Roman/ancient history: Checkmate, Atenists

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Roman/ancient history: Checkmate, Atenists

Modus Operandi: Oct 5, 2010

Does any museum have a mostly intact Roman eagle standard on display? I'm surprised that even after the fall that more of these weren't preserved since they were prized relics by even enemies of Rome.

Also did anyone ever find out what happened to the Altar of Victory in the senate? Did Theodossius melt it down or did archaeologists ever discover any clues as to what happened to it.

Also, I read in an article that forgeries of Roman artifacts was really prevalent during the 16th century onward. The estimate was that as high as 40% of everything "discovered" is fake. What do you think about this?

# ¿ May 24, 2012 12:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 09:27

Modus Operandi: Oct 5, 2010

Octy posted:

Then there's the question of Julian. This is a guy who was emperor twenty years after Constantine's death and tried to bring the Empire back to the old religion. And he just couldn't. I'm reminded of a story when he went to Antioch to try and revive paganism there and instead he was greeted by a huge Christian population. I'm not sure that Constantine's reforms encouraged conversion to Christianity so much as his tolerance revealed just how many there were in the first place. Pagans were still a majority of course, but I don't recall there being any revolts by them against Christian emperors. They even seemed fairly apathetic to Julian's reforms.

Christianity's popularity seemed to hinge on the fact that it had an open door policy for everyone and none of the more eclectic religious class strictures other cults/sects had at the time. It was a religion for the poor, common, and displaced. This wasn't that special in itself, if you look at the followers of Dionysus there's a lot of parallels between Jesus and Dionysus including the whole rebirth and resurrection thing. Dionysus was also very popular with the poor, displaced, and the mass of foreigners who didn't feel they had much of a part to play in Rome's more established sects.

If you trace the popularity of Christianity it's interesting that the worship of Sol Invictus (monotheistic sun god) and Dionysus all seem to pave the way in the eventual combination of all these myriad belief systems into one cult (Christianity) that incorporated everything including the same pagan holidays.

It seems like Rome viewed Christianity as a threat not so much for the basic beliefs but that Christianity seemed intent on forming a competing bureaucracy with its eventual hierarchy built from the ground up.

# ¿ May 24, 2012 13:49

Modus Operandi: Oct 5, 2010

RocknRollaAyatollah posted:

It's kind of interesting that a lot of cults at the time were popular like Sol Invictus

Rome even had a ladyboy emperor who tried to gradually replace all Rome's pagan religions with the worship of Sol. If he succeeded it might have replaced Christianity as the monotheistic religion of choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elagabalus

# ¿ May 24, 2012 14:26

Modus Operandi: Oct 5, 2010

Fight Club Sandwich posted:

How gay were the Romans? Can you opine on if they had more or less gay sex than the Greeks (as a cultural thing, not raw #)?

Openly gay relationships were frowned upon. Hadrian was a pretty good emperor but there was always a lot of grumbling about his teenage boy toy. There were jokes about Julius Caeser being the gay lover of the King of Bythnia. I mentioned Elgabalus already but he was very open and flamboyant even referring to himself as a Queen and taking up with a chariot driver.

So, i'd say it was definitely looked down on but not in the way of modern thinking. It's probably because engaging in official homosexual relationships was viewed as a sign of wanton decadence and limited your choice of heirs. Gay trysts weren't unusual though.

# ¿ May 24, 2012 15:29

Modus Operandi: Oct 5, 2010

physeter posted:

Out of respect for OP I won't answer this question. But I will point out that huge numbers of residents in the Republic/Empire were Greek-speaking Greeks in various stages of becoming acculturated into a Romano-Italian empire. Assimilited territories, manumitted slaves, voluntary immigrants, etc etc. Greeks are virtually everywhere throughout Antiquity, and they are literally everywhere in the Roman Med. So there are potentially alot of false positives,

Homosexuality wasn't especially prevalent in just Greeks though. People focus on Greeks and homosexuality because it's depicted a lot in art and literature.

# ¿ May 24, 2012 17:53

Modus Operandi: Oct 5, 2010

Doh004 posted:

Just read up on him on Wikipedia, he sounded absolutely incredible. Any other cool generals I should read about? I love Roman history and particularly like reading Roman historical fiction, so this thread is pretty awesome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelian

Aurelian (not to be confused with Marcus Aurelius) is another awesome general/emperor who pretty much saved the Roman empire during the bloody 3rd century.

He's also one of the few emperors who bootstrapped himself up to the top from a common soldier.

Modus Operandi fucked around with this message at 18:06 on May 24, 2012

# ¿ May 24, 2012 18:03

Modus Operandi: Oct 5, 2010

Chikimiki posted:

Yep, the thing is that the concepts of homo- and heterosexuality didn't even exist until the 18th century. Romans (well, mostly the men) could screw whoever they please, that was no problem, although a depraved sex life was still frowned upon, the roman ideal being the stoic men keeping his pulsions to himself.

I figure that most homosexual relationships also had a power component to it too. A Roman man in a position of power could screw whoever they want but engaging in a real gay relationship (with emotions and feelings) with a peer or someone closer to your rank dilutes your perceived power. This is the same reason why being the younger submissive gay man of high rank in a relationship with someone older of lower rank was considered contemptible. It's a form of submission. The real insult in calling Julius Caeser the lover of the King Bythnia was basically saying he submitted to an older man not so much that he may have been bisexual. Praetorians and the like were disgusted by the behavior of Elgabulus because the Roman emperor was never supposed to submit like that to anyone.

# ¿ May 24, 2012 18:39

Modus Operandi: Oct 5, 2010

Farecoal posted:

Did Rome ever have an empress? (I know the Byzantines did, but you can't have a Roman empire without Rome )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulpia_Severina

Aurelian's wife Ulpia Severina was regarded as an Empress of sorts because she ran the empire for a couple years in the interregnum after his assassination. It's hard to say whether she was a puppet or not though. I'm leaning towards puppet but I haven't read up enough on her to say for sure but it's hard to believe a singular woman could hold sway over murderous Praetorian guards, scheming generals, and the like during that era. She did have coins minted in her name and such.

# ¿ May 25, 2012 02:46

Modus Operandi: Oct 5, 2010

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

It's a miracle that the empire lasted as long as it did all things considered. It's not easy having a century of complete nut cases having absolute power.

In its time the Roman Emperors have been at one point or another:

Many non-italians.
Many psychotics
Incompetents
A high bidder for the position
A ladyboy
A woman
Son of a freed slave
Many men of common ancestry
Several generals
A barbarian

edit: Does anyone have stats for the average lifespan of a Roman emperor during the 3rd century? I'm guessing it's <6 years.

Modus Operandi fucked around with this message at 03:01 on May 25, 2012

# ¿ May 25, 2012 02:58

Modus Operandi: Oct 5, 2010

I like Herodian because there aren't that many "man on the street" accounts to give us scuttlebutt and day to day activities of the elite as it appears to your average citizen. The other historians were partially confined by their status and political biases. If they wrote something that pissed someone off they could find themselves in serious danger.

Herodian is not the most accurate guy but he does give a good real life feel for what it was like during the various eras he lived in, the state of the emperors, and the political atmosphere at the time.

Modus Operandi fucked around with this message at 06:12 on May 25, 2012

# ¿ May 25, 2012 06:10

Modus Operandi: Oct 5, 2010

GamerL posted:

Have you read Neil Faulkner's book on the fall of Roman Britain? General hypothesis is that Rome was a predator state doomed to fail once it ran out of new, rich, ripe targets to take, plunder, and incorporate into the empire. I.e., once Rome got into the harsh and poor lands of Wales, Scotland, and came up against the Seleucid empire in the east, the classic Rome ceased to be, leading to a hundred years of generational rebellions, and ultimately collapse. I'd recommend the book if for no other reason than it made me think differently about Rome than most classic "rome was the height of western civilization" histories/books will give you.

It's easy for us to look at Rome with a full historical timeline and draw conclusions like this. However, if you look at Rome it directly parallels other empires like the historical Chinese dynasties. Like Rome one ethnic group became powerful (italians in Rome, Han in China) and united to form its first cohesive state that spanned a large expanse of land. Then this new state consolidated its power absorbing other kingdoms and foreign ethnicities expanding to the point that the cultural identity became pervasive and a universal concept. Even when the dynasties in China's case or emperors in Rome changed the character of the state the culture was still pervasive. Over time various "foreigners" adopted the state's culture and were absorbed into the larger civilization's identity. Eventually bureaucracy, religion, and outside forces stressed the institution to the point where it finally cracked. That's when the state ended but you could say Han culture is still alive and well and so is Roman culture.

Sorry that point became a little convoluted but my point is that Rome wasn't unique amongst long lasting empires (or civilizations) in its behavior.

So, if you think about it all empires/civilizations became "predators" at one point or another. Was ancient Egypt, the Assyrians, Greece at its height, or Babylonians any different?

Modus Operandi fucked around with this message at 17:40 on May 25, 2012

# ¿ May 25, 2012 17:30

Modus Operandi: Oct 5, 2010

physeter posted:

No individual planned it all. What seemed like good ideas at the time, admittedly supplemented by plunder-happy governors and legions in the border states, built the Empire state by state, and tribe by tribe. Rome wasn't a predator state (w/e that is) as much as it was a happy little porcupine whose own predators kept throwing themselves on top of it.

A single man in Rome didn't plan it all but there was definitely a practical logic to conquering the territory they did. It may have been during periods where circumstances warranted immediate attention but it was probably on the "to do" list anyways. I guess another thing is that Rome knew when to stop too. Hadrian was wise in stopping at Dacia territorially but he should have mopped up the Germanic tribes when he had the chance. Transportation time was probably a huge concern in maintaining the Empire's bureaucractic control. During ancient times logistics simply wasn't advanced enough to maintain such a large empire especially if it was through rough terrain far inland from a coast. That's why much of Rome's territory surrounds the Med. sea. and the pieces that they do have inland already had infrastructure built up by previous ruling kingdoms. The territory they did take was a logical extension of trading routes. It was also important to conquer the eastern coastal regions to protect Rome's bread basket Alexandria and important gateway cities like Antioch.

# ¿ May 26, 2012 02:10

Modus Operandi: Oct 5, 2010

GamerL posted:

By having this professional, expensive, heavily armored force though, the Roman state required new targets to plunder and subjugate: extracting resources, taxes, slaves, etc. to send back to mother rome, in order to continue functioning. The political families schemed and warred, and sought triumphs to conquer far of lands, because triumphs equaled resources and money. Some astounding numbers are thrown out in terms of just how much Emperors would pay the legions/soldiers.

He has an interesting point with the legions but the reason why costs spiraled out of control was the fault of Roman Emperors and the way the power structure was centralized. I believe it started around the time of Domitian that military wages were escalating and paid out as basically bribes so that Emperors could sleep well at night and at least guarantee control over the scheming Senate as well. This practice spiraled out of control when Commodus and various incompetent Emperors threw gobs of money at the army instead of cultivating a sustainable hierarchy and division of authority to guarantee some semblance of loyalty. So the army became its own beast and the Praetorian guard were actually a constant threat to Rome's own internal stability.

I'll say that conquest didn't always result in gaining resources and money either. I'm not even sure if material gain was the motivation the majority of the time. It seemed Emperors and generals wanted to wet their appetite for legacy. They wanted an arch, an honorific, or some sort of title to add to their family's credentials. In some cases they were actually willing to risk the state's interests to do so. There was little reason for Crassus' to go on his Mission Impossible expedition in Parthia but he was a super rich egotistical jerk off who wanted a title. A lot of other powerful men in Rome were like this too.

quote:

As to it being a 'grand design' or plan, Faulker doesn't make that argument. Rather, he sees it as the natural result of wealthy families seizing upon military conquests in order to drive political ascension.

Roman ambition was a real thing but these same families were also willing to rat gently caress the state and anyone else as long as it raised the status of their family. With a few ideological exceptions (Cato, perhaps) the elites were usually self interested venal people. I wouldn't call them a driving force..more like a chaotic force that was kept in check most of the time by competing political/military forces.

# ¿ May 26, 2012 02:35

Modus Operandi: Oct 5, 2010

Grand Fromage posted:

In addition to the beatings and clients, there were political ads painted on the walls everywhere, we have some surviving ones in Pompeii. Vote for Quintus because Gaius is a fuckwit. It's remarkably similar to modern political campaigns.

Speaking of Pompeii what was the Roman obsession of painting and adorning everything with dicks everywhere in that town? People speculated that it was a sign of good luck or brothel markers but they are in the oddest places.

# ¿ May 26, 2012 05:25

Modus Operandi: Oct 5, 2010

Grand Fromage posted:

Erect dicks were a magical protection against evil. Romans were superstitious as gently caress, I want to get into that occult question after I read a bit. But one of the main places you find the dicks are at crossroads, because Romans viewed everything as having a spirit, including roads, so a crossroad was a magically dangerous place where two spirits encountered one another. The dick would protect you from it.

Makes sense. Dicks are also used in Buddhist culture a lot as talismans for prosperity and virility. The crossroads thing is very Feng Shui. I wonder if different cultures adopted this superstition against crossroads because it was a place of uncertainty and banditry. I suppose a lot of people may have mysteriously disappeared at junctures back in ancient times.

Modus Operandi fucked around with this message at 05:56 on May 26, 2012

# ¿ May 26, 2012 05:53

Modus Operandi: Oct 5, 2010

Octy posted:

Yes, but it still doesn't explain why modern teenage boys like to draw dicks over everything.

Well there are key differences there..modern day dick art tends to have ejaculate spraying out of it. While classical Roman penises were more tastefully rendered.

# ¿ May 26, 2012 06:03

Modus Operandi: Oct 5, 2010

FizFashizzle posted:

He'd charge the city exorbitant fees just to watch him as well, and he horrified them. He'd go out there and just murder defenseless giraffes which horrified the people of Rome.

There's one amusing account from Herodian that has Commodus shooting the heads off of running ostriches with crescent tipped arrows. The ostriches would continue to run for awhile just like chickens with their heads cut off. :science:

# ¿ Jun 10, 2012 14:32

Modus Operandi: Oct 5, 2010

Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:

Going off of this, why did the Romans treat Capua like Carthage when it joined with Carthage in the 2nd Punic War? I can understand them destroying Carthage, but Capua is in Italy, not very far from Rome, etc.

Ancient Rome was very factional. Pre-empire even more so since a lot of Romans still had some semblance of heritage and identity based on their old Italian roots. The Social wars is a pretty good example of how long these identities simmered below the surface.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2012 06:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 09:27

Modus Operandi: Oct 5, 2010

Here's something that's more speculative history but what do you all think of theory that the Huns are actually the Xiongnu? I think it's rather interesting even though Horse nomads and their strategies all share similarities.

# ¿ Jun 17, 2012 05:43

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Roman/ancient history: Checkmate, Atenists