|
Epicurius posted:I thought it was Charun rather than Vanth, but a slave dressed as Charun would smash the skulls of the dead gladiators with a hammer to make sure they were dead. If the gladiator was downed, and the host of the games decided his performance was inadequate, it would also be the hammer. Apparently there's some disagreement about whether the executioner was supposed to be Vanth, Charun, or Dis Pater. I learned it as Vanth but the three figures are all related so there are partisans for all.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 01:47 |
|
|
 Stupid sexy pottery!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 20:50
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:
I like big pots, I cannot lie
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
Well they may be shirtless just because the carved dude is shirtless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 20:59
|
|
|
If I was that jacked I'd be shirtless all the time too
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 21:39
|
|
|
I wonder why the lead horseman looks depressed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 21:41
|
|
|
Kassad posted:I wonder why the lead horseman looks depressed. It's getting cold and he really wants a shirt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 21:54
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:
Maybe because the figure on the carving isn't wearing one? Although that could very well be similar to the Greek custom of painting their warriors naked instead of armored.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 00:09
|
|
|
Kylaer posted:Maybe because the figure on the carving isn't wearing one? Although that could very well be similar to the Greek custom of painting their warriors naked instead of armored. When I read the Iliad it felt like most of the combatants were nearly naked. Was cloth carried into wounds considered bad back then?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 00:12
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:When I read the Iliad it felt like most of the combatants were nearly naked. Was cloth carried into wounds considered bad back then? Can't comment on this, but the book is way hotter if you assume they all have raging hardons during all the battle scenes? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 00:42
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:Can't comment on this, but the book is way hotter if you assume they all have raging hardons during all the battle scenes? Wasn’t Thersites disgusted with Achilles because he seemed obviously sexually attracted to Penthesilea after he killed her? That was in the Aethiopis, not the Iliad, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
This is probably a dumb question, and maybe the answer is the reconstruction is probably wrong. But, with the curve in the center (where they walk through it, the almost arch) and guy carved into it they obviously could chop up some blocks and do a good job at it. So, why is the outside part on the left still lumpy mismatched stones? They didn't think to smooth them out or make them square and look nice? Or were they probably squared, nice stones that got worn out into weird shapes over time and the artist just didn't think through that when drawing what it might have looked like? Or did the Hittites have a thing for lumpy stones?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 01:28
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:Can't comment on this, but the book is way hotter if you assume they all have raging hardons during all the battle scenes? Young men pop boners from just about any strong emotion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 01:41
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:When I read the Iliad it felt like most of the combatants were nearly naked. Was cloth carried into wounds considered bad back then? The Greeks were big into heroic nudity. They didn’t actually go to battle naked. Roman and Greek sexuality are fascinating topics. “Infibulation” is mostly used today to refer to type III genital mutilation on women, but it can also refer to the ancient practice of clasping your foreskin shut. In Ancient Greece it appears that it was considered proper to hide the head of your penis when nude in public, which was accomplished by using the kynodesmē (dog tie/leash), a cord or leather thong that cinched the foreskin and pulled the penis upward, with the other end sometimes secured at the waist. They also considered longer foreskins with a distinctive taper to be more desirable, and short ones were pathologized. “Akroposthion” was a term for the part of the foreskin that reaches past the head of the penis and forms that sexy taper. Depictions of penises in vase painting emphasize this, sometimes to an unrealistic extent. This might be artistic liberty, or it might actually reflect foreskins that were elongated by constant use of the aforementioned kynodesmē.  Close-up of a kylix of Achilles binding Patroclus’ wounds, prominently featuring Patroclus’ foreskin draped over his foot.  Painting on an oinechoe which features a young man that somehow still has an unretracted, tapered foreskin despite his raging erection.  Another red-figure depiction of an athlete in the process of tying the kynodesmē around his akroposthion. Most of this information is from this great article: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/4718/pdf Kevin DuBrow fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Jun 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 02:56
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Young men pop boners from just about any strong emotion. What’s David’s excuse, then?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 03:19
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:
Wouldn't you if you had abs like that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 05:01
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Wouldn't you if you had abs like that? Didn't the greeks mould abs onto their armour specifically so they could do both at once?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 05:50
|
|
|
BrainDance posted:This is probably a dumb question, and maybe the answer is the reconstruction is probably wrong. But, with the curve in the center (where they walk through it, the almost arch) and guy carved into it they obviously could chop up some blocks and do a good job at it. I'm blindly speculating here, but that reconstruction strikes me as terrible, and I suspect the actual wall would have been much larger. Look at the guard standing in the foreground; it implies the wall was barely 6 ft high, you could have scaled it just by jumping and pulling yourself up. Meanwhile the outer layer of the wall is clearly much higher and better built, but not visible off to the side of the foreground almost-arch for some reason?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 08:00
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Could there have been a ditch or moat on the other side? Cheaper way to make the wall effectively taller.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 08:07
|
|
|
That gate's part of the walls of the inner city, there was also an outer city with its own set of walls. Also the inner city is built on a ridge about 100 meters above the surrounding area, more or less like a Greek Acropolis. An army would probably have had to have overrun the rest of the city to hit it, and even then they'd have to climb a 100 meter slope first. But it also looks like the stone section of the wall would have been topped by rammed earth structures, if this reconstruction is accurate : 
Kassad fucked around with this message at 09:57 on Jun 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 08:56
|
|
|
 Extremely European Hannibal Barca: *smolders hunkily at u* *stabs Dalmatia because he's angry he can't find Italy on his map*
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 14:39
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:
lol at romance novel Hannibal Barca having both eyes, just lmao
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 15:31
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:
Im teh hairspray-spiked tips.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 15:55
|
|
|
Seriously though the artist accidentally put Greece where Italy is supposed to be and just sort of made Macedonia bigger and called it a day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 16:22
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:
lol at everything happening here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 16:24
|
|
|
 Dolphin mosaic, Knossos, Crete. 16th century BC
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 16:53
|
|
|
romance novel Hannibal meets romance novel Scipio on the plains of Zuma and begin making out, the most forbidden of loves
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 16:57
|
|
|
A giant frog is watching
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 17:01
|
|
|
Hot Generals gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 17:02
|
|
|
Pounded in the Butt by the Son of Hamilcar, a codex by Carolus Crispico
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 17:14
|
|
|
Roman/Ancient History: Prominently featuring Patroclus’ foreskin draped over his foot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 17:20
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:
Not enough shirtless generals with oiled abs quivering in the wind. 0/10
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 17:22
|
|
|
So there is revisionist work about how Domitian was good, actually (or at least not so bad) - is there any work that says Trajan was bad, actually?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 17:31
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:A giant frog is watching Did someone say Frogge? (I know, he mispronounces ž)
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
seems like you can't watch a rome video on youtube without getting recommended a bunch of fascist poo poo anymore. holy gently caress do they love aurelian and that dumb STRONG MEN MAKE GOOD TIMES FOR WEAK MEN TO KILL WITH DEGENERACY poo poo its frustrating
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:So there is revisionist work about how Domitian was good, actually (or at least not so bad) - is there any work that says Trajan was bad, actually? I think the main griping would be he was the first Emperor to start devaluing the currency of the Empire.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:So there is revisionist work about how Domitian was good, actually (or at least not so bad) - is there any work that says Trajan was bad, actually? Trajan's expansionist policy was excessive, to the point where Hadrian had to give up some of the territory Trajan conquered in order to have more defensible borders. Wikipedia posted:It was only during the Enlightenment that this legacy began to be contested, when Edward Gibbon expressed doubts about the militarized character of Trajan's reign in contrast to the "moderate" practices of his immediate successors.[285] Mommsen adopted a divided stance towards Trajan, at some point of his posthumously published lectures even speaking about his "vainglory" (Scheinglorie).[286] Mommsen also speaks of Trajan's "insatiable, unlimited lust for conquest".[287] Although Mommsen had no liking for Trajan's successor Hadrian – "a repellent manner, and a venomous, envious and malicious nature" – he admitted that Hadrian, in renouncing Trajan's conquests, was "doing what the situation clearly required".[288]
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:So there is revisionist work about how Domitian was good, actually (or at least not so bad) - is there any work that says Trajan was bad, actually? None that he was bad, but he gets criticism for being too conquest focused and debasing the currency. That is countered by a school of thought that Hadrian was the one who actually made the mistake by pulling back and fortifying the frontiers, arguing that the Roman state was reliant on constant expansion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:41
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:Trajan's expansionist policy was excessive, to the point where Hadrian had to give up some of the territory Trajan conquered in order to have more defensible borders. Probably the best parallel I can think of is Khosrow II - sure, he conquered huge swaths of territory, but it was far too much territory to effectively garrison and defend. It takes many years, if not decades, to stabilize conquered territories and turn them into productive provinces, and in the meantime, they’re a huge resource sink and vulnerable to rebellion or outside attack. Sure, the Sasanian Empire was in a more precarious position when they tried to ride that tiger, but both were unsustainable long-term. If Hadrian hadn’t abandoned a ton of territory and pulled back to a defensible perimeter, we might be talking about the Crisis of the Second Century and how the Roman Empire fell apart in 276 AD.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 01:47 |
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:So there is revisionist work about how Domitian was good, actually (or at least not so bad) - is there any work that says Trajan was bad, actually? Judaism hasn't treated him kindly, for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:56
|
|
