|
HEY GUNS posted:Tias said the black guy who wants me to get married and the white guy who wants me dead are both figureheads and there's no difference between them. I know where my real interests lie and they aren't with you. Yeah, if you're a middle class American citizen, they're pretty different. For everyone else, they're both pro-bombing, pro-drone strike, pro-intervention, pro-deportation, and that doesn't even get into economics. Traditional conservatives thinking they can control right-wing populism and having it go wildy wrong isn't exactly new. e: gently caress new page  I was thinking that this must be like what it was like for outsiders looking at Rome, knowing this.... Thing would always be a problem for them, but this isn't a very well formed thought. Sorry guys.
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
underage at the vape shop posted:Dude you're a loving idiot, I don't follow international politics a whole lot but 100% the backers of both major parties are in charge in Australia. Its incredibly blatantly obvious. Giving mass money to a party and helping them get elected gets you big kickbacks. Rupert Murdoch is a real life lizard person who owns the LNP, our current majority party, and is powerful enough that he has sway with the other major party despite actively working against them. Does that mean the LNP get elected every time? No. But he still owns them. nice meltdown
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
I think history has proven that being the secret power behind the throne is an incredibly unreliable institution. Often you get figureheads that want to act out on their own or other people trying to bogart away your influence. It's also just really hard to balance a powerless figurehead with the bare minimum requirements to actually go through the motions of ruling. That was part of the deal with Charlemagne. The Karlings had already been the power behind the throne for a while, but often it's just easier to do things directly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
Idunn posted:Yeah, if you're a middle class American citizen, they're pretty different. For everyone else, they're both pro-bombing, pro-drone strike, pro-intervention, pro-deportation, and that doesn't even get into economics. It's pretty hosed up that you'd think the entirety of the world is as dumb as the claim you just made dude, like whoa. You're operating on some "Rome was killed by those drat Christians" level political understanding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 01:49
|
|
|
There's also a very, very big difference between being heavily influential and being actually the secret power who rules all and your word goes. Just being a big poo poo that can gently caress things over if you want to isn't enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It's pretty hosed up that you'd think the entirety of the world is as dumb as the claim you just made dude, like whoa. You're operating on some "Rome was killed by those drat Christians" level political understanding. It's not like your operating level is any higher.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 01:56
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It's pretty hosed up that you'd think the entirety of the world is as dumb as the claim you just made dude, like whoa. You're operating on some "Rome was killed by those drat Christians" level political understanding. I'm not sure you think I mean what I think I mean, but sure, react with as much hostility as you can I guess? I mean every president's foreign policy has been nearly identical. That kind of matters when Americans claim they are very different! Us foreigners can in fact tell that Obama was a nicer dude than Trump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 01:58
|
|
|
Idunn posted:I'm not sure you think I mean what I think I mean, but sure, react with as much hostility as you can I guess? It was pretty obvious and you immediately confirmed it: Idunn posted:I mean every president's foreign policy has been nearly identical. This is super false. You don't seem to have learned any history at all, to be saying this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 02:02
|
|
|
Christ I browse this thread to get away from bullshit “both sides are the same” hot takes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
Both sides in much of the world are ultimately representatives of capital, friend 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Christ I browse this thread to get away from bullshit “both sides are the same” hot takes. Livia did it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 02:12
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:you didn't have any poo poo, sheesh I'm suddenly wondering whether the romans cultivated yew for bows or just used something else/a laminate
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
What is Livia is actually immortal and travels through history murdering as she goes. Livia killed JFK & RFK
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
Livia did 9/11
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 02:22
|
|
|
Which dumbass moved the Rome thread to D&D?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 02:30
|
|
|
Marxist-Jezzinist posted:Both sides in much of the world are ultimately representatives of capital, friend Fact.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 02:36
|
|
|
Jesus christ what a bunch of obscenely bad posts in such a random place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 02:39
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:I know where my real interests lie and they aren't with you. Given what you did, this does come off in a rather interesting way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 03:14
|
|
|
This thread fututum est. Wait is my grammar right here?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 04:07
|
|
|
Derail over. Next modern politics post gets a trip to kitty jail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
The history of all hitherto existing threads is a history of derails.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 04:18
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I'm suddenly wondering whether the romans cultivated yew for bows or just used something else/a laminate They mostly used composite bows (some bone laths from these have been found in Britain), Vegetius implies that simple bows were only used for training.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
anyway the real reason I came into this thread today was to ask if anyone had a good recomendation for a book/podcast/similar that looks at third century rome
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 05:34
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:you didn't have any poo poo, sheesh Seashells look great in a triumph!
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 05:44
|
|
|
underage at the vape shop posted:anyway the real reason I came into this thread today was to ask if anyone had a good recomendation for a book/podcast/similar that looks at third century rome https://www.amazon.com/Roman-Empire...SCQGAZACSHXS5G9
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 05:51
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The human sacrifice thing was probably something they kept pointing out when they needed to justify colonizing Britain beyond "they're here but we want their poo poo and they aren't letting us take it" That's the modern view. They really didn't need justifications like that back then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 08:50
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:That's the modern view. They really didn't need justifications like that back then. the republic did require justification for military action, to an extent caesar's conquest of gaul was all kinds of illegal for example, he just couldn't be prosecuted due to continually holding high offices. caesar becoming vulnerable to prosecution for war crimes was what precipitated the crossing of the rubicon, et al. the druids may or may not have conducted regular human sacrifice, it's hard to tell considering the universally lurid nature of roman records about them. certainly the romans viewed explicit human sacrifice to the gods as an extreme last resort thing - it was acceptable if rome itself was at risk of falling, for example - but they also hated the gently caress out of gauls regardless of their religious practices. one thing that is fairly certain is that the gauls displayed the skulls of their enemies and such very openly, which likely biased the romans towards viewing druids as death cultists even if they weren't (but they may have been!) Jazerus fucked around with this message at 09:03 on Dec 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 08:55
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:the republic did require justification for military action, to an extent I keep thinking this is actually the strongest parallel between the US today and the Roman empire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 10:46
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:the republic did require justification for military action, to an extent The thing here ofc is that Caesar was himself acting illegally. If the Roman state wanted to do bullshit, they didn't need that much justifications for it. I think Goldsworthy points out as one root cause to Roman fuckery in Gaul that Gaul had turned into a hugely important market for Roman wines and there were commercial interests in getting a tighter control of that market and also preventing local rulers from messing with merchants.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 10:55
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:
AFAIK the main reason why Caesar invaded Gaul was because he had a lot of debt and Gaul had a lot of gold.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 13:14
|
|
|
I hope I haven't asked about this before (or if I did, I didn't have pictures at hand) https://imgur.com/a/VOOTqrm https://www.google.co.il/maps/@31.2014231,35.3599442,3a,75y,240.19h,100.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skXd3ouo_JThU0L29Zzmx0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 Ruins next to a Dead Sea hotel I used to work at. No archaeological service signs nearby, no information online. Some employee claimed this used to be a Roman fort, based on... someone else telling them so. The ruins were obviously used for ... something... in the 20th century, but other than the metal thingy (no idea what it would regulate or do) there are no obviously modern items in the nearby area. Any ideas? Xander77 fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Dec 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:That's the modern view. They really didn't need justifications like that back then. The Romans were actually very careful to justify all of their wars in the Republic and continued that on well after, though not as carefully. They would cook up excuses as necessary to sell wars, and a huge number of the wars were claimed to be entirely self-defense. The most classic Roman method for this was what they did in the Second Punic War. Rome would make allies all around the Mediterranean, and when one of those allies was attacked--in this case, Hannibal's siege of Saguntum--they would go to war in defense of their ally. It's easy to see this as completely cynical, but it's not. Making allies was good for Rome, their power was based on a massive alliance system and the more the better. And if the Romans refused to come to the defense of their ally, what was the point of making deals with Rome? Abandoning Saguntum to its fate would've been a massive blow to Roman power and prestige. Of course, it also gave them the ability to reduce the Carthaginian empire to tributaries and gain a bunch of new territory in a war of self-defense, the noblest of intentions. Who can criticize defending yourself? If you want to read a Roman author being cynical about this and critical of Roman imperialism, Tacitus is your man. Xander77 posted:Any ideas? Could be, who knows. I don't see anything there that indicates what culture built it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
Tacitus was the “makes a desert and calls it peace” guy right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
Yep. He's the guy who lets us know for sure that the Romans weren't all a bunch of crazy imperialist warmongers, they also had varying opinions on warfare and empire and questioning whether they were doing the right thing or not. My read on Tacitus is today he'd be the insufferable guy who can't stop posting about the evils of Amerikkka in every thread whatever the subject.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yep. He's the guy who lets us know for sure that the Romans weren't all a bunch of crazy imperialist warmongers, they also had varying opinions on warfare and empire and questioning whether they were doing the right thing or not. My read on Tacitus is today he'd be the insufferable guy who can't stop posting about the evils of Amerikkka in every thread whatever the subject. ah, a thread regular
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
Hadrian would have a "WELL, ACTUALLY" big red custom title.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Hadrian would have a "WELL, ACTUALLY" big red custom title. speaking of, who paid for his wall?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
Stilicho did nothing wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
basically any time you find yourself thinking "modern people are like this, the ancients were like this" you might want to rethink that. differences are usually much more about the circumstances than any kind of "well things were looser back in the day" sort of thing autocracies don't have to justify wars to the same degree as democracies. that's the source of the perceived difference. the republic relied on folks buying into the system and nobody is eager to send their sons off to die for no reason, so wars had to be sold.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:speaking of, who paid for his wall? The Picts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 19:22
|
|