Poll
Question:
Which 1st Century BC Roman do you most resemble?
Option 1: Marius
votes: 2
Option 2: Sulla
votes: 2
Option 3: Lucullus
votes: 1
Option 4: Soranus
votes: 2
Option 5: Cicero
votes: 4
Option 6: Caesar
votes: 1
Option 7: Pompey
votes: 1
Option 8: Crassus
votes: 0
Option 9: Cato
votes: 4
Option 10: Clodius
votes: 0
Option 11: Brutus
votes: 1
Option 12: Antony
votes: 2
Option 13: Octavian
votes: 11
Option 14: Other
votes: 1
Crib sheet:
Marius- practical military man
Sulla- debauched aristocrat, homo
Lucullus- Sulla's protege, kiddie fucker and pothead
Soranus- shouted Rome's "secret name" in the Forum, mortally horrifying everyone, apparently out of disgust rather than mischief
Cicero- great orator, intellectually vainglorious, politically vacillating
Caesar- good at everything. Vote this option if you're delusional
Pompey- competent general, didn't deal well with adversity
Crassus- ruthless and greedy, killed own troops for poor performance
Cato- a force of nature, incorruptible, arch-conservative stoic
Clodius- professional troll basically
Brutus- weak-willed and greedy, in many ways under mama's thumb
Antony- thoughtless and macho
Octavian- cautious and ruthless
Out of the choices, I voted Cato.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 30, 2011, 10:48:56 PM
Soranus- shouted Rome's "secret name" in the Forum, mortally horrifying everyone, apparently out of disgust rather than mischief
What was the secret name?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 30, 2011, 11:11:24 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 30, 2011, 10:48:56 PM
Soranus- shouted Rome's "secret name" in the Forum, mortally horrifying everyone, apparently out of disgust rather than mischief
What was the secret name?
Like he's gonna tell you. :rolleyes:
Seems to have been lost, though there's different theories around.
Ed's going to kill you for calling Sulla a debauched Homo. Also, where are the Gracchus boys?
They died in the 2d century BC so not in right timeframe.
As for Ed, his love affair with proscriptions has blinded him to everything else about Sulla. :contract:
Soranus, I guess. Sounds like something I'd do.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 31, 2011, 01:13:41 AM
Soranus, I guess. Sounds like something I'd do.
He was executed for that. :contract:
From the list, Sulla.
The Pulcher siblings were the best, though. :D
I'm more of an early republic man.
I'm more of a late empire man.
Other - Vipsanius Agrippa.
It's embarrassing to say it but I'm more the loyal, competent and effective subordinate type than a leader.
Quote from: Agelastus on May 31, 2011, 05:15:53 AMIt's embarrassing to say it but I'm more the loyal, competent and effective subordinate type than a leader.
There's nothing embarrassing about that, an army needs generals, officers and soldiers, everybody has a role and is a different part of the machinery. Not everybody can or should be a leader. Many of the guys in the poll clearly shouldn't.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 30, 2011, 11:11:24 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 30, 2011, 10:48:56 PM
Soranus- shouted Rome's "secret name" in the Forum, mortally horrifying everyone, apparently out of disgust rather than mischief
What was the secret name?
Quote
"It is probable, therefore, that Hirpa, or some variant thereof, was the secret name of the goddess and of the city over which she spread her protection."
"The alphabet has evolved since that time, and converted to the modern form, the word is Evouia. Plato translates this word for us as life."
Google FTW.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 30, 2011, 11:29:03 PM
They died in the 2d century BC so not in right timeframe.
As for Ed, his love affair with proscriptions has blinded him to everything else about Sulla. :contract:
Sulla did everything right. You steal his command, he takes your city. You send one of his to the hospital, he puts thousands into the morgue.
Fuck Marius.
Quote from: Caliga on May 31, 2011, 07:03:05 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 30, 2011, 11:11:24 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 30, 2011, 10:48:56 PM
Soranus- shouted Rome's "secret name" in the Forum, mortally horrifying everyone, apparently out of disgust rather than mischief
What was the secret name?
Quote
"It is probable, therefore, that Hirpa, or some variant thereof, was the secret name of the goddess and of the city over which she spread her protection."
"The alphabet has evolved since that time, and converted to the modern form, the word is Evouia. Plato translates this word for us as life."
Google FTW.
Did you get that from some astrology website? :rolleyes: Nobody knows what the secret name of Rome was. I don't think Google will do you much good.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 31, 2011, 11:13:59 AM
Did you get that from some astrology website? :rolleyes: Nobody knows what the secret name of Rome was. I don't think Google will do you much good.
If anyone actually claims that they know what the secret name for Roma was, you'll be ready for them. :rolleyes:
There are some educated guesses, like Hirpa, and some web sites that say things like "[ i ]t is
probable, therefore, that Hirpa, or some variant thereof, was the secret name of the goddess and of the city over which she spread her protection." One can state an opinion about probabilities without stating that something is known for sure.
Brutus or Antony. Flaws = good.
You sick fucks really think you are like Octavian? Remind me never to get on your bad side.
grumbles beat me to the punch. :(
I went with Cicero. I'm too soft to make a good Roman aristocrat.
Quote from: grumbler on May 31, 2011, 11:32:26 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 31, 2011, 11:13:59 AM
Did you get that from some astrology website? :rolleyes: Nobody knows what the secret name of Rome was. I don't think Google will do you much good.
If anyone actually claims that they know what the secret name for Roma was, you'll be ready for them. :rolleyes:
There are some educated guesses, like Hirpa, and some web sites that say things like "[ i ]t is probable, therefore, that Hirpa, or some variant thereof, was the secret name of the goddess and of the city over which she spread her protection." One can state an opinion about probabilities without stating that something is known for sure.
The question was "What is Rome's Secret name", asked by Tim. Since it is unknown Google will not help you. The Hirpa thing seems to come from this http://lovestarz.com/roma.html
The Second sentence comes from some Wiccan thingy.
Quote from: Valmy on May 31, 2011, 11:40:47 AM
You sick fucks really think you are like Octavian? Remind me never to get on your bad side.
They know what he became, not how he got there. At least, that's what I suspect to be the case.
Speaking of which, I just ordered McCullough's Antony & Cleopatra. Look forward to being appalled. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 31, 2011, 02:43:15 PM
Speaking of which, I just ordered McCullough's Antony & Cleopatra. Look forward to being appalled. :thumbsup:
Not nearly as good as her earlier Rome stuff, but still well above the average for historical fiction.
Why would Plato know or care about the secret name of Rome :hmm:
Dude was a total gossip whore. :)
Either Sulla (sans the whole homosexuality thing) or else Octavian. And yes, if I were in his position, I'd be just as out of control as he was when he was a young man consolidating power. As Cersei said, "when you play the game of thrones..."
Anthony.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 31, 2011, 06:02:59 PM
Either Sulla (sans the whole homosexuality thing) or else Octavian. And yes, if I were in his position, I'd be just as out of control as he was when he was a young man consolidating power. As Cersei said, "when you play the game of thrones..."
I don't think Octavian was out of control consolidating power. I think he was hyper-self-controlled. His proscriptions were purely for political purposes, and if the political need was to proscribe his own kin, so be it. His care in preserving
mos maiorum when taking absolute power is evidence of that.
Herod thought the world would be better off without the baby jesus, and I agree. So I'll cast my lot with him. :P
Medieval morality >>>>>> classical morality. Jesus was great for the world.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 31, 2011, 08:51:54 PM
Medieval morality >>>>>> classical morality. Jesus was great for the world.
I disagree. Very generally speaking, I'd say on the whole life was better in the pre christian roman empire and roman republic than in the medieval period. And I think major cause of the difference in the quality of life was the difference between the religions/philosophies.
Medieval generals tended not to slaughter every man of military age in towns that threw open their gates for them.
Quintus Sertorius, because I have a white doe.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 31, 2011, 09:13:38 PM
Medieval generals tended not to slaughter every man of military age in towns that threw open their gates for them.
Tell the First Crusade citizens of Jerusalem that... wait - you can't!
Quote from: PRC on May 31, 2011, 09:41:11 PM
Quintus Sertorius, because I have a white doe.
It take more than dough to make a citizen of Rome.
Quote from: grumbler on May 31, 2011, 09:45:12 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 31, 2011, 09:13:38 PM
Medieval generals tended not to slaughter every man of military age in towns that threw open their gates for them.
Tell the First Crusade citizens of Jerusalem that... wait - you can't!
Well, I did say tended, as in there were exceptions, but Jerusalem was stormed so not applicable anyway. :contract:
Quote from: grumbler on May 31, 2011, 09:45:12 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 31, 2011, 09:13:38 PM
Medieval generals tended not to slaughter every man of military age in towns that threw open their gates for them.
Tell the First Crusade citizens of Jerusalem that... wait - you can't!
Yes, but that doesn't have anything to do what he said. Those people lived almost an thousand years ago. You really can't tell them anything.
I don't think I particularly fall under any of those categories, so I voted for Marius since I like him.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 31, 2011, 09:55:22 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 31, 2011, 09:45:12 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 31, 2011, 09:13:38 PM
Medieval generals tended not to slaughter every man of military age in towns that threw open their gates for them.
Tell the First Crusade citizens of Jerusalem that... wait - you can't!
Well, I did say tended, as in there were exceptions, but Jerusalem was stormed so not applicable anyway. :contract:
Actually, yes and no, or you are both right.
The "progress" in morality has been, almost consistently, about extending the boundaries of "us". Christian medieval morality extended this from "Romans" to "Christians" - which is quite a progress, admittedly - but once you were outside of these boundaries (like Muslims or Jews of Jerusalem) you still got yourself slaughtered.
Since then, at least in the West, we have moved beyond, by extending this to "heathen", "atheists", some groups of "deviants" (e.g. blasphemers, gays, single women etc.), other races and, eventually, the whole of humanity. The animal rights movement is essentially, at its core, an attempt to extend the boundaries to animals (or at least mammals and birds).
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 31, 2011, 09:13:38 PM
Medieval generals tended not to slaughter every man of military age in towns that threw open their gates for them.
What's your evidence of customary slaughter of surrendering towns in classical era?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 31, 2011, 10:47:55 PM
I don't think I particularly fall under any of those categories, so I voted for Marius since I like him.
fag
Quote from: Sahib on June 01, 2011, 07:21:03 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 31, 2011, 09:13:38 PM
Medieval generals tended not to slaughter every man of military age in towns that threw open their gates for them.
What's your evidence of customary slaughter of surrendering towns in classical era?
I don't believe he said that. You were supposed to assume that, I believe, but assuming that would be as foolish as assuming that you have some invisible superfriend or that some undetectable part of you lives on after your death.
Octavian used cruelty to reach the absolute top of the poltical ladder? SAY IT ISN'T SO!!
Guys FFS since time immemorial you had to be a backstabbing and -even more importantly- ruthless little prick to rise to political leadership even in a small town, for the simple reason that if you weren't, the backstabbing ruthless pricks made mincemeat out of you.
Sometimes the naivity of this supposedly knowledgeable crowd freaks me out.
So yes, if I ever was to decide I want to use my shot at getting the Roman Empire, I would do a proper job at grabbing it, not just fool around.
Quote from: Tamas on June 01, 2011, 08:15:32 AM
Octavian used cruelty to reach the absolute top of the poltical ladder? SAY IT ISN'T SO!!
Guys FFS since time immemorial you had to be a backstabbing and -even more importantly- ruthless little prick to rise to political leadership even in a small town, for the simple reason that if you weren't, the backstabbing ruthless pricks made mincemeat out of you.
Sometimes the naivity of this supposedly knowledgeable crowd freaks me out.
So unless I think ruthless cruelty is a positive good I am naive?
As I said remind me not to get on your bad side :P
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2011, 08:19:57 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 01, 2011, 08:15:32 AM
Octavian used cruelty to reach the absolute top of the poltical ladder? SAY IT ISN'T SO!!
Guys FFS since time immemorial you had to be a backstabbing and -even more importantly- ruthless little prick to rise to political leadership even in a small town, for the simple reason that if you weren't, the backstabbing ruthless pricks made mincemeat out of you.
Sometimes the naivity of this supposedly knowledgeable crowd freaks me out.
So unless I think ruthless cruelty is a positive good I am naive?
As I said remind me not to get on your bad side :P
:rolleyes: no I despise almost all politicans and the methods they employ.
Point is, it is naive to think, that there has been a successful politican EVER, who got there without ruthless cruelty.
And Octavian at least did a lot of good once he established his power. Well, in terms of establishing the Empire.
Quote from: Martinus on June 01, 2011, 01:27:54 AM
Actually, yes and no, or you are both right.
The "progress" in morality has been, almost consistently, about extending the boundaries of "us". Christian medieval morality extended this from "Romans" to "Christians" - which is quite a progress, admittedly - but once you were outside of these boundaries (like Muslims or Jews of Jerusalem) you still got yourself slaughtered.
First, depending on the eras we want to compare, medieval europe didn't necessarily have many christians. The Roman Empire was at many points much larger geographically. It wasn't until the conversion of the pagans that christianity was much more common, and this was not achieved peaceably.
Second, the boundaries of "us" were more exclusionary among medieval christans than romans. Inquisitions, witch burnings, all sorts of discrimination against jews, excommunications, and internal military campaigns (such as the albigensian crusade) were launched.
Third, medieval christianity was religiously focused to an extent that harmed society. Putting your best educated minds into monastaries to spend large portions of their time in prayer and contemplation of god isn't the best way to get bridges built or fields planted. You also ended up with ridiculous situations such as a legal system reliant on superstition.
Quote from: Tamas on June 01, 2011, 08:31:59 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2011, 08:19:57 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 01, 2011, 08:15:32 AM
Octavian used cruelty to reach the absolute top of the poltical ladder? SAY IT ISN'T SO!!
Guys FFS since time immemorial you had to be a backstabbing and -even more importantly- ruthless little prick to rise to political leadership even in a small town, for the simple reason that if you weren't, the backstabbing ruthless pricks made mincemeat out of you.
Sometimes the naivity of this supposedly knowledgeable crowd freaks me out.
So unless I think ruthless cruelty is a positive good I am naive?
As I said remind me not to get on your bad side :P
:rolleyes: no I despise almost all politicans and the methods they employ.
Point is, it is naive to think, that there has been a successful politican EVER, who got there without ruthless cruelty.
Someone has been reading too much Machiavelli. :rolleyes:
Quote from: The Brain on June 01, 2011, 08:56:36 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 01, 2011, 08:31:59 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2011, 08:19:57 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 01, 2011, 08:15:32 AM
Octavian used cruelty to reach the absolute top of the poltical ladder? SAY IT ISN'T SO!!
Guys FFS since time immemorial you had to be a backstabbing and -even more importantly- ruthless little prick to rise to political leadership even in a small town, for the simple reason that if you weren't, the backstabbing ruthless pricks made mincemeat out of you.
Sometimes the naivity of this supposedly knowledgeable crowd freaks me out.
So unless I think ruthless cruelty is a positive good I am naive?
As I said remind me not to get on your bad side :P
:rolleyes: no I despise almost all politicans and the methods they employ.
Point is, it is naive to think, that there has been a successful politican EVER, who got there without ruthless cruelty.
Someone has been reading too much Machiavelli. :rolleyes:
Someone has had too much view on miniscule local politics
Quote from: alfred russel on June 01, 2011, 08:48:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 01, 2011, 01:27:54 AM
Actually, yes and no, or you are both right.
The "progress" in morality has been, almost consistently, about extending the boundaries of "us". Christian medieval morality extended this from "Romans" to "Christians" - which is quite a progress, admittedly - but once you were outside of these boundaries (like Muslims or Jews of Jerusalem) you still got yourself slaughtered.
First, depending on the eras we want to compare, medieval europe didn't necessarily have many christians. The Roman Empire was at many points much larger geographically. It wasn't until the conversion of the pagans that christianity was much more common, and this was not achieved peaceably.
Second, the boundaries of "us" were more exclusionary among medieval christans than romans. Inquisitions, witch burnings, all sorts of discrimination against jews, excommunications, and internal military campaigns (such as the albigensian crusade) were launched.
:yes:
Medieval Christianity was a lot more narrowing as not only did you have to believe (or pretend to believe) but you also had to believe in the correct version of Christianity.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 01, 2011, 08:48:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 01, 2011, 01:27:54 AM
Actually, yes and no, or you are both right.
The "progress" in morality has been, almost consistently, about extending the boundaries of "us". Christian medieval morality extended this from "Romans" to "Christians" - which is quite a progress, admittedly - but once you were outside of these boundaries (like Muslims or Jews of Jerusalem) you still got yourself slaughtered.
First, depending on the eras we want to compare, medieval europe didn't necessarily have many christians. The Roman Empire was at many points much larger geographically. It wasn't until the conversion of the pagans that christianity was much more common, and this was not achieved peaceably.
Second, the boundaries of "us" were more exclusionary among medieval christans than romans. Inquisitions, witch burnings, all sorts of discrimination against jews, excommunications, and internal military campaigns (such as the albigensian crusade) were launched.
Third, medieval christianity was religiously focused to an extent that harmed society. Putting your best educated minds into monastaries to spend large portions of their time in prayer and contemplation of god isn't the best way to get bridges built or fields planted. You also ended up with ridiculous situations such as a legal system reliant on superstition.
Ancient Romans had no problem with killing Witches or launching internal military campaigns. Antisemitism was already well rooted in the classical world. There are reports of Pogroms against Jews in Alexandria, and I imagine they occurred else where as well. Jews were banned in ancient Rome by Claudius.
Nothing sensible ever goes out of style.
Quote from: Tamas on June 01, 2011, 08:15:32 AM
Octavian used cruelty to reach the absolute top of the poltical ladder? SAY IT ISN'T SO!!
It isn't so. I cannot think of a single instance in which Octavian employed cruelty. Violence, yes. Coercion, yes. Cruelty, no.
QuoteGuys FFS since time immemorial you had to be a backstabbing and -even more importantly- ruthless little prick to rise to political leadership even in a small town, for the simple reason that if you weren't, the backstabbing ruthless pricks made mincemeat out of you.
Sometimes the naivity of this supposedly knowledgeable crowd freaks me out.
Sometimes the ignorance of supposedly knowledgeable posters freaks me out.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 01, 2011, 09:10:57 AM
Ancient Romans had no problem with killing Witches ...
From whence do you get this?
QuoteAntisemitism was already well rooted in the classical world. There are reports of Pogroms against Jews in Alexandria, and I imagine they occurred else where as well. Jews were banned in ancient Rome by Claudius.
I am aware of no "pogroms" among Jews in Alexandria in Roman times (though there was ethnic tensions between Alexandrian Greeks and Jews, but nothing antisemitic), nor does any credible source support the claim that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome (Josephus, a Jew writing about Jewish history, doesn't mention it in
Antiquities of the Jews ). Suetonius in his twelve Caesars volume on Claudius apparently mentions that some Jewish troublemakers were expelled, but this is hardly antisemitism.
Are there any serious people who dispute my claims?
Quote from: alfred russel on June 01, 2011, 08:48:42 AM
Putting your best educated minds into monastaries to spend large portions of their time in prayer and contemplation of god isn't the best way to get bridges built or fields planted.
Au contraire, it could be a very effective way to get fields planted. If you look at a monastery from an economic perspective, it is a corporation that mobilizes physical, and intellectual capital into a unit in a historical period where capital accumulation was otherwise very difficult. Monasteries led the clearing of the heavily forested continent and were often in the forefront of applying new technologies and techniques in the management of their patrimony.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 01, 2011, 10:27:59 AM
Are there any serious people who dispute my claims?
I find it difficult because both the Middle Ages and Classical periods were both really long with great regional variety.
I always found the "free marriage" practice the Romans did from time to time to be one of the most enlightened forms of marriage in history. But it would be a tad irresponsible to act like that was typical to the point I could use it to prove Classical superiority over their Medieval descendents.
Quote from: grumbler on June 01, 2011, 10:22:18 AM
I am aware of no "pogroms" among Jews in Alexandria in Roman times
Probably thinking about the Cyprus or Bar Kochba uprisings (palestine), although even those require fully crediting Cassius Dio's account. Since Palestinian rabbis are busy putting together the Mishnah in Palestine only a few decades later, total expulsion either did not happen or was not seriously enforced.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 01, 2011, 10:35:30 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 01, 2011, 10:22:18 AM
I am aware of no "pogroms" among Jews in Alexandria in Roman times
Probably thinking about the Cyprus or Bar Kochba uprisings (palestine), although even those require fully crediting Cassius Dio's account. Since Palestinian rabbis are busy putting together the Mishnah in Palestine only a few decades later, total expulsion either did not happen or was not seriously enforced.
Philo of Alexandria of mentions this.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 01, 2011, 10:28:30 AM
Au contraire, it could be a very effective way to get fields planted. If you look at a monastery from an economic perspective, it is a corporation that mobilizes physical, and intellectual capital into a unit in a historical period where capital accumulation was otherwise very difficult. Monasteries led the clearing of the heavily forested continent and were often in the forefront of applying new technologies and techniques in the management of their patrimony.
I think we are looking at two sides of the same coin. We are in agreement that monastaries are some of the major centers of (intellectual and physical) capital in medieval Europe. You look at their corresponding output and saying they are effective, while I'm looking at their religious mission and saying this wasn't the most effective way to deploy capital.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 01, 2011, 09:10:57 AM
Ancient Romans had no problem with killing Witches or launching internal military campaigns. Antisemitism was already well rooted in the classical world. There are reports of Pogroms against Jews in Alexandria, and I imagine they occurred else where as well. Jews were banned in ancient Rome by Claudius.
Raz, neither the romans nor medieval europeans were models of tolerance. I think the pagan romans were more tolerant of religious differences on the balance. But there is no sense arguing about this because "classical rome" and "medieval europe" cover such a huge amount of time and territory we could spend the rest of our lives exchanging examples and never get anywhere.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 01, 2011, 10:45:36 AM
I think we are looking at two sides of the same coin. We are in agreement that monastaries are some of the major centers of (intellectual and physical) capital in medieval Europe. You look at their corresponding output and saying they are effective, while I'm looking at their religious mission and saying this wasn't the most effective way to deploy capital.
The religious mission was critical to mobilizing that capital in the efficient way. Secular lords tended to have bad habits like expending surpluses on conspicuous consumption, raising retainers to mount raids and fight others, etc. Monasteries were institutions that could absorb surpluses and redeploy them productively; the religiuous mission was the way to lure in the capital. While prayers in and of themselves are of questionable economic utility, the same can be said in our world of marketing and advertising, fund-raising rounds, administrative overhead.
Quote from: Sahib on June 01, 2011, 07:21:03 AM
What's your evidence of customary slaughter of surrendering towns in classical era?
It wasn't customary, it was more common to enslave them, as that gave the general beaucoup denarii. But it was more commonly accepted that the fate of those lives was at the whim of the conqueror. The principle of no storm, no sack was an early sign of recognition that even during wartime there are rules that must be followed.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 01, 2011, 10:55:35 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 01, 2011, 10:45:36 AM
I think we are looking at two sides of the same coin. We are in agreement that monastaries are some of the major centers of (intellectual and physical) capital in medieval Europe. You look at their corresponding output and saying they are effective, while I'm looking at their religious mission and saying this wasn't the most effective way to deploy capital.
The religious mission was critical to mobilizing that capital in the efficient way. Secular lords tended to have bad habits like expending surpluses on conspicuous consumption, raising retainers to mount raids and fight others, etc. Monasteries were institutions that could absorb surpluses and redeploy them productively; the religiuous mission was the way to lure in the capital. While prayers in and of themselves are of questionable economic utility, the same can be said in our world of marketing and advertising, fund-raising rounds, administrative overhead.
In the context of the middle ages, monastaries performed a critical role for the reasons you mention, and one that secular institutions were unable to fill.
But all else being equal, I'd rather not have the educated concentrated into religious instititions where secular matters were considered peripheral to giving glory to god. Monasteries may have often been the only way to preserve learning for some medieval societies, but that wasn't the case in ancient rome. In my book, advantage rome.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 01, 2011, 09:10:57 AM
Ancient Romans had no problem with killing Witches or launching internal military campaigns. Antisemitism was already well rooted in the classical world. There are reports of Pogroms against Jews in Alexandria, and I imagine they occurred else where as well. Jews were banned in ancient Rome by Claudius.
Actually Claudius was accused of being a Jewish bastard by the leader of anti-Jewish faction in Alexandria, due to his supposedly pro-Jewish stance. The use of the term "Pogrom" to describe the conflicts between Greeks and Jews in Alexandria is disputed.
Quote from: grumbler on June 01, 2011, 10:22:18 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 01, 2011, 09:10:57 AM
Ancient Romans had no problem with killing Witches ...
From whence do you get this?
QuoteAntisemitism was already well rooted in the classical world. There are reports of Pogroms against Jews in Alexandria, and I imagine they occurred else where as well. Jews were banned in ancient Rome by Claudius.
I am aware of no "pogroms" among Jews in Alexandria in Roman times (though there was ethnic tensions between Alexandrian Greeks and Jews, but nothing antisemitic), nor does any credible source support the claim that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome (Josephus, a Jew writing about Jewish history, doesn't mention it in Antiquities of the Jews ). Suetonius in his twelve Caesars volume on Claudius apparently mentions that some Jewish troublemakers were expelled, but this is hardly antisemitism.
I don't think there is much or anything in the evidence that the Roman authorities hated Judaism or Jews (though of course they were quick to crack down with usual Roman ruthelessness on Jewish resistance to their rule). Mostly, they seem to have viewed Judaism as a traditional, and thus acceptable, local religion, with admittedly wierd practices they (the Romans) were willing to respect and tolerate as long as they obeyed Rome's will in matters political.
One illustrative example: the Jews angered the (allegedly insane) emperor Caligula by refusing to worship his statue: he ordered a statue of himself erected in the Temple of Jerusalem. The Governor of Syria managed to delay that order to avoid a revolt.
[Interestingly, while Caligula rescinded the order to erect the statue, he was so angered at the Governor for disobeying him, he ordered him to commit suicide; but owing to the chance of travel, the news of Caligula's assassination reached him before the order!]
This is from Josephus [corroberated by Philo]
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XVIII#Chapter_8
Edit: if true, that Governor was certainly a man of outstanding moral courage.
Edit: very interesting footnote, at least for me:
QuoteThis. Publius Petronius was after this still president of Syria, under Cladius, and, at the desire of Agrippa, published a severe decree against the inhabitants of Dora, who, in a sort of intitation of Caius, had set op a statue of Claudius in a Jewish synagogue there. This decree is extant, B. XIX. ch. 6. sect. 3, and greatly confirms the present accounts of Josephus, as do the other decrees of Claudius, relating to the like Jewish affairs, B. XIX. ch. 5. sect. 2, 3, to which I refer the inquisitive reader.
I worked for a summer on the dig at Tel Dora.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 01, 2011, 11:05:31 AM
But all else being equal, I'd rather not have the educated concentrated into religious instititions where secular matters were considered peripheral to giving glory to god. Monasteries may have often been the only way to preserve learning for some medieval societies, but that wasn't the case in ancient rome. In my book, advantage rome.
In ancient Rome, learning was preserved among a tiny literate elite class for which such learning was considered a mark of cultivation but which had little interest in developing that thought any further. There is some derivative work in the Stoic or Epicurian traditions, Plotinus' reworking of Plato, Porphyry's Isagoge and that's about it. Far more original work was done in the Christian West during the Middle Ages . . .
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 01, 2011, 01:18:13 PM
In ancient Rome, learning was preserved among a tiny literate elite class for which such learning was considered a mark of cultivation but which had little interest in developing that thought any further. There is some derivative work in the Stoic or Epicurian traditions, Plotinus' reworking of Plato, Porphyry's Isagoge and that's about it. Far more original work was done in the Christian West during the Middle Ages . . .
There is something to be said for living in a society that had a sound legal system, road network, sound water supply, etc. There is a reason when the works of the classical world were rediscovered the medieval christians considered their own era to be the "dark ages." It isn't all about philospohy (which in the middle ages was almost entirely driven by christianity--solid work in that field is to be expected considering the resources they devoted to contemplation).
I think that the Romans get a pass on tolerance that isn't entirely deserved. I believe it comes from three factors:
1. Many want to project a positive image on the Romans (late medieval and Renaissance were really bad about this).
2. A misunderstanding of how Roman religion worked
3. Paucity of sources that remain from the time period.
The anti-intellectualism in Rome, even for things they seemed to value like mathmatics and engineering, is stupifying. Nobody can really explain to me why since innovations in political structures, legal reforms, and military tactics seemed to come easily enough to the Romans.
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2011, 02:18:32 PM
The anti-intellectualism in Rome, even for things they seemed to value like mathmatics and engineering, is stupifying. Nobody can really explain to me why since innovations in political structures, legal reforms, and military tactics seemed to come easily enough to the Romans.
In my first few years at school/kindergarten, I was really good at mathematics. They gave me problems like x produces bread at the rate of y per hour, and z does so at double the rate, so how much bread is produced per hour if there were so many people like x and so many like z.
But as soon as algebra and equations were introduced at a later stage, I became completely stuck. I just cannot deal with the abstract.
Maybe the Romans were a bit similar? Only accepted solutions that had immediate applications, but couldn't deal with abstract theories, concepts and thoughts that were necessary for long-term intellectual growth?
Quote from: alfred russel on June 01, 2011, 01:57:03 PM
There is something to be said for living in a society that had a sound legal system, road network, sound water supply, etc.
Yes they did have those things and medieval Europe did not. The Roman Empire was able to build and maintain much higher levels of infrastructure than medieval kingdoms and levels of commerce and wealth were superior until the high middle ages. Part of the reason the Roman Empire was able to construct and maintain infrastructure was the sound legal system, the bureaucracy, and the horizontal and vertical cooperation among local elites and imperial structures. But those were necessary conditions, not sufficient, as the experience of late antiquity demonstrated. Another part of the reason the empire was able to maintain its infrastructure in the West was by exploiting resources from the south (the granaries of Africa and Egypt) and the east (tax revenue).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 01, 2011, 10:35:30 AM
Probably thinking about the Cyprus or Bar Kochba uprisings (palestine), although even those require fully crediting Cassius Dio's account. Since Palestinian rabbis are busy putting together the Mishnah in Palestine only a few decades later, total expulsion either did not happen or was not seriously enforced.
But, are you a "serious person?" Raz apparently thinks no "serious person" could disagree with him. :D
Quote from: Sahib on June 01, 2011, 12:31:51 PM
Actually Claudius was accused of being a Jewish bastard by the leader of anti-Jewish faction in Alexandria, due to his supposedly pro-Jewish stance. The use of the term "Pogrom" to describe the conflicts between Greeks and Jews in Alexandria is disputed.
Are you a "serious person" by Raz's standards? :P
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2011, 02:18:32 PM
The anti-intellectualism in Rome, even for things they seemed to value like mathmatics and engineering, is stupifying. Nobody can really explain to me why since innovations in political structures, legal reforms, and military tactics seemed to come easily enough to the Romans.
The Romans didn't like visible changes. They wanted to believe that they were still living in the more pure world of their legendary ancestors, and were just adding to it, not replacing it. Thus, they didn't develop architecture or math beyond the level of getting the bugs out of what they had. I agree that it is kind of mysterious in a people so otherwise-worldly, but it isn't all that unusual amongst people who worship their own past.
Who the fuck likes intellectuals? Of course the practical Romans looked down on them.
Quote from: The Brain on June 01, 2011, 02:46:27 PM
Who the fuck likes intellectuals? Of course the practical Romans looked down on them.
:)
Quote from: grumbler on June 01, 2011, 02:36:15 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 01, 2011, 10:35:30 AM
Probably thinking about the Cyprus or Bar Kochba uprisings (palestine), although even those require fully crediting Cassius Dio's account. Since Palestinian rabbis are busy putting together the Mishnah in Palestine only a few decades later, total expulsion either did not happen or was not seriously enforced.
But, are you a "serious person?" Raz apparently thinks no "serious person" could disagree with him. :D
By "serious person" I meant, a non-Grumbler.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 01, 2011, 03:43:59 PM
By "serious person" I meant, a non-Grumbler.
Are you a "serious person," by your standards?
Quote from: grumbler on June 01, 2011, 03:46:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 01, 2011, 03:43:59 PM
By "serious person" I meant, a non-Grumbler.
Are you a "serious person," by your standards?
I'm not you. And no, I do not desire to find an online source to back up my contention that you and I are different people.
Am I a serious person? :)
Quote from: Razgovory on June 01, 2011, 03:50:42 PM
I'm not you. And no, I do not desire to find an online source to back up my contention that you and I are different people.
Okay, now that you have clarified (for reasons that I am sure made sense to you when you decided to make that clarification) that you are sure that you are not me, maybe you can address the question at hand: are you a "serious person," by your standards? AFAIAC, you don't need to find an online source to discover what your opinion is in this. Obviously, you may do so if that is your wish.
As an aside, you don't need to contend you are not any other specific person, either. No one outside of you is contending that you are not you. :hug:
If Raz has read Euthyphro he is going to stay well clear of that question.
That is if he read it and understood it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 01, 2011, 04:55:22 PM
If Raz has read Euthyphro he is going to stay well clear of that question.
That is if he read it and understood it.
Perhaps. I don't understand his concept myself (hence the question), but it scarcely seems possible that Raz can steer clear of, or misunderstand,
his own concept! :lol:
Quote
Third, medieval christianity was religiously focused to an extent that harmed society. Putting your best educated minds into monastaries to spend large portions of their time in prayer and contemplation of god isn't the best way to get bridges built or fields planted.
How does literacy survive in Western Europe without the Monasteries? I'm pretty sure Europe would have done the full Greek Archaic Period-loss of literacy, loss of intellectual heritage, return to barter economy-without the Church.
I also think you are comparing apples to oranges. The Roman Empire was able to draw upon thousands of years of Greek, Egyptian, Persian, Mesopotamian and other learning. The peoples of Medieval Europe knew that these places existed only because they were in the Bible. The collapse of inter-Roman trade networks, followed by the growth of Islam, just cut off Europe from all the traditional centers of civilization.
Quote from: Queequeg on June 01, 2011, 06:36:50 PM
Quote
Third, medieval christianity was religiously focused to an extent that harmed society. Putting your best educated minds into monastaries to spend large portions of their time in prayer and contemplation of god isn't the best way to get bridges built or fields planted.
How does literacy survive in Western Europe without the Monasteries? I'm pretty sure Europe would have done the full Greek Archaic Period-loss of literacy, loss of intellectual heritage, return to barter economy-without the Church.
You may be right, but I've been responding to Eddie Teach making a comparison between christian and classical, not christian and non romanized germanic tribes (or anything else). The focus of medieval christian learning on theology is better than ignoring learning altogether, but still crappy.
QuoteI also think you are comparing apples to oranges. The Roman Empire was able to draw upon thousands of years of Greek, Egyptian, Persian, Mesopotamian and other learning. The peoples of Medieval Europe knew that these places existed only because they were in the Bible. The collapse of inter-Roman trade networks, followed by the growth of Islam, just cut off Europe from all the traditional centers of civilization.
I don't think that is relevant--a comparison was made between systems of morality. In my point of view, a system that places primary emphasis on learning and contemplating superstition is inferior to one that does not.
But to make a broader point, what you are saying is not entirely fair. Rome adopted Christianity as a state religion early in the 4th century. At the time Rome still could draw on all the sources that you mention. But as time went on, and the Romans evolved into medieval Europeans, they lost the cultural knowledge. Don't tell me it was just because they were cut off from traditional centers of civilization. The Bible was preserved, the institutions of the Church were preserved, the doctrines and history of the early Church were preserved. What was forgotten were the legal concepts, the literature, the secular history, the science, medicine and engineering. Why was the secular heritage lost and the religious maintained? I don't think you can ignore that they succeeded in preserving what was most important to them.
The fact that anything at all was lost was due to those non romanized germanic tribes. Most of the deficiencies the medieval world had compared with the ancients are due to that upheaval, not due to the acceptance of Christian philosophy. Romans had more modern attitudes than medieval Europeans with regard to sex and arguably the place of religion in society, but little else.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 01, 2011, 08:37:39 PM
The fact that anything at all was lost was due to those non romanized germanic tribes. Most of the deficiencies the medieval world had compared with the ancients are due to that upheaval, not due to the acceptance of Christian philosophy. Romans had more modern attitudes than medieval Europeans with regard to sex and arguably the place of religion in society, but little else.
It was not a German mob that burned the Great Library of Alexandria. In whole or in part on more than one occasion if I recall Grumbler's amplification of an old post of mine correctly.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 01, 2011, 04:27:52 PM
Am I a serious person? :)
Serious person are defined as people who aren't Grumbler. Mostly because Grumbler has annoyed me recently.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 01, 2011, 08:37:39 PM
The fact that anything at all was lost was due to those non romanized germanic tribes. Most of the deficiencies the medieval world had compared with the ancients are due to that upheaval, not due to the acceptance of Christian philosophy. Romans had more modern attitudes than medieval Europeans with regard to sex and arguably the place of religion in society, but little else.
Romans religious sensibilities were not like ours. Their religion was extremely political and civic in nature as opposed to Western religious ideas which focus more on the individual.
Many works were lost well before any Germans over ran the scene. Before the printing press works just got lost. Hell, entire fields of art were lost. The Greeks had a painting tradition that is almost completely lost. They used to paint on wooden boards in a way similar to painting on Canvas. Since wood rots only a few survive and those were uncovered in Egypt where the climate preserved them.
It's actually somewhat shocking that so much of our knowledge of the Classical world relies on so few sources.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 01, 2011, 09:19:43 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 01, 2011, 04:27:52 PM
Am I a serious person? :)
Serious person are defined as people who aren't Grumbler. Mostly because Grumbler has annoyed me recently.
Aww, pooor Waz. :hug:
What should annoy you is that you fucked up any cred you might have had on the topic by trying to portray Claudius, of all people, as an exemplar of Roman antisemitism. Still, if you'd rather blame me than accept the truth, I'm cool with that.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 01, 2011, 08:37:39 PM
Romans had more modern attitudes than medieval Europeans with regard to sex and arguably the place of religion in society, but little else.
Maybe, but those aren't minor in their effects! If I'm subject to a legal system with trial by ordeal, an economic system held back by religious prohibitions on banking, high duties that must be paid to religious instititions, and a variety of religious thought crimes enforced with penalties including being burned alive, I might not dismiss this as just a misplacement of the place of religion in society. Of course then there is the bizarre fetish with chastity, and who knows how many people were forced into convents and monastaries against their will.
Large portions of Europe were turned over to the Church for administration: the city of Rome itself and the surrounding areas essentially transformed into a theocracy.
Quote from: grumbler on June 02, 2011, 07:18:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 01, 2011, 09:19:43 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 01, 2011, 04:27:52 PM
Am I a serious person? :)
Serious person are defined as people who aren't Grumbler. Mostly because Grumbler has annoyed me recently.
Aww, pooor Waz. :hug:
What should annoy you is that you fucked up any cred you might have had on the topic by trying to portray Claudius, of all people, as an exemplar of Roman antisemitism. Still, if you'd rather blame me than accept the truth, I'm cool with that.
Perhaps it should, but I don't really care what you say.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 02, 2011, 08:54:21 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 01, 2011, 08:37:39 PM
Romans had more modern attitudes than medieval Europeans with regard to sex and arguably the place of religion in society, but little else.
Maybe, but those aren't minor in their effects! If I'm subject to a legal system with trial by ordeal, an economic system held back by religious prohibitions on banking, high duties that must be paid to religious instititions, and a variety of religious thought crimes enforced with penalties including being burned alive, I might not dismiss this as just a misplacement of the place of religion in society. Of course then there is the bizarre fetish with chastity, and who knows how many people were forced into convents and monastaries against their will.
Large portions of Europe were turned over to the Church for administration: the city of Rome itself and the surrounding areas essentially transformed into a theocracy.
The medievals did create a fairly sophisticated banking system. Don't know about the Romans though.
QuoteThe focus of medieval christian learning on theology is better than ignoring learning altogether, but still crappy.
I think the choice was pretty clearly between "theology and preservation of the Classics" and "nothing", not "theology and preservation of the Classics" and "5th Century BC Athens." False choice. Society almost completely collapsed. It took centuries to recover.
You are comparing Uganda to Sweden. Western Europe was a backwater of the Roman Empire that depended on trade with the East for much of it's grain and 'industrial' goods. Almost all of the education centers were in the East, or were staffed by Greeks. Without access to either the goods or learning of the East, a collapse was inevitable. The fact that you had millions of Germans pouring in from beyond the Rhine frontier certainly made things a whole lot worse.
The fact that people were a great deal less educated or moral in this period should not be a surprise. They were still recovering from the greatest geopolitical catastrophe in the recorded history of Europe.
Quote
Don't tell me it was just because they were cut off from traditional centers of civilization.
See: above. Millions of Germans. Complete collapse of trade. No access to traditional centers of erudition.
Quote
Why was the secular heritage lost and the religious maintained?
You are probably overstating your case a bit. The Byzantines didn't really loose much of this. Neither did the Arabs. Again, I think the peculiarly dramatic decline of the West had a lot more to do with it's dependence on the East in the Roman period. The Renaissance was made possible in part by the fact that the West finally *did* have access to centers of learning and wealth in the East, in the form of cultural and economic contact with the Islamic world and the mass exodus of Byzantines.
AR, what Classical period are we comparing to what Medieval period? I think that, as Joan mentioned, the High and Late Medieval periods were, if anything, a great deal more innovative than the post-Augustine Roman Empire. Even if one could make the argument that the Roman moral system was somehow superior, I think it is pretty clear that by 1200 Europe was starting to break out of the intellectual malaise typical of Romans and Byzantines, and that the Islamic world was about to enter (and has, for that matter, yet to exit).
Quote from: Agelastus on June 01, 2011, 09:03:35 PM
It was not a German mob that burned the Great Library of Alexandria. In whole or in part on more than one occasion if I recall Grumbler's amplification of an old post of mine correctly.
No one knows who finally burned it down. I've read that it was likely the Arabs; they destroyed a ton of Sassanian centers of learning.
Also, to accuse the Eastern Romans/Byzantines of not appreciating Classical learning is to reveal total and utter ignorance of Byzantine/Eastern Roman history and society. Your average Byzantine scholar before 1205 could likely quote Classical works that have been lost to the world for centuries.
Quote from: Queequeg on June 02, 2011, 10:41:28 AM
You are comparing Uganda to Sweden.
Fair enough. When Eddie Teach posts that "Uganda morality >>>>>> Swedish morality" I'm going to take exception to that as well.
And then I trust you will come along and say that it isn't a fair comparison, because it is like comparing the classical world to the medieval one. :P
Quote from: grumbler on June 01, 2011, 05:43:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 01, 2011, 04:55:22 PM
If Raz has read Euthyphro he is going to stay well clear of that question.
That is if he read it and understood it.
Perhaps. I don't understand his concept myself (hence the question), but it scarcely seems possible that Raz can steer clear of, or misunderstand, his own concept! :lol:
You are the perfect Socrates to Raz's Euthyphro. Just replace piety with seriousness and all it works quite well right down the Raz's certainty that he knows exactly what he is talking about and your inquiry to learn that what it is he thinks he knows.
Not sure what made me think of it but the structure of your questions to Raz reminded me of that particular dialogue.
Quote from: Queequeg on June 02, 2011, 10:51:31 AM
AR, what Classical period are we comparing to what Medieval period? I think that, as Joan mentioned, the High and Late Medieval periods were, if anything, a great deal more innovative than the post-Augustine Roman Empire. Even if one could make the argument that the Roman moral system was somehow superior, I think it is pretty clear that by 1200 Europe was starting to break out of the intellectual malaise typical of Romans and Byzantines, and that the Islamic world was about to enter (and has, for that matter, yet to exit).
As has been pointed out already, the discussion is even more pointless than most because the times periods are so long and the geography so large. Not to mention how vague the terms are.
I'd refer this to Eddie, who was the one that posted "Medieval morality >>>>>> classical morality." I was assuming medieval meant western europe and excluded byzantium (if byzantium is included, the discussion becomes even more pointless than I thought as they were distinct). Since the discussion was regarding christian morality, Eddie almost certainly meant to exclude the islamic world. Just by the course of the discussion in the thread, classical seems to have been limited to Rome before Constantine.
I'm somewhat coming around to Marty's suggestion on the topic. Romans were complete shits to anyone who wasn't Roman. Medieval Christians were complete shits to anyone who wasn't Christian. Of course, the Romans had quite a bit more contact with "the other" so much more frequent chances to demonstrate their shittiness.
Quote from: Queequeg on June 02, 2011, 10:41:28 AM
You are probably overstating your case a bit. The Byzantines didn't really loose much of this. Neither did the Arabs. Again, I think the peculiarly dramatic decline of the West had a lot more to do with it's dependence on the East in the Roman period. The Renaissance was made possible in part by the fact that the West finally *did* have access to centers of learning and wealth in the East, in the form of cultural and economic contact with the Islamic world and the mass exodus of Byzantines.
I think you are engaging in a bit of
post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, here. The secular knowledge of the Roman Empire was not preserved because it had little or no utility to a church based on mysteries and miracles, and where the church became the only reservoir of knowledge it jettisoned that which was secular as being either useless or actively harmful. The Renaissance was spurred in part by the influx of Byzantine refugees, for sure, but also by the collapse of the church as the central organizing agent of Western civilization. That's my take.
Not that my speculation is really any better-founded than yours, of course. :lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 02, 2011, 10:58:58 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 01, 2011, 05:43:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 01, 2011, 04:55:22 PM
If Raz has read Euthyphro he is going to stay well clear of that question.
That is if he read it and understood it.
Perhaps. I don't understand his concept myself (hence the question), but it scarcely seems possible that Raz can steer clear of, or misunderstand, his own concept! :lol:
You are the perfect Socrates to Raz's Euthyphro. Just replace piety with seriousness and all it works quite well right down the Raz's certainty that he knows exactly what he is talking about and your inquiry to learn that what it is he thinks he knows.
Not sure what made me think of it but the structure of your questions to Raz reminded me of that particular dialogue.
Yes, but what does this have to do with Operation Compass?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 02, 2011, 12:25:15 PM
Yes, but what does this have to do with Operation Compass?
So you are saying you are as wrong about this as I was about that?
I'm surprised you admit you were wrong! At the time you always couched it with the word "If".
Quote from: Razgovory on June 02, 2011, 12:30:55 PM
I'm surprised you admit you were wrong! At the time you always couched it with the word "If".
If you had been paying attention I told Grumbler I was wrong about that a long time ago.
That's nice.
No that I have set a good example, you just need to follow it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 02, 2011, 01:10:54 PM
No that I have set a good example, you just need to follow it.
I will No that.