|
DarkCrawler posted:Who do you think is the most unappreciated general in Roman history? I understand this is slightly subjective, but I'd be interested in your opinion anyway. I've always thought that Quintus Sertorius doesn't get his fair share whenever they talk about great Roman military commanders. This probably doesn't count since they are well known and respected among anyone who is aware of the fact Rome did in fact exist past 476, but I think Belisarius, and even Narses to a lesser extent deserve some fame. Given what they managed to accomplish, especially Belisarius, given that Justinian was wary of ever giving him an army of any significant size. Both their names would probably be far more famous if they fell under the more common known span of Roman history. quote:There are some scholars that claim that "Christianization" led to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire but then why did the Eastern Roman Empire survive until 1453? Well the east was always in a better position in terms of resources than the west, and I think one thing above all that helped was in the later 5th century, the eastern Empire managed to subdue the behind the scenes power of the foederati, something the west was never able to achieve. One interesting thing though about the rise of Christianity in the east was how cities altered. Eventually over time public life became, well not so public. You now had a new religion with a new set of morals, and most importantly morals that revolved around the Earth just being a stepping stone to the afterlife. The "debauchery' of cities that had made them great, the races, the gambling involved with them, plays, taverns, forums and such, basically most of public life beyond going to the market or church started to be looked less favorably upon. This process moved along slowly until the 7th century when Byzantium entered basically a dark age so to say. Cities dwindled substantially, and when they finally began to recover in 9th-10th centuries, the process was complete. Even in Constantinople by this point the Hippodrome, the center of urban social life, only ran on a few special occasions in the year. Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 15:15 on May 24, 2012 |
#
¿
May 24, 2012 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:What then separated the classes was medical care. Aside from governmental ideas, America took so many other ideas from the Romans  On that note though, people often overlook the fact the Romans did in fact have medicine beyond "Here's some herbs, pray to some gods". Now this of course like all ancient medicine doesn't necessarily correlate into "good" medicine, but the Romans basically weren't equaled until well into the enlightenment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine_in_ancient_Rome The article itself is short and of lesser concern than the picture of surgical tools found at Pompeii. You have to admit that's a pretty impressive array of tools for 79AD. Also, can you imagine getting a Roman catheter?  Which actually leads into this: Lotish posted:This makes me curious: Why is that particular period the famous one, exactly? I mean it's hazy for me, as an average joe: I know there was still stuff going on, but we just don't seem to care after a while. Why? Because all glory to Rome, SPQR and all that jazz. For one thing, it's geographical, as far as most of the west is concern the Roman empire ended in 476 AD because we're western European-centric, if we lived in Greece we'd probably be educated on how the Byzantine empire was in fact a continuation of Rome and in many ways helped save some of the best parts of western civilization. However Byzantium in its heydays(I'd say there were two, the early era up through Justinian, and that around the Macedonian and Komnenian dyanasties starting in the 9th century) still couldn't even come remotely close to comparing to the awesome power that was Rome despite basically being one of the richest states in the world during many periods. The era from the later Republic up to the crisis of the third century is probably one of the most impressive bouts of history ever. Rome was a state that I would say was just ahead of its time. Their political and legal systems were not only advanced for their time, but so advanced they laid the foundation for our current systems. Their engineering feats were spectacular in size and scale, and this in itself is huge for the fact it makes Rome impossible to ignore. Even if its hundreds of years after the fall of the western empire and you're living in feudal Europe and you've basically never read anything beyond the bible(assuming you're one of the few who knows how to read), Rome is still all around you. These giant crumbling monuments, roads, fortifications, amphitheaters, bathhouses, hippodromes, ect, basically even in the dark ages, if you lived in western Europe, you could not forget Rome, the massive monuments of its peak served as a constant intriguing reminder, and probably a sad reminder at that, people in the dark ages weren't sure what happened, but they were aware life had not always been as it currently it was. It's a powerful reminder that was carried down through the enlightenment, and at that point people once again began to focus on everything that was good about Rome during its peak. Also of note, going back to a western-centric view that often ignores the continuation of the eastern half of the empire, I think people are also just really fascinated with the fall of the Roman Empire. Regardless of any problems Rome had, it just seems ridiculous how the empire in the west collapsed in on itself, by outward appearances it should've never happened, at least as it did, yet it did happen, and it remains endlessly fascinating since there's no one right answer on what caused it. It's also leaves the question of when did Rome truly fall. Romulus Augustus is generally considered the last emperor who was overthrown in 476, but he and those before him were just puppets of Germanic rulers. The Ostrogoths than overthrew Odovacer in 493, but they all saw themselves as the legitimate succession of the Roman state and in fact tried to keep Roman institutions going, case in point the Senate kept functioning well into the 6th century. And during all of this they still paid lip service to the emperor in Constantinople who was supposed to the de jure emperor in Italy as well even if this was no where near the reality. One could make the argument the Roman state never truly fell until the Lombards came storming down.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
Twat McTwatterson posted:"Caesar conquered Gaul, but Nicomedes conquered Caesar." The whole thing from The Twelve Caesars since I actually have the book in arms reach Gaul was brought to shame by Caesar; By King Nicomedes, he. Here comes Caesar, wreathed in triumph For his Gallic victory! Nicomedes wears no laurels, Though the greatest of the three. Chanted out by Caesar's own troops. I think my favorite line about Roman history comes from that book, I forget who Suetonius attributed the quote to, but in reference to Caesar vs other emperors in terms of vices, "Caesar was the only sober man who ever tried to wreck the constitution" Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 20:36 on May 24, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 24, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
Theodora was just a total badass, I'd probably fear her the most out of Justinian, Belisarius and Narses given the fact she's the one who had to keep Justinian from fleeing during the Nika riots. "Purple is also a good color to die in" or something along those lines.FizFashizzle posted:One of the coolest things was the financial crisis that stemmed from a number of causes, like the wealth of Rome getting shipped to China for silk, or massive debasement of the currency. They really didn't understand things like inflation yet. It's also pretty interesting when you look at it how the economic and social consequences helped lay the groundwork for what would evolve into feudalism in the west.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
I have a question on the Century Assembly that's always bothered me. What exactly what its composition? I know its soldiers, but what soldiers? In the early days I don't see a problem with soldiers voting since Rome was small, but you start getting post Punic wars and most soldiers are out on the frontiers.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2012 15:49
|
|
|
Well there was Hero of Alexandria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_of_Alexandria He is known to have produced a steam powered device, but it had no practical effects beyond an amusement device at the time. To my knowledge the Romans never tried to destroy it, in fact the technology for steam engines just didn't exist for Hero's aeolipile to ever be more of anything than an amusement or experiment in forces.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2012 03:50
|
|
|
The Byzantines despite being a monarchy oddly never had any set in legal set in stone succession method either. Heirs could be named but no one was getting far without the support of the military and the patriarch of Constantinople. I always found the Roman attitude towards slavery to be interesting, especially when compared to backdrop of slavery in the say the 18th and 19th century. I mean no doubt a lot of slaves were in brutal condition, yet at the same time there was appears to be a general respect for slaves, I mean they could actually earn money and purchase their own freedom, and a large part of the Roman civil service was freedmen. There was also legislation to protect slaves, a few mentioned in "Roman Civilization Volume Two: The Empire" -Vespasian ordered that any woman who was made a prostitute after being sold on the condition she wouldn't be made one would immediately be a free woman of the former seller. -The Petronian Law in 33BC forbade owners from forcing their slaves to fight in arenas -Claudius decreed that if an owner neglected the health of their slave and the slave died that the owner should be tried for murder. -Hadrian forbid owners to kill their slaves in any circumstances saying it was a matter for the courts, outlawed abuse unless it was to get information in a criminal case, and even then only allowed it on slaves who may have had direct witness of a crime and outlawed private prisons for slaves.(Thankfully the US has now seen the folly out the outlawing of private prisons 1,900 years ago) Heck, everyone from bottom to top was equal for Saturalia when they all wore the same exact goofy hat. Can you imagine a slave owner in say the Confederacy or Brazil becoming equal for a day with his slaves, and heck maybe even serving them dinner, or the government banishing someone for a couple of years for undue cruelty towards their slaves. There's a line from Seneca in the book where he mentions that once the idea was taken up "to distinguish slaves from freemen by their dress; it then became apparent how great would be the impending danger if our slaves began to count our number. Perhaps it was a mix of stoicism and the fact Romans didn't hold anyone particular group to a sub level of slavery. Slaves were just anyone who weren't citizens who by capture or birth happened to wind up as slaves. Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 20:17 on May 27, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 27, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
I think it generally involved banishment from a certain area, such as Rome itself or Italy, or to a more distant area of the empire, basically just far away from Rome. Don't quote me on that though.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
Pfirti86 posted:But formally speaking, there was no de jure procedure for inheriting the empire (like there is, for example, with the British crown). The office of 'Emperor' (at least for much of its use) wasn't so much a single title as it was a complicated collection of offices that effectively concentrated most power into one man. This is also something to keep in mind between the Principate and Dominate. Most of the emperors during the principate to varying degrees basically tried to follow the model of Augustus in regards to keeping the illusion of the Republic alive, and the emperor having his power in theory by political and religious titles/offices bequeathed to him by the Senate was important. Even the title given to Augustus, princeps, basically means first citizen, that of highest precedence among equals. I think to compare it to something modern, the illusion they were going for was that the Roman state operated basically as a semi-presidential system, with the emperor basically being head of state, the one who embodies the glory of Rome, and who was given certain powers to help in the efficiency of government or to settle disputes, and of course lead the army. Meanwhile the Senate and two Consuls were in fact supposed to be operating organs of government and highest government positions. Augustus helped set the political standard by chairing Senate meetings usually flanked by both Consuls on each side of him. Of course that's the illusion when in reality it was near an autocracy. At least Diocletian finally just dropped the formalities and gave himself the title of dominus.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
I always wondered what would've happened had Germanicus not died. He would've been next in line instead of Caligula right? There's be no 4 years of weirdness from Caligula and no succession problem since Germanicus was from everything I ever read basically the rock star of the Roman world. If bras were around in 15AD, they would be being thrown at Germanicus.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
^ Honorius died in Italy. You're thinking Valerian. Alhazred posted:Wasn't he the guy who was more interested in feeding his pigeons than defending Rome? Yes, if the story is true anyways. Rome hadn't been the capital for some time so Honorius wasn't even there, he was up in Ravenna and refused to make a deal with Alaric over Alaric wanting some high title and position as a general in the Roman army.(Further on the fact that many of the 'barbarians' at the time were in fact eager to adopt the ways of Rome). But when he heard Rome was destroyed he thought it was his hen Roma who had he just seen, and was then relieved to find out differently. I believe the story originates from Procopius though who would've been writing quite some time after the fact, so it could very well just be an exaggeration to show Honorius as being totally inept.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 19:30
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:Were they unable to simply install a governor/puppet govt? The boogeyman factor still exists in that scenario. Carthage kept on coming back, and if Carthage as an entity existed in any fashion they may once again challenge Rome, or at least stir up rebellion in the provinces Rome had captured during the Punic wars. To put the bogeyman factor into perspective, just take Cato's famous Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam quote. Cato ended every speech he gave regardless of the topic with "Furthermore I think Carthage must be destroyed". Carthage really scared the poo poo out of Rome and this was basically reenforced in how quickly Carthage managed to rebound after the first and second Punic wars despite exceedingly harsh peace terms. Plus north Africa was a pretty productive region, why instal a puppet when you can have it for yourself. Not just the land and resources but probably most important, the coast line, further turning the Mediterranean into Mare Nostrum
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2012 18:17
|
|
|
I think it was in the mid 7th century where Greek was finally legislated as the official de jure language of the Eastern Empire. Justinian though the century beforehand had been the last emperor to actually speak Latin as his native tongue. Other fun Greek things, the Drachma, at least a continuation of it, was in fact a common currency of the eastern Empire even in Pax Romana days, going 1=1 with the Denarius, except in Egypt, their currency had a weirder exchange rate, I can't find the exact number in this sourcebook though.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
Have there ever been any significant amount of wax tablets found? Or more importantly found and translated? I'd love to read the random thoughts of some guy while taking a stroll through the forest near his villa or ect, the real stream of conscious of people at the time.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 01:38
|
|
|
Roman music, at least to the extent I've heard some songs on youtube, oddly kind of reminds me of traditional Bulgarian music I've heard before, which is a good thing. Also I realized last night, the only digit on the classic phone pad that has more than three letters has the letters SPQR 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
The time is pretty crazy to think about. I mean Pax Romana lasted from roughly from 30 BC till 200 AD, that's almost as old as the United States is right now. The difference though is when Pax Romana began, unlike when the US began, Rome was already a mega power, and basically in many regards the epitome of human civilization and culture.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
It makes sense the deceleration would state that because really before relations reached the point of no repair, in the east the Pope was considered first among equals, given Rome being the eternal city and all, and the whole St. Peter connection. What was always challenged though was the idea the patriarchy of Rome had any real supremacy over any of the other patriarchs beyond prestige. As the west fell apart though the Papacy began to essentially become the government in many ways. You have a weird situation in those days where at least around Italy you have both political and religious rulers for quite a long time still upholding at least in lip service the Roman emperor in the east as the titular head of the united Christian world. Of course this all fell apart de jure politically once Charlemagne was crowned Roman emperor by a Pope in desperate need of an ally, and for Christianity with the great schism, and if the story I read is true, the original excommunication was done by a man who in theory had no actual power. As with everything that gets ignored with the history of the Eastern Empire, I actually find the religious situation in of the church in the east, and the Patriarchy of Constantinople with his dealings with the Roman state. Specifically for that reason, the dealings between state and church. In the west the church basically became supreme over some governments, and became the government in some areas as political state power imploded. In the east you have, I don't want to say separation of church and state since they were quite linked, but at the same time they were two distinct institutions, not always in favor with each other. Vigilance posted:Can you talk about Roman aqueducts? I remember reading about them a few years ago but sadly I've forgotten most of what I read. I remember being blown away reading about them though. Some things Vitruvius wrote on the subject: -Lead pipes shall not be cast less than 10ft -On that note though, earthen pipes are far more desirable as they can be repaired by almost anyone, and the water from earthen pipes is much more 'wholesome'. Lead pipes also produce white lead and he seems aware of the bad physical effects this has on the body -He advises placing reservoirs every 24,000ft so if a break happens the entire water load is not lost It's funny to think about aqueducts in the fact of how dirty the Tiber, and every river running through a big Roman city must've been between all the trash, waste and sewage systems going into them. I mean Rome is built on a large river yet no one appears to be drinking from that thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2012 15:07
|
|
|
So were the capite censi allowed to vote? I would assume if they did it'd be in the tribal assembly since they're too destitute to be plebians and part of the plebian council. Or I supposed the century assembly if they were soldiers. I still don't see how exactly the century assembly functioned once you start getting to the 2nd-1st century BC when soldiers are often stationed far from Rome, yet the century assembly had the pretty important role of electing consuls and other higher magistrates, so obviously there were still soldiers there voting.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
I think it was Grand Fromage who made the joke earlier on how many political problems the Republic especially in its later parts could in part be summed up in The Senate who cried Tyrant. Caesar's assassination can be another example. A lot of senators thought the move would be welcomed by the people, as getting rid of a man who appeared to want to become a new king of Rome. Boy howdy did they misread that situation.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2012 14:34
|
|
|
The tribunical power alone was pretty important. Plebeian Tribunes could be quite powerful(but most were from pretty powerful plebeian families and were quite cozy with the Senate, as there was a good chance they'd be in it one day among other offices) and had the the power to convene the Senate and veto any law passed by another assembly or magistrate, including the Senate. Then tack on more powers like those of the office of Censor, Pontifex Maxiumum, the Consuls, tack on a wide scope of authority to make decisions in the various spheres of influence with each title with imperium maius, and boom, you get the principate, a man with almost total power who outranks everyone no matter where he is. Don't worry though guys, we're still totally a republic.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The average citizen of the empire probably noticed no difference in their lives during that period. I think that might depend on where one was. Italy proper suffered pretty bad in the 6th century but that was because of the constant wars between the Goths and the Eastern Roman empire, followed by the Lombards, with a little bit of Justinian's plague thrown in.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:Is there any truth to the rumor that the Romans salted the earth after burning Carthage to the ground? It's an exaggeration just to get across the point of total destruction against what was basically the boogey man of Rome. Just the sheer magnitude of it makes it implausible, salt was a valuable commodity back then, they wouldn't use tons of it to ruin good land. Also Carthage once again soon afterwards became a thriving Roman city.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
Septimius Sverus made a brief campaign into the Libyan desert into Garama. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septimius_Severus#Military_activity
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2012 03:04
|
|
|
Speaking of Roman diet, I remembered this article from last year. Prepare for fecal matter! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13781202 The only thing of substance it really says though is vegetables were quite preeminent in the waste. rivid posted:What are some of the larges misconceptions that lay people have about the ancient Romans? It came up some pages ago but slavery is probably up there. When people think of slavery they think of slavery in the Confederacy, which is basically one of the most dehumanizing forms of slavery that ever existed. It seems like an oxymoron to say slaves had rights, but yeah, basically Roman slaves had many more rights, especially after the Servile wars when legislation was passed to ensure slaves were not treated too harshly. Roman slaves could earn money, and in fact buy their freedom with it. Freedmen made up a distinct social class and eventually a large part of the Imperial bureaucracy. Basically I'm just going to quote my old post Amused to Death posted:I always found the Roman attitude towards slavery to be interesting, especially when compared to backdrop of slavery in the say the 18th and 19th century. I mean no doubt a lot of slaves were in brutal condition, yet at the same time there was appears to be a general respect for slaves, I mean they could actually earn money and purchase their own freedom, and a large part of the Roman civil service was freedmen. There was also legislation to protect slaves, a few mentioned in "Roman Civilization Volume Two: The Empire" Also gladiators. Gladiator deaths were much more rare than people think, in fact substantially more given the fact a lot of people just generally think all the gladiators would be left dead in a heaping pile with one victorious one left standing at the end of games.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2012 16:48
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:God I hope so. Fun and embarrassingly goony fact about me, Rome Total War is a large part of why I switched from Soviet history to Roman history. I had very little interest in ancient history prior to that game. To also be super goony, Medieval Total War is basically what got me interested in the Byzantine part of Roman history. I played as them constantly, and basically for the most superficial reasons. Their map color was purple and I liked the Orthodox cross more than the Catholic one or Islamic crescent. Before then I never really read anything on Byzantium but after playing the game enough I decided to figure out what the real historical deal with this purple blob was.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
Media question, is the HBO Rome series worth watching? I've only ever seen small clips like the above, and while usually quite good isn't an indication of an entire show. I need a new series to pick up.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 03:58
|
|
|
Alright so I've been watching the first two episodes of Rome this morning, and someone with more toga etiquette please explain why Cato is the only one constantly wearing the dark purple toga. Is it a subtle reference to this from wikipedia, Cato protesting the Republic being in danger?quote:Toga pulla: Literally just "dark toga". It was worn mainly by mourners, but could also be worn in times of private danger or public anxiety. It was sometimes used as a protest of sorts—when Cicero was exiled, the Senate resolved to wear togae pullae as a demonstration against the decision.[17]
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
Don't forget chariot racing games and a more daily activity, going to the bathroom. Going to the bathroom was very much a public affair at least during the day, and public latrines were often set up in a U shape or parallel to each other so people sitting down doing their business could more easily talk with each other.Munin posted:A proper Debate and Discussion Forum. Yes, Augustus alone built two in Rome itself. One is still standing(well as ruins) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porticus_Octaviae
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2012 17:24
|
|
|
JerkyBunion posted:Posting this just because it's a badass scene. This is awesome, simply for the fact you can fast forward to 1933 at the Kroll Opera house when the vote on the Enabling Act was taking place with the SA just observing things of course and see how little some things change.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
Big Cheese, what the heck is this thing that keeps coming up in the series Rome
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2012 06:08
|
|
|
Aw  I was hoping for something more exotic.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2012 06:28
|
|
|
If anything I like how all the graffiti found in Pompeii and Herculaneum pays tribute to the relative literacy of the Roman world. I also love seeing into the filthy minds of Romans, this site has some good ones http://archaeology.uakron.edu/pompeii_site/Topics/graffiti/graffiti_main.html The most amusing quote:With humor, in a bar in Herculaneum, next to a drawing of a phallus: Also, some sexual advice for the men from the women of yesteryear quote:And the women did not leave out their sexual advice:
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2012 06:55
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:B) they had the power of veto, And veto power meant veto over any other body or magistrate, including the senate, as well as having the power to convene the senate. Being given the tribunical power is in fact a large part of the emperor's legal power once Augustus comes along.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2012 15:53
|
|
|
Not equipment specific, but up till around the 11th century the Theme system in the eastern empire was definitely a change compared to the old Roman ways http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theme_%28Byzantine_district%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_army#The_Themata Kind of like frontier militia almost. Men were given grants of land to support their families on but they would also be called up for battle when needed. The fact Constantinople, let alone the little bits of Greece they had beyond it, even remained in Roman hands into the 15th century is in itself almost a fluke, the empire could've fell decades before 1453, but they had some dumb luck, namely the Ottoman loss at the Battle of Ankara against Timur. Plus some shrewed diplomacy from John V, Manuel II and John VIII. But I mean they were already given into Ottoman demands and recognizing the sultans authority by the late 1380's-1390's under John V. At this point we can start the ever fun debate on when the Roman empire truly fell, I demand it be recognized as the late 14th century as by this point what was left of the Byzantine state was in many regards under Ottoman dominance. *edit* For someone who wants a read, when trying to find something I just came across this http://books.google.com/books?id=y2...zantium&f=false  "The last centuries of Byzantium" Covers the empire from the retake of Constantinople by the Empire of Nicaea to its final fall to the Ottomans. Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Jul 5, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
Nah, I think the entire Roman military would be the WW2 battle tank equivalent since Rome is such a huge topic encompassing law, politics, culture, economics, literature, architecture, ah the list goes on, that has had an immeasurable effect even on today's world, but everyone is always like  LEGIONSTo be fair though a Roman legion is one of the most badass things in history ever.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
I don't even think it has to apply to times of turmoil, just about any politician even in tranquil times who wants success or influence has to be an opportunistic person, it comes with the territory of politics. *edit* Also, there's a big statue of Cicero outside the courthouse here in New Haven. Rome, it's loving everywhere.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
If I could back in time(and assuming I'm fluent in Latin for some reason), if there's one thing I could see I would love to watch the assemblies at work during the Republican era, plebeian tribunes trolling the Senate by mentioning ridiculous laws, a senator out somewhere in the distance heckling the assembly, truly an enlightened age of politics 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2012 15:40
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Did eastern Rome retain the senate? Histories I've read on Byzanthium stay silent on such a thing, but I don't know how the state was kept together without the nobility's support - even with the church behind the Emperor. Yes, rich assholes are a constant part of history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Senate
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2012 14:34
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Had Romans already started adopting Greek names prior to the fall of the West, or was this adopted by the Byzantines after the fall of the Western Empire? The eastern part of the empire always had Greek as its main language, so when you get to the Byzantine era of Roman history it's probably just noticeable for the fact most of the land left in Roman hands was now only Greek speaking, and those famous enough to make a mark in history would of course be people under Greek influence all their life most likely with Greek names. Justinian in the 6th century was in fact the last emperor who actually spoke Latin, and Heraclius in the early 7th century just decided to drop all pretenses and make Greek the de jure official language of the empire. e: Big Cheese, in regards to where Hannibal got his elephants, do you think it's more or less true that the Romans essentially hunted big game out of existence in northern Africa to supply the arenas and such? If there is some accuracy to that seems like Hannibal would've had more ready access to elephants than we currently expect to see in places like Algeria and Tunisia. Desertification probably helped a bit too. Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Jul 14, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2012 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:This is a really silly question but...what happened to all the Romans in conquered Byzantine lands? Moved away? Killed? Converted to Islam and were eventually absorbed into other cultures? Depends, who do you count as Roman? If it's anyone in the empire, than most of them basically stayed put, carried on with life. If you mean the dominant cultural force of the empire, the Greeks, well, they more or less stayed put too. There was in fact a sizable minority of Greeks in Constantinople and western Turkey up until the Greco-Turkish(as well as Muslim Turks in Greece) was in 1920 where the end result was forced population exchanges http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_of_populations_between_Greece_and_Turkey Some people of course converted, easy way to increase social standing, but most who identified as Greek or any of the other Balkan identities tended not to, you can see it in the current religious make up of the area, most places outside of Bosnia/Albania are pretty heavily Orthodox Christian still. This was probably helped by the fact the Ottomans were generally tolerant to Christians and Jews practicing their religion.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2012 23:33
|
|