Roman/ancient history: Checkmate, Atenists

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

Potzblitz!: Jan 20, 2005; Kung-Fu fighter

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.

This isnt't really true.

Firstly, you described the expansion of the Republic, not the Empire. Secondly, you conveniently stopped at the death of Mithridates when only a few years afterwards ambitious dickheads like Caesar and Crassus started fighting expansionist wars just to further their political careers. Sure, Rome wasn't a "predator state" (it's a really dumb concept) but it also was no timid little "pocupine".

# ¿ May 26, 2012 00:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 23, 2024 12:54

Potzblitz!: Jan 20, 2005; Kung-Fu fighter

Grand Fromage posted:

Yep. All slaves were allowed to own things and make money. Successful gladiators would be filthy rich; the potential rewards of being a gladiator were great enough that many citizens chose to sell themselves into slavery in order to be gladiators.

Strictly speaking, a slave's peculium (everything he owned and earned) was still his master's property. It only became "his" property if he became a freedman.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2012 17:02

Potzblitz!: Jan 20, 2005; Kung-Fu fighter

Grand Fromage posted:

The Teutoburg Forest defeat definitely took the wind out of their sails but the idea that it stopped Roman expansion into Germania was invented by German nationalists in the 1800s. There just wasn't a strong enough motivation to keep messing with it. The entire idea was to make the Elbe the border, and that by doing so it would also end the threat of German raiding. There wasn't really anything in Germany that the Romans cared about, so it didn't take a lot to kill the plan. If the Romans had really wanted Germany for some reason they would've conquered it.

I don't get this. It's not like Germany was especially poor or barren. Also, there was amber which was worth a fortune and which the Romans definitely wanted. Also, the defeat at Teutoburg Forest was humiliating and Rome's usual reply was to try to revenge-conquer the enemy later. Also, it's not like those German raids stopped coming after Teutoburg.

Rome just going "eh, why bother" is a narrative I just don't buy.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2012 10:52

Potzblitz!: Jan 20, 2005; Kung-Fu fighter

Grand Fromage posted:

Germany's not especially poor, but other than amber there was nothing there that Rome couldn't get elsewhere. Amber was valuable but not enough to justify the conquest of a huge new province.

It's not the only example either, Rome conquered Scotland and then left and walled it off because it wasn't worth the trouble. They also abandoned parts of Dacia that weren't worth holding.

That still leaves the issue of border security and German raids. It just seems (in hindsight, granted) that Rome could have avoided a boatload of trouble by conquering and romanizing Germany. Did any Roman later ever voice regret about not putting down those uppity Germans when Rome still had the strength to do so?

# ¿ Jun 18, 2012 11:10

Potzblitz!: Jan 20, 2005; Kung-Fu fighter

This really is a different discussion, but it's very implausible that Pilate ever actually spoke with Jesus. There probably was no trial either. Jesus was crucified as an insurgent and mocked as such by the Romans (INRI, the king of the Jews etc.) and insurgents weren't tried, they were simpy executed. The trial episode of the gospels was probably a case of artistic licence by the evangelists to round out their narratives. They actually had no way of knowing what happened to Jesus after he was arrested.

By the way, it's also extremely implausible that there was no historical Jesus (Jazerus seemed to imply this). As to how the historical Jesus relates to the Jesus of the gospels... that's a very different discussion still.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2012 01:11

Potzblitz!: Jan 20, 2005; Kung-Fu fighter

Just Another Lurker posted:

Think that indicated that he was the property of Caesar, pretty big barcode for a slave.

Yes, it was gone in season two after he had been freed in Ceasar's will. I don't know if those plaques actually existed though. According to Seneca, Romans were opposed to visibly distinguishing slaves from free men because they didn't want their slaves to realize their numbers.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2012 13:18

Potzblitz!: Jan 20, 2005; Kung-Fu fighter

re: Cicero I strongly disagree with you guys.

In fact, calling him an "opportunistic dipshit", especially in regard to the Philippics, is just plain dumb and misinformed. They were his last effort to restore the republic and going all-in against Antonius was not a safe bet at the time. In fact, Antonius had already threatened his life before, and in his reply to the 1st Phlippic (which was actually quite reserved compared to the other Phlippics) he made it clear that he now considered Cicero an enemy and blamed him for everything bad that had happened to the Caesarian faction in the last 20 years. Cicero's reply, the 2nd Philippics, probably wasn't published before his death, because it truly was an incredibly slanderous declaration of enmity and Cicero was at that point still too afraid of Antonius.

Cicero was always concerned about his personal safety and well-being, especially after his banishment by Clodius in 58 BC. He was also very conceited, especially after his consulship in 63 BC and his victory over Catilina. Many classicists, Th. Mommsen being chief among them, have called him a pompous coward because of it (often this was motivated by their admiration of Caesar btw). However, he was very principled and remarkably committed to his major political project, the return to an idealized pre-Marian republic (morality, strong leadership by "good men", rule of law, a healthy credit system). He was incredibly influental behind the scenes, mostly through his books and his correspondence. It is no coincidence that Octavian later drew legitimacy though reforms that restored exactly these Ciceronian core values.

As cou can tell, I think Cicero was actually a pretty cool dude. Partly, because we actually know so much about him and his feelings through his letters that he's seemingly the only Roman with a personality. Partly, because I believe in many ways he actually embodies the ideal politician. He definitely was no Tony Blair.

Jazerus posted:

Cicero was an intellectual who enjoyed politics

I would argue that it was the other way around. Cicero was an amateur philosopher who was convinced that political life needed to be grounded in philosophical knowledge. He was a political animal through and through and was mostly concerned with his phlosophical pursuits when he was shut down politically. De re publica for example was written during the years of the first triumvirate when his influence was minimal.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2012 15:20

Potzblitz!: Jan 20, 2005; Kung-Fu fighter

Charlie Mopps posted:

No mention of a real person, slave or not, standing behind the victor. Of course, Latin translations are pretty flexible and i've seen translations that did say it was a real person, so it might be a matter of interpretation. Perhaps it was a real person, or it might be talking about the conscious of the victor. There is a silver cup from Boscoreale which depicts Tiberius with a slave standing behind him, so there is some proof supporting the idea of a slave behind the victor.

Augustus issued a coin in 29 BC to celebrate his famous triple triumph that shows him holding the laurel crown himself and no slave on the chariot:

(Excuse the lovely quality, I got this image from a site about angels)

I read somewhere that he might have actually triumphed on horseback instead. Suetonius however claims that he drove a chariot and that Tiberius (his stepson) and Marcellus (his nephew) rode the horses. Then again, he triumphed thrice in three days so maybe he did both. After 29, by the way, Augustus refused to triumph and would instead accept an ovation (i.e. a lesser triumph) and definitely enter the city on horseback. Ancient historians (Cassius Dio for example) would later confuse ovations and triumphs which further complicates the issue.

So who knows.

# ¿ Jul 19, 2012 01:36

Potzblitz!: Jan 20, 2005; Kung-Fu fighter

GamerL posted:

Roman names by late the late empire, someone explain them to me.

Gaius Julius Caesar -

Would people, by the end of the empire, called him 'Caesar' as a first name, or would his friends call him Gaius and only strangers/respectful/informal references call him 'Caesar'?

Wikipedia makes it sound like the cognomen was a nickname and/or family differential. WOuld it be like a guy nowadays named Tom Roberts 'the great' going around and calling himself 'the great' as a first name?

I.e. what was the real 'first name' for romans by the late empire, how were the cognomen, praenomen, and nomen used?

Thanks

In his letters, Cicero usually used cognomina. Even his best friend was 'Atticus' to him, not 'Titus', and he called himself 'Cicero'. When he wrote about someone he had dealings with in business or politics he sometimes used their full names (i.e. 'L. Saufenius' or 'L. Papirius Paetus'; first names were always abbreviated). But his brother was always just 'Quintus'. When Cicero wrote about his son he called him 'young Cicero', not 'Marcus', even in his letters to his wife or Quintus. Weird, right?

A very formal address looked like this: 'M. Tullius Cicero, son of Marcus, greets Cn. Pompeius, son of Cneius, Imperator'.

Who knows what names they used around the dinner table...

edit: This stuff really only applied to Roman nobility. Slaves usually had one name (e.g. Cicero's secretary Tiro). Your average Roman probably used his first name like a normal person. In graffiti from Pompeii first names are very common (e.g. "Secundus likes to screw boys") but so are cognomina or nomina (e.g. "Cruel Lalagus, why do you not love me?").

edit: It gets superweird when you look at Augustus. He was born 'Gaius Octavius Thurinus'. After he was adopted by Caesar be became 'Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus' (after adoption the nomen usually turned into a cognomen), but he propbably dropped the 'Otavianus'. Later, he started calling himself 'Imperator Julius Caesar'. No more 'Gaius'. And finally, he was 'Imperator Caesar Augustus'. I bet his wife just called him honey.

Potzblitz! fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Aug 10, 2012

# ¿ Aug 10, 2012 03:53

Potzblitz!: Jan 20, 2005; Kung-Fu fighter

Agesilaus posted:

Politically, culturally, economically, and socially, many modern societies are flawed in certain respects compared to ancient societies like that of Sparta. Modern America, for example, is oppressed by the nobility clause, does not have an explicit class-based society, and in many ways is governed and controlled by low class people given over to money. Importantly, the institutions are designed to be vulgar and are beholden to lower class interests.

I love this paragraph. I'm going to have it framed.

# ¿ Aug 21, 2012 04:14

Potzblitz!: Jan 20, 2005; Kung-Fu fighter

Amused to Death posted:

Dice were also popular, I would assume because then like now they make a good gambling game.

Fun fact: Augustus was a gambler. He loved playing dice with his buddies and occasionally lost so much money that he got in trouble with his wife, Livia. He also loved the games and the races. But above all, he loved boxing. Apparently, he'd even watch street fights and usually awarded large prizes to the fighters.

# ¿ Aug 28, 2012 11:10

Potzblitz!: Jan 20, 2005; Kung-Fu fighter

They liked dogs:

Parrots (and other birds), monkeys, and snakes were also common. They didn't like cats. Fish ponds were also hugely popular among the rich; men like Hortensius and Lucullus spent fortunes on their eels and and carp.

# ¿ Sep 10, 2012 18:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 23, 2024 12:54

Potzblitz!: Jan 20, 2005; Kung-Fu fighter

achillesforever6 posted:

This is more a Mythology question, but I'm curious on why is it hard to adapt something like the Trojan War into film, I mean Troy just raped Homer worse than anything Zeus did to a woman. Do any of you guys think that an adaptation of Classical Mythology could work?

I think the closest we got was that Odyssey adaptation from the 90s and even that was missing a bunch of the stuff (Lotus Eaters, the Bulls of the Sun God). I really want an adaptation of the Aeneid and the Trojan Cycle done. Get me Peter Jackson's number!!

Give David Lynch a billion dollars and he'll make the greatest movie of all time.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2012 03:15

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