|
Grand Fromage posted:However feel free to expand on my answers if you think I left something important out. If I don't know something, I'll say so and you can jump in if you know. And if I'm wrong, correct me. I'm not going to get all MAD ABOUT POSTS, I just think it'll work better. I'm going to politely disagree. I think it would be a lot easier for you to to focus on the hard and long answer questions, and let other people handle to smaller stuff. You can always correct us, and i thinkthat woudl be easier then you having to answer everything first, and having everyone interested in the topic waiting for your next reply. If you think its not working I'll shut up. Spazzle posted:Who was the last Roman? Depends on your definition of a Roman. The Catholic Church operated under the Empire, and never stopped, and is still going today. If you mean a citizen of the Empire, its whenever the refugees from the sack of Constantinople in 1453 finally died off. Bitter Mushroom posted:What was the normal Roman life expectancy? I imagine it could be vastly different for different classes. This got mentioned in the thread that spawned this one. In general in the ancient world, child mortality was just ridiculously high. This brings the overall rate way down. If you made it past childhood, you actually had a pretty good chance of living to old age. Disease and infection could still knock you off a whole bunch easier then they can now. What then separated the classes was medical care. If yo umade it past childhood, you were likely going to live into your 50s. There is a great graph of this here. http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html
|
#
¿
May 24, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 12:30 |
|
|
teagone posted:Were there ever any specific units/legions of the Roman military that performed tasks/missions equivalent to modern-day special forces, e.g., SEAL teams, British SAS, Delta Force, etcetera? The closest thing I can think of if Justinian's James Bond mission to steal silkworm eggs from China. in the 6th century, Justinian, possibly the greatest Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Emperor, managed to steal silkworm eggs from across the continent in China, and then set up a super profitable silk industry in the west.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 05:30
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Can't really imagine there is any other answer for "best" then Augustus. Maybe Trajan or Hadrian? The blessing for a new Emperor went thusly. "May you be luckier then Augustus. And better then Trajan."
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 09:40
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:I'm also interested in how defeated generals were treated. I remember in high school learning about the general who lost against Hannibal (I think it was at Cannae) and the Senate was really impressed that he had the guts to show his face back in Rome after losing a whole army. I believe you are thinking of Spurius Postumius, one of the consuls that headed the army that was disgraced at the Caudine Forks. In short the Romans got caught in a mountain valley by the Samnites and were forced to surrender, agree to a peace treaty, and then humiliated by having to pass under the yoke, an arch made of lashed together spears. The consuls were made to submit to an oath that they would become Samnite slaves if Rome broke the peace treaty. In response, Spurius Postumius then returned to Rome, and immediately recommended attacking again, and when he came back to the Samnite general, the general was so angry about the whole situation he let Postumius and his men go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Caudine_Forks
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2012 05:34
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Also, can someone tell me how the heck did Romans keep putting armies in the field time after time Hannibal wiped them out? It seemed to me that Hannibal's army was a single one that Carthage wielded in his campaigns while Romans lost what, 100,000 men alltogether and yet were able to invade and completely destroy Carthage not that long afterwards. Hannibal's army was one of two main Carthaginian armies. The other fought in the Spanish theater of the war, against the eventual Scipio Africanus.As for the Romans seemingly endless manpower, physeter just gave a great explanation. On top of that, the Romans have a cultural inability to admit defeat. They showed this throughout their rise to power. No matter how many armies you destroyed, no matter how many men you killed, they kept coming. It was not always the generals that pushed super hard for battles, the common people and common soldiers would as well. Many of Hannibal's victories came about from Roman soldiers and others goading their generals to attack. DarkCrawler posted:Also, was the Hannibal the only person badass enough to make Romans need to resort into guerilla warfare? Does anyone else come even close to his boogeyman status in the minds of Romans? The Gauls. In 387 a Gallic tribe led by Brennus invaded Italy in devastating numbers, and simply obliterated the Roman armies. They then besieged Rome, and starved them out, eventually being let into the city. Rome was looted and the majority of the city was burned to the ground. According to the story, during the peace talks, the Romans were forced to weigh out 1000 pounds of gold and the scales had been tampered with. When the Romans tried to protest, Brennus got up, and after stating "Vae Victis" or "Woe to the Vanquished" he tossed his sword onto the scales as well, further shafting the Romans. The Romans would never forget or forgive the Gauls until Caesar conquered them. When Rome was invaded by the Cimbri and Teutones in 105 BC, that is when Marius was allowed to make his reforms to the military. The Romans were so absolutely terrified of another invading Gallic (they were possibly German or a mixture of the two as well) tribe that they gave Marius far more power then any man prior had ever been allowed. It cannot be understated just how huge of a hero Marius was until all the political poo poo that happened late in his career.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2012 21:49
|
|
|
MothraAttack posted:Mithridates VI? Nah, they fought a civil war over who got to go beat him. He certainly pissed the Romans off something fierce, but they always knew he would be easily beaten, and he was.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2012 23:50
|
|
|
ChineseTea posted:Did the Romans respect some of the adversaries they consider "barbarians" such as the Germanic tribes? They more or less ground Roman expansion to a halt and was credited as being part of the fall or Rome. They respected/feared the Gauls a ton, and thought the Iberians were so nifty that they stole the Gladius from them. They were a martial society and would have respected similar, though that did not mean they considered them equals. AS for the Vikings, I do not know much, though they knew people lived in what they called Scanda. Roman traders and merchants may have gone there, but as far as I know there are no records of Roman diplomats being sent to the area a la China.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2012 06:49
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Not very. Heavy cavalry doesn't exist until the middle ages because the Romans didn't have lances or stirrups, which made their cavalry significantly less effective than the stuff you're thinking of. Horses are also really expensive to maintain. One of the advantages of a feudal knight is the king doesn't have to pay a cent, the knight's holdings take care of supporting him and his warhorses. The Roman state was on the hook for their troops. Plus it requires a lot of specialized training, while the legionaries could all be trained the same way. I thought even the late western empire used cataphracts and clibanari? Heavy cavalry itself was also used extensively by Alexander with his Companions. They did not have stirrups, but they were still used as heavy shock cavalry, and were very effective. The only real difference was the lack of stirrups, but horned saddles compensated for that to a degree. Enough for cataphracts to use lances anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Roman_army
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2012 17:25
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:What was Switzerland/the Alps like in Roman times? Were they really sparsely inhabited? They were the territory of various tribes of Gallic peoples, with the Helvetii being the most famous as they were the ones Caesar used to start his Gallic wars. We only know what the legends and archaeological digs tell us about pre-republican Rome. Northern to mid Italy from like 1000-600BC consisted of the Etruscans in the north and Latins in the middle. (I'm generalizing of course there are other peoples too) Rome was founded by Latins but there was massive amount of Etruscan influence, and it is theorized that the Kings of Rome were of Etruscan origin. If you want the legends, just search google for the seven kings of Rome (in reality there were almost certainly way more then 7). The reason we have so little information is because of the Gallic sack of Rome in 387BC, all the records were burned/lost and we only have the legends Romans told their children to fill in the gaps now. There is some awesome stuff in there and it probably generally tells the real story, but no, the dudes who sacked Rome were not miraculously wiped out as they left by the Roman reinforcements arriving just in time.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2012 04:07
|
|
|
Eggplant, I'm definitely interested in those books you posted. My understanding has always been that the Romans always wrote tons of stuff down, and that their account of 387 was more or less kinda what happened. I'm going to look into getting those books, but before then, I have to admit I'm a bit skeptical of calling the entire sack of Rome by Brennus a legend created in the mold of Greek history. It seems odd for a literate society who wrote down detailed accounts of the first punic war to have forgotten and invented an event that occurred only 100 years before.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
TEBOW 3 16 posted:Pilum: Javelin. It was seven feet long and very light, as it was thrown just prior to engaging the enemy in melee, to disarm as much as hurt the enemy. The top three feet were made of iron with a hard point. More sturdy spears for engaging cavalry in the Testudo were likely but we can't be certain. The most interesting part of the pilum was it's soft iron neck. The reason it is so thin in this picture is because that way the shaft would bend if it hit anything besides a soft body. This would then render a shield useless or at least extremely cumbersome as you now have a 7 foot spear stuck in your shield. It also prevented them from being throw back at the legions. Each legionary was given two of them, one weighted and the other not, the idea behind weighting them was to add more penetrating power and to facilitate bending the iron shaft. Farecoal posted:Did the Romans actually die/paint the armor, shields, and clothes of their troops red? After Marius, yes, red was a relatively cheap color to make since it came from Madder, a common plant in Europe and he Mediterranean. Crimson, Indigo, Saffron Yellow and especially purple were far more expensive. Purple was so expensive only the emperors could afford to wear it, and it is associated with royalty in other cultures as well for that reason. Soldiers after Marius were supplied by the state since he did away with the money and property requirements to join the legions. The soldiers were given at least one tunic, possibly two, as well as their armor, boots/sandals, weapons and other equipment. The soldiers could buy additional stuff, and there is evidence of them buying things like armor for armor for their arms and such. WoodrowSkillson fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Jun 6, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:What did the dyes represent? I've always seen / understood red as the Armies, but heard that the Navy used Blue for it's soldiers. I don't know a ton much more about it, I know that blue was made from woad which is a common plant as well, which would make that idea of blue being used by sailors perfectly plausible. It was common enough that a bunch of the tribes Caesar conquered would use it to dye their bodies a la Braveheart. Indigo was separate as it was made using far more expensive stuff and mostly all came from India, hence the name. I think there was color coding in the single stripe on the togas as well, but it escapes me at the moment, its late here and I need to go to bed. Red was not exclusive to the army either, Madder was used for a bunch of stuff. Kinda like how police mostly wear blue, and are nicknamed the "boys in blue" but its not like its The Cop Color and blue shirts are associated with law enforcement.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2012 06:05
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:The product endorsement thing I've actually never heard of. I know it's silly to imagine a Myrmillo going "Rome-o's, a cereal the gods themselves have put their marshmellow blessings upon! Available at your local Aventine markets!" but that's what I'm imagining He would also fight a bunch of midgets while pretending to be a giant, lovely guy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2012 11:29
|
|
|
PhantomZero posted:So if the early roman soldiers were expected to pay for all their equipment, if you were too poor could you not serve in the military, why would they fight? The poor did not fight in the legions until the Marian reforms in the late 100s BC. Until then, it was only the richer classes that had to fight, which in a way makes a whole lot of sense, and kept the military's goals in line with the States'. They did get their share of the spoils, but also they were the ones who would be directly profiting from any conquests, and before they were a'conquerin, they wanted to protect their own interests. Also, in Roman society all prestige and political influence was directly the result of success and valor on the battlefield. Even famous pacifists like Cicero had to do their time fighting in the Legions to be taken seriously. In Rome, their politicians were their generals. You fought in the legions to become a politician, and the most prestigious political position, the two yearly appointed Consuls, were mostly generals with managing state affairs being secondary.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2012 13:52
|
|
|
physeter posted:In re Roman noblemen, in modern media we almost always use British accents to distinguish the Roman social classes. The only hitch with that is to most English speakers, upper class Brit speak sounds fairly effete. It's something of a disservice to the Roman upper class, who were pretty far from that. I liked how Rome Total War used harsh American accented voiced for the Romans soldiers.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:What was the most important/influential part of the empire other than Italy? And what was generally the second biggest city in the empire? Until Augustus it was Greece, and after him it was Egypt. Alexandria was by far the largest and richest city besides Rome until Constantinople got going. Influential areas were also Syria and the city of Antioch, and then Gaul in Trier. Spain was extremely Romanized and produced the first non Roman Emperors, but was never a huge area of influence besides that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2012 02:29
|
|
|
Marutania too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2012 04:32
|
|
|
^^ We typed these at the same time and they almost perfectly work chronologically haha.Girafro posted:So the Romans originated from Roma in Italy, correct? What was going on in Italy before/during the foundation of the empire? As in which king/emperor is credited with the foundation of the empire and how did he manage to subdue enough opponents to effectively create the most powerful empire the classical world would ever see? Historians would call the After the end first Punic war against Carthage in 241BC, Rome now owned Corsica, Sardinia, and Sicily except the city of Syracuse. The war with Hannibal in the 220s-210s BC netted Rome about half of Spain. Immediately after that in 200BC the Romans fought the Macedonians and broke Greek power. Rome controlled Greece in everything but name until 146BC when they officially annexed it, but for all intents and purposes Greece was Roman in 196BC. That's about when you could start calling it the Roman Empire, as they were blatantly expansionist and intent on gaining more land for Rome. The story of how Augustus and his adoptive father Caesar before him came to shatter the Republic and replace with the Imperium is a much, much longer and more complicated story. We can get into it though! WoodrowSkillson fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Jun 12, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2012 02:56
|
|
|
Puukko naamassa posted:Most of Rome's allies and clients stayed loyal to them (Capua IIRC being the biggest exception, and even they severed ties with Rome only after Cannae), and Romans showed just how stubborn they could be by not suing for peace even after getting the poo poo kicked out of them. They toughed it out, and eventually Hannibal had to leave Italy with nothing to show for his efforts except a bunch of thoroughly traumatized Romans. The big question though is was Rome broken enough after Cannae that they would have given up the siege? The Romans were devastated after Cannae, and if Hannibal had immediately marched on Rome, the populace may have overwhelmingly asked for peace out of sheer terror. Rome had never been beaten like that, and he gave them a respite when he probably should not have.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:I've been watching Spartacus (the TV series) lately and I would like to learn more about the Roman Empire. Is there a recommended documentary that would take me from the beginning to the very end? If you listen to podcasts, I cannot recommend The History of Rome enough, it will cover that entire lifespan, and there are something like 180 episodes, each around 20 min long.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:I've read a few books that say Britain itself was fairly Romanized up until about the 6th century. The later western Emperors had contact with British Roman cavalry up until the fall of the Emperor in the West. Yeah, I'm fairly certain the last Roman Britons did not leave until the emperors fell and the coast of the mainland was no longer friendly
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Didn't the Romans strike back a few years later and devastate the tribes? Also, how large would these tribes be? They did, under Germanicus. Arminius was also turned on by his former allies something like a few months after the victory. Germanicus' successes partly make it hard for me to buy the "Rome was never going to conquer Germania anyway" line of thinking regarding the Teutoburg disaster. As far as I know, up until that point Augustus was dead set on making the Elbe River the eastern border in the north, which would be a far more strategically defensible position then the Rhine. Augustus was drat good at getting done what he wanted done, and had Varus not blundered into that valley, I think things may have turned out differently. Germania was not a rich province, but that is not why it was wanted, the Elbe was the main reason for the expansion, not loot and plunder.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
Octy posted:I was under the impression Germanicus' successes had fairly questionable value and also that Augustus was set upon maintaining the 'natural borders' of the empire as they were when he died, whatever that means. Then again, I'm a Tiberius fan boy so don't listen to me. :P Augustus got super into that after Teutorburg, seeing it as a sign that the Empire was over expanding.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2012 01:16
|
|
|
Octy posted:Did the Romans ever consider invading Scandinavia? Or was there nothing there that they wanted so they left it alone? I presume they traded with the natives to some extent, though. Roman traders probably wandered quite far around the world, the Romans were aware of what they called Scanda. There are probably some really cool stories that we will never know about Julius the trader who went all the way to Korea and back or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Even if they had expanded their borders to the Urals would it have mattered? They were not going to fully Romanize all the Germanic and Slavic peoples. There was always going to be another barbarian tribe behind the border, ultimately the Huns. Rhine was at least some sort of strategic barrier. The Elbe would have been a better one, that eliminated the 200 or so mile land gap between the Danube and the Rhine and left the Rhine as an additional fallback. I don't think anyone should be claiming it would have saved the empire from the Huns or something, but it would have avoided the Marcomannic wars and potentially left the empire in a better position to fight the Huns. Rome still would have been fighting amongst itself all the time so odds are history would be similar, but different. Maybe Rome lasts longer, maybe it stays more governmentally whole till the middle ages, who knows, its fun to speculate about.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Did your social status shift in society based on your income? I.e. your family starts at the highest tier of society, has some terrible economic crisis and loses all of it's wealth. Is it still at the highest tier, just temporarily poor? Yes, Caesar grew up in a rough neighborhood despite being in the ancient Patrician Julii family. You can lose senatorial positions, but not Patrician status.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2012 11:18
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Did you ever play the mod Europa Barbarorum? It's so sweet. I'd love to hear any comments you have about its balance between historical accuracy and gameplay. Extended Greek Mod is another cool mod that ups the historical nature a bit and adds a bunch of new cities without making the game super complex. CA games are like bethesda, they produce a solid core that modders then make amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:How did the Crusaders get away with sacking Constantinople? Did the Pope excommunicate them? Why, it was a heathen city with a heretic emperor. The pope was all kinds of stoked about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2012 01:14
|
|
|
He meant kings or popes don't punish soldiers much when its entire armies misbehaving, it tends to go badly for the ruler.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Under Roman rule, how comparable were Greeks vs. Latins (Italians) After the initial 100 or so years, relatively identical to an outsider. Think of the way a European does not really see a 4th generation German-American as being anything but American. The Greeks and Latins would have remained quite aware of the distinction, but they shared an overall culture. Anyone who wanted to get anything done had to learn Latin, though a whole chunk of the Empire also spoke Greek. The fact that the Eastern Romans never really reclaimed the name of Greece and preferred to be called the Romans shows how deeply most Greeks would have identified with the Empire once they had assimilated.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2012 13:49
|
|
|
More like we can't wait for the mods. But oh hell yes am I excited.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2012 14:34
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:Just chiming in to say gently caress yeah Rome II. I know there's a games thread for this sort of thing, but I never did get to try out all the supposed realism/accuracy mods This is as good a place as any. Earlier I recommended Extended Greek Mod (XGM), it is a good balance between way more realistic units and map without the complicated additions of Europa Barborum or Rome Total Realism. Gets rid of the silly fire pigs and ninjas and gives the greeks a much deeper unit roster.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:*As an aside: this is where the term Emperor comes from, originally it was just the honorific given to the general receiving the triumph for an especially fantastic victory Emperor derives from the Roman Imperator, meaning commander, which was then assumed by the Princeps as one of his titles. and Imperator held Imperium over the jurisdiction he was assigned to, which is to say he commanded that area.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2012 05:45
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Some do. Cognomen generally mean something: Caesar is hairy, Cicero is chickpea. it has been mentioned before, but many cognomen were jokes, Ceasar was balding at a very young age, hence the name. It's pretty funny that the kaisers and the czars were all named after a guy with a George Costanza hairstyle.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2012 14:07
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:
Wealth was not a pass into the halls of power though. Bloodlines were far more important to you becoming a Senator or Consul. You did not hit a certain point of wealth and then get let into the club like in Carthage. High class Romans also did not see wealth as a end in itself, they wanted glory for themselves and their family, and you got glory through service to the State. Money bought you clients, allies, servants, and voters, essentially the means to acquire power. Once you had power, you had to use it to attain some form of distinction, most preferably through military victory and failing that political service like Cicero. The rich Equites and other merchants were often looked over for membership in the Senate and other government offices since they were "unworthy" of such distinction, despite clearly being the most competent at managing money and organizations. Their eternal chafing under the Patricians was used and abused by politician after politician for hundreds of years. A good example of how Romans viewed wealth was the life of Crassus. Crassus was so wealthy it boggles the mind. His worth I have seen estimated at something like 100-400 billion of today's dollars, with some people claiming even more ludicrous numbers. His wealth equaled that of the treasury at one point. Despite this, he cared little for his money, instead spending his entire life and much of his fortune trying to achieve military glory, and being foiled multiple times by Pompey. He was never regarded as highly as Caesar and Pompey, or even people like Cicero or Cato the Younger. He was simply a super rich and famous guy, not a great hero or admirable man. This drove him crazy. His foolhardy expedition into Persia and the disaster at Carrhae is one of the most infamous Roman defeats. The reason a 62 year old man was recklessly invading Persia was that he was desperately trying to gain himself military glory before he died.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
physeter posted:Caesar gets irritated and yells out, "Hey Pontius Aquila, what do you want me to do? Restore the Republic? Huh?" Then he drives off. For about a week after that, when anyone asked Caesar to do anything (pass a law, choose a dinner menu, put on his toga, etc), he'd tell them to go check with Pontius Aquila to see if it was okay. The quote was closer to "Come then, Aquila, take back the republic from me, you tribune." Its one of the most badass taunts I have ever read, and also one of Caesar's most petty moments. I can just imagine the cocky smirk on his face as he rode off on his chariot in a 2000 year old version of "come at me bro!"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2012 20:38
|
|
|
General Panic posted:"Oh, yeah, did I tell you about the time I got kidnapped by pirates but I ended up crucifying them? Well, it happened this way..." "And then there was this time when my dudes were all scared so I went and charged an entire army on my own, and then dodged the hundreds of javelins thrown at me till my soldiers all manned up to protect me."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
Nero I can see being a bit unhinged, but not a total madman. He did make an astounding number of bad decisions, and was hardly a paragon of restraint.
WoodrowSkillson fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Sep 1, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2012 07:03
|
|
|
Wouldn't there have been some limited contact with sub saharan tribes? The Romans explored pretty far along the western African coast, they had to have found out there was at least some people down there, even if it was totally not worth trying to find them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2012 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 12:30 |
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I'm at work with nothing to do and a hurricane outside so I will try to think of something to do a writeup about. Spergin' about Marian legions maybe. Do It.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2012 03:03
|
|