say either way, addressing the causes of the infighting and civil war might've stopped more coming in the future while still maintaining the Republic. Sulla murdered the wrong people IMO, he should've just done in all the idiots getting in the way of needed reforms like citizenship for the rest of Italy, unemployment due to the slave economy, land ownership etc because it cut into their bottom line. So the entire ruling class, then?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
tekz posted:Can't really say either way, addressing the causes of the infighting and civil war might've stopped more coming in the future while still maintaining the Republic. Sulla murdered the wrong people IMO, he should've just done in all the idiots getting in the way of needed reforms like citizenship for the rest of Italy, unemployment due to the slave economy, land ownership etc because it cut into their bottom line. The problem wasn't Sulla murdering people, the problem was that Sulla and Marius between them demonstrated that it was possible to seize absolute power in Rome and only lose it if someone showed up with a better army and displaced you. After that everyone started playing to win.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
I don' think you can understand Sulla without the Marian terror. He came back after years of blood flowing in the streets and the upper classes fleeing in terror. He may have made himself dictator at the head of an army and proscribed and killed the whole Senate, but you have to understand that the whole Senate at that point were the people who had been killing everyone. All the Senators still not part of Marius' kangaroo Senate had fled or been murdered. I doubt many tears were shed during Sulla's purge, because the people being purged had all conducted a longer and far more widespread purge just before.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
tekz posted:Can't really say either way, addressing the causes of the infighting and civil war might've stopped more coming in the future while still maintaining the Republic. Sulla murdered the wrong people IMO, he should've just done in all the idiots getting in the way of needed reforms like citizenship for the rest of Italy, unemployment due to the slave economy, land ownership etc because it cut into their bottom line. Easy to say from hindsight, but his point of view, the reforms were the things destroying the proud legacy of Rome. And his success at what he did went beyond personal competence, he had to have people willing to support and follow him. It might not have been practical even, to reform the republic like you say, but that's going into what-if territory. Most of the necessary reforms reduce the power and wealth of the rich and powerful, or weaken the relative position of citizens. There's only so much you can do before the people with the armies and money decide to stop taking it lying down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
Sulla paving the path for Caesar shouldn't necessarily be looked upon as necessarily leading to the death of the Republic, either - Caesar had cogently identified many of the real problems with the Republic's government and treatment of non-citizens within the Republican empire. I have always suspected, though there can never be any proof, that Caesar fully intended to step down like Sulla once he had completed a vast, semi-revolutionary revamping of the Republic's constitution. Would he have effectively reigned in the potential for marches upon Rome, as Augustus later did (for a while)? Who knows. Caesar's dictatorship is a muddled and confusing mess from this much historical distance, vacillating between rank nepotism and narcissism on one hand and genuine attempts to prevent future constitutional crises by coming down on the side of the people/non-citizens on the other.veekie posted:Easy to say from hindsight, but his point of view, the reforms were the things destroying the proud legacy of Rome. And his success at what he did went beyond personal competence, he had to have people willing to support and follow him. It might not have been practical even, to reform the republic like you say, but that's going into what-if territory. This is basically why Sulla never had a chance at real reform even had he wanted to do so, and Caesar did. By the time he was in the dictatorship, Caesar had beaten down the people with armies and money already. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Nov 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yep, they're awesome as poo poo. Also the only example of a woman's direct writing we have from classical history, as far as I know. I swear that I read a letter from a woman to her tutor, basically saying 'gently caress you for educating me and then making GBS threads on my ability to be smart/engage in public discourse. I'm as smart as you and you should drat well know it.' Then again, maybe it was a letter in that 'Dear X, blahblahblah' sort of way... Argh I wish I could find that book...
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
Rat Flavoured Rats posted:As someone who studies Roman health & medicine, I've always enjoyed this particular Vindolanda Tablet. Goddamnit...looks like my JSTOR access probably ended on the 1st.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 06:54 |
|
|
Why did emperors not always occupy the office of Consul? In younger years I learned that Augustus became emperor largely because he accumulated all major offices to himself, and had assumed that one of the two consulships would be among them. Even Augustus wasn't Consul every single year, however. Is there a particular set of offices which every (or most) emperors had? Was it simply the office of Dictator for life?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 19:35
|
|
