|
FreudianSlippers posted:Everyone was covered in excrement all day every day until 1997 when hygiene was invented. I mean, have you seen footage of New York before 1990's?
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 14:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 17:52 |
|
|
 It won't load so no clue what it's actually about
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 14:46
|
|
|
Koramei posted:
Well, it probably has a ritual or religious purpose
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 14:48
|
|
|
Fish of hemp posted:I mean, have you seen footage of New York before 1990's? I do remember reading that banana peels became a slapstick staple because you couldn't show horse poo poo on screen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 17:06
|
|
|
What justifications are there for suggesting that the concept of Rome extends beyond the Republican city-state's ideals and existence, and that the Roman Empire was actually Roman in any sense of the word? I can sort of see it in the sense of "this empire's seat of power is that city-state", but I'm hesitant to accept that this is sufficient. Can we even consider Republican Rome within the same continuum as its Caesar and post-Caesar history? At which point do we draw the line? Is Byzantium Roman? Are the continental "bloodline" successors Roman? Is modern Italy Roman? Is Britain Roman? Is America Roman? Are the Qing Roman? If we consider the Roman empire to be "not-Roman", we can very quickly determine that the answer to all of these questions would be "no." while also dutifully distancing ourselves from that tyrant-charlatan J*lius and his (as I believe should be properly named) Mediterranean Kingdom. So then this immediately brings to mind the inverse question, tying into the opener of this post: what is potentially gained by granting the Roman Empire the title of "Roman", other than satisfying the claim to some abstract prestigious identity (which is wholly undeserved, no matter how much political and familial maneuvering ancient politicians could muster.) It seems to me the only outcome of such an allowance is to glorify a madman and produce a greater degree of uncertainty. Dont Touch ME fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Feb 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 01:40
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Never don't plug this game. A very important thing to remember is that in the battles your job is not to kill the enemy. Your job is to survive until you get rotated back out of the front line. Any damage you do is strictly a bonus. There are some duels where you do have to kill your opponent, but you can usually avoid them. And focusing on survival is still a good tactic even then. You have a scutum, loving use it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 01:59
|
|
|
To the extent that empire is defined as a homeland extracting wealth from conquered provinces, Rome went from a Roman empire, to a Latin empire, to an Italian empire, to not an empire over the course of its long existence
cheetah7071 fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Feb 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 02:07
|
|
|
The mistake is there is no thing in the world that is “Roman empire”. It’s a phrase used in a language game we have about states and politics . There is no definite meaning
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 02:08
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:To the extent that empire is defined as a homeland extracting resources from conquered provinces, Rome went from a Roman empire, to a Latin empire, to an Italian empire, to not an empire over the course of its long existence It's called the Roman Empire because they were roamin' all over the Mediterranean.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 02:09
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:To the extent that empire is defined as a homeland extracting wealth from conquered provinces, Rome went from a Roman empire, to a Latin empire, to an Italian empire, to not an empire over the course of its long existence Then back to an Empire from Constantinople 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 02:38
|
|
|
The "Roman Empire" refers to a continuous geopolitical entity that had it's origins in the vassalage system administered by the city state of Rome. It is called such because for the majority of its history the city of Rome or those who held an ethnic/ancestral/governmental tie to it ran it's administration for the benefit of the city and the aforementioned ethnic/ancestral/governmental system. Controversy arises from disagreement over which historical event caused sufficient administrative, territorial, and cultural disruption of continuity to mark the end of the geopolitical entity known as the "Roman Empire". Popular events include: The dethroning of Romulus Augustulus, The Arab Conquests of the late 600's C.E., The 4th Crusades sack of the city of Constantinople, The Ottoman Conquest of Constantinople, or the view that there were in fact two separate geopolitical entities, a Principate and a Dominate, that nevertheless maintained enough cultural and territorial similarity as to both at least being part of a single "Roman" paradigm of the Mediterranean and surrounding areas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 04:03
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:To the extent that empire is defined as a homeland extracting wealth from conquered provinces, Rome went from a Roman empire, to a Latin empire, to an Italian empire, to not an empire over the course of its long existence Y'know if we use that definition how do we reconcile that with Nomadic groups that founded empires then hosed off from the steppes. Koramei posted:
I saw the first part and wondered why you were questioning an article about the Assyrians, then I saw silla, and wondered what the gently caress silla has to do with the Assyrians
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 04:15
|
|
|
I think the secret is that history is written in the future from the events it covers, so there's sort of a reverse-perspective. If you happen to be in a society that traces back its history through western Europe, then probably you'll trace back to the monarchies that all saw themselves in terms of being successors to the big ol' honking empire, and the little republic city-state that used to manage the empire using local city politics instead of fiat from an emperor who may not even live in the city is much less relevant. Although if philosophically you've got some reason to hold a lot of importance on a sort of constitutional government with group deliberation, voting, elected officials, and some kind of conceit of anti-monarchism, the city-state and its particulars are much, much more relevant. But I don't think there was much incorporation of the provinces outside of Italy into the Republican structures of government, so pragmatically most of Europe saw little practical difference between the rule of a distant Emperor and the rule of the distant Senate. But I don't think anybody cares about the monarchy that came before the republic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 04:30
|
|
|
The roman's cared enough that they never actually declared a monarchy, even if it effectively became one. Although the empire under Augustus was more similar to what came before than the latter empire, there's almost no functional difference between what Sulla or Caesar did than him except Augustus made it stick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 04:34
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:The roman's cared enough that they never actually declared a monarchy, even if it effectively became one. Although the empire under Augustus was more similar to what came before than the latter empire, there's almost no functional difference between what Sulla or Caesar did than him except Augustus made it stick. yes, correct, and neither of them declared a monarchy or really attempted to institute one. neither did augustus. the sharp divide between republic and empire is artificial; the state remained mostly the same as ever, just with an extra super-office of emperor grafted to the top of the bureaucracy. sometimes it was filled due to heredity, sometimes by the will of the senate (though this rarely ended well), and other times through force of arms. but ultimately, it's just an office that accommodates the top executive role that sulla, marius, caesar, and augustus carved into the roman constitution; the difference is that you don't (always) have to invade italy to get the position. the empire was understood as a monarchy for a long time, by people who lived under monarchies and monarchs who had an interest in portraying the romans as monarchists who cast aside their weak, stupid republic. but that's not really true when you dig into the details. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Feb 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 05:41
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Y'know if we use that definition how do we reconcile that with Nomadic groups that founded empires then hosed off from the steppes. You don't, probably
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 08:01
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:The roman's cared enough that they never actually declared a monarchy, even if it effectively became one. Although the empire under Augustus was more similar to what came before than the latter empire, there's almost no functional difference between what Sulla or Caesar did than him except Augustus made it stick. Also, they're all Roman.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 08:14
|
|
|
Yeah the only reason there even is a "who were the Romans and when did Rome stop being Rome" debate is because a bunch of western Europeans really wanted to make themselves the true heirs to Rome's legacy, rather than those obviously and continuously Roman guys in Constantinople. It's a stupid debate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 08:24
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Heck even Augustus' Principate and Diocletian's Dominate still contains granularity in the transition towards centralization.PittTheElder posted:Yeah the only reason there even is a "who were the Romans and when did Rome stop being Rome" debate is because a bunch of western Europeans really wanted to make themselves the true heirs to Rome's legacy, rather than those obviously and continuously Roman guys in Constantinople. It's a stupid debate. I don't blame them if I had a choice between a state where the head had to beg a bunch of dipshit nobles for troops versus having an entire standing army to gently caress up my many enemies I'd pick the latter. Bam modern state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 08:38
|
|
|
Dont Touch ME posted:What justifications are there for suggesting that the concept of Rome extends beyond the Republican city-state's ideals and existence, and that the Roman Empire was actually Roman in any sense of the word? romans were romans for as long as they thought themselves to be romans. so: Republican Rome - yes Caesar's Rome - yes Byzantium Roman - yes Are the continental "bloodline" successors Roman? - in official documents yes, but i don't think that the people living there thought themselves to be roman Is modern Italy Roman? - no Is Britain Roman? - no Is America Roman - no Are the Qing Roman - no euphronius posted:The mistake is there is no thing in the world that is “Roman empire”. It’s a phrase used in a language game we have about states and politics . There is no definite meaning correct
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 08:57
|
|
|
If western Europe isn’t roman then why did they have a Holy Roman Empire? Riddle me that poindexters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 12:07
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 12:27
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 12:39
|
|
|
Saying the empire was a republic because Sulla and Marius wielded similar power to emperors only makes sense if you think they were expressions of how well-functioning the government was and not the result of everything going wrong and taking on a title that literally suspends a ton of republican institutions. Or if you think the empire represents a state of eternal civil war. Like while some institutions of the republic managed to survive and take on a bureaucratic role, some were dead before Augustus was born, and everything being subordinated to one guy who's top poo poo and whose family gets special status and privilege and whenever possible becomes the successor to the top poo poo while the last guy is deified as a god seems as monarchical as it gets. In no small part because the medieval societies who created our more modern conception of what monarchy entails took a lot of cues and trappings from imperial Rome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
Dont Touch ME posted:What justifications are there for suggesting that the concept of Rome extends beyond the Republican city-state's ideals and existence, and that the Roman Empire was actually Roman in any sense of the word? Roman citizenship was held by quite a lot of people who weren't from the city of Rome and had no particular connection to it. After Caracalla that was actually most citizens. And citizenship was considered valuable enough that people would go to war for the right to have to it. So I dunno but it seems to me like a sense of Roman identity was held completely independent of the city-state such that people across Europe, North Africa and the Middle-East would continue to identify as Roman long past the point the city itself was a derelict backwater.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 01:17
|
|
|
Random Integer posted:Roman citizenship was held by quite a lot of people who weren't from the city of Rome and had no particular connection to it. After Caracalla that was actually most citizens. And citizenship was considered valuable enough that people would go to war for the right to have to it. So I dunno but it seems to me like a sense of Roman identity was held completely independent of the city-state such that people across Europe, North Africa and the Middle-East would continue to identify as Roman long past the point the city itself was a derelict backwater. Caracalla only did it as a taxation scheme. Citizenship was more of a legal distinction (much like it is today), than a cheesehat identifier
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 01:21
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:I saw the first part and wondered why you were questioning an article about the Assyrians, then I saw silla, and wondered what the gently caress silla has to do with the Assyrians I was laughing at the title although in retrospect I'm not sure why I found it so funny. Turns out it's just about a bronze kneading bowl and the word bronze got truncated, although the alerts usually show the full text so I'm not sure what happened. To make my shitpost at least a little constructive though, I'll use this as another opportunity to plug Google Scholar alerts for those that aren't aware! You can set a bunch of keywords to flag and get emails whenever journal articles get published that include them. It is like 90% chaff (hence me getting an email about Assyrian kneading bowls in my flag that was looking for stuff related to Silla), but it is helpful for keeping up with things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 01:27
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I was laughing at the title although in retrospect I'm not sure why I found it so funny. Turns out it's just about a bronze kneading bowl and the word bronze got truncated, although the alerts usually show the full text so I'm not sure what happened.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 03:08
|
|
|
Don't Touch ME, you may find this map elucidating. Julius Caesar wasn't exactly the beginning of Roman imperial domination. Oh, and I was just joking about you trolling in the China thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 19:35
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/bombsfall/status/1364656517232943105?s=20
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 20:41
|
|
|
Poor Vitellius, if the mob hadn’t interrupted his abdication he would have faded away to chill in a villa and drink himself to death.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 20:47
|
|
|
That's more profound than it first appears. We just call it "life" while it's happening. It only becomes history years later when they can sort out what was actually important. While some events are obviously significant when they occur, there's an awful lot of stuff that turns out to be hugely important later that no one really paid any attention to when it was happening.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
big boost to the "new jersey is the modern rome" theory
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 21:08
|
|
|
Ayyyy im listenin to da Senate ova hear!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 22:59
|
|
|
This guy has opinions about the Mets
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
Cognito, ergo sum gabagool
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 23:13
|
|
|
Bobby Digital posted:This guy has opinions about the Mets He's literally in yankeesfans.gif 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 23:22
|
|
|
I just see the forum crier from Rome when he was younger.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
a fatguy baldspot posted:Cognito, ergo sum gabagaul
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 17:52 |
|
|
This just in: Ancient Roman looks Italian. I joke, but this has actually been a real thing. There's been a certain contingent of people out there, especially in the past, who are big admirers of ancient Greece or ancient Rome, or ancient Egypt, who go out of their way to deny that they had any sort of relationship with their modern counterparts, or even that the moderns are descendants of the ancient.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 00:47
|
|
