dnewhous
-
Posts
147 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by dnewhous
-
-
Is this another April Fools jibe? If not, my congradulations. I am relative new here, but gratuitiously insulting declarations of this type are quite rare on this otherwise well-mannered site. But I think it is safe to say that that latest post of yours is one of the most tasteless and ill-linformed few lines I have seen here. I can't help but ask: who you normally correspond with, and who corresponds with you?
I am not talking about people who I normally correspond with. I am talking about someone I started arguing with on a message board of less intellectual inclination (in college) and some girl who I once talked to in highschool (who was actually a right winger). They were both ignorant people and between the two of them I generalized to an explanation of much idiocy.
-
I have a theory that he was from another planet.
-
Only the best emperor's have a porno made after them.
It's good to be Augustus.
-
What took the Pretorian Guard so long? Did they have qualms about killing a minor?
-
Caligula was the orgy emperor.
The emperors took the title "Augustus" so I suppose "Augusta" is the word I was looking for.
-
If I recall correctly, there was once an emperor who dressed in women's clothing and commanded everyone to refer to him as the "Empress...." I am wondering, what was the actual Latin word used for "Empress?"
-
I want to be able to answer "both" to this question. I am in complete agreement with Ursus on this one, and I don't think I usually agree with him. There were two choices 1) advance to empire 2) decline into a banana republic that would eventually be conquered by some marauding horde of barbarians that would totally destroy it. You can argue that that eventually happened anyway, but the deadline was at least postponed. Call me a fool, but I think this choice may come before the United States within my lifetime.
I bet a lot of OCONUS people here are unfamiliar with the term "banana republic." I can explain a little, if someone asks.
It was Julius who killed the republic, which had to be done, but it was Octavian who made the empire work.
Oh, and Julius gave himself the title "Dictator for Life." So the notion that he would give up power is false.
-
This is what a lot of idiot lefties get hung up on (not intellectual lefties, but your run of the mill idiot world trade organization protestor type), they are familiar with Western history and criticize it while assuming that the histories of other civilizations must be better
-
When Charles the Great was crowned by the Pope Leo III, the Romans were ruled by a woman, Irene. And because there was no precident for an officially ruling empress, she had styled herself as emperor (basileus).
The Pope in a masterstroke of political machination, therefore considered the Roman imperial throne empty (not recognizing a woman as ruler) and was able to legitimately crown Charles Roman Emperor without the trouble of getting consent from the (senior) ruler in the East.
I thought that the empires were formally divided in 2 in 396. I suppose no one took the "formal" division seriously then?
By "formal" I was supposing based on earlier info that the two emperors were separate but equal at that point.
-
This is a very unPC thought, but I have wondered if decimation might do some good with Iraqi National Guard units.
-
This is a peanut gallery comment, but anyone seen the opening of Enemy at the Gates? The rest of the movie was so bad I couldn't finish, but that first half hour was riveting.
For those who haven't seen. The Russian soldiers were ordered to attack, and anyone who retreated was mowed down by fixed position machine gun fire. This was at the battle of Stalingrad.
-
When was the empire officially split? Was that under Constantine?
-
Notice a universal theme, that in order to enjoy the killing, you have to dehumanize your enemy to lower your inhibitions. The jews did this with their enemies, for they were ordained by God to go before the Hittites, the Canaanites, and whoever, and destroy them to the last every one, or some such. The Greeks and Romans had very racist/xenophobic attitudes about people outside of their kingdoms/empires. And today, it is very important for soldiers to believe that God is on their side.
Gladiators - in social stratification they were the lowest of the low. Lower than slaves, lower than criminals. Given that they are that low, you wouldn't feel guilty about watching gladiators kill themselves for entertainment would you?
-
Well, to take it seriously for a moment, I don't agree with Ursus that the Romans would have just as much to teach us as we have to teach them, but the appropriate question is to ask is how far did they progress?
The Romans
1) created an empire of citizens and not of subjects. They were not free of racism or xenophobia but things gradually got better as they went along.
2) In the treatment of women they were way ahead of the Greeks.
3) slavery had almost died out by the end of the empire. If it had died out a lot sooner it may have saved the republic, but they were better towards their slaves, gladiators excepted, than other societies.
4) the culture of Greece and Rome provided the template to organize societies that worked to overcome the blights of mankind
Racism and sexism are univeral properties of all cultures BTW. Western civilization has delt with them better than others.
As far as relevance to modern societies goes
1) The difference between the Anglosphere and continental Europe has a lot to do with the bureacratic nature of Roman society and the much more individualistic culture of pagan Anglo-saxans.
2) The fall of the Republic - at the popular level no one mourned its passing because it hadn't served the interests of the public for decades. This has a lot to do with the fact that a government designed to govern a city-state couldn't handle the demands of a nation. Could it be that the strains placed on modern republican governments could lead to the downfall of our republics?
-
Yes, in the past it has been the die hard southern patriots that were still bitter over the civil war in America. The most important division in America these days is the red America (Republican voting)/blue America (Democrat voting) divide. In the past this has been parodied as a cultural elite that lives on the east and west coast and a reference to the rest of America as "flyover country." But it's not quite that simple. If you look at a detailed map it is the difference between urban voters and non-urban voters, and it's just that most of the urban centers are on the coasts. This is more important than the classical distinctions between ideological "liberal" and "conservative." For instance, it is blue America that generates the tax revenue and red America that receives it (this will hurt some people's feelings, but it is absolutely true). The policies of the Republican party have adjusted accordingly.
I have not investigated the history closely but it is frequently said that Lincoln wanted to fight the war because he was afraid that the union would disentegrate completely if southern states were allowed to secede. I also have the impression that many in the north wanted to let the south go. The incident that started the war was Lincoln sending a warship off the coast of some fort in the south, he wanted to set it up so that the it would at least look as though the south fired the first shot. He felt he needed to do this to get public support.
Partly what set the southern states off was that Lincoln wanted to put a freeze on the number of states that were allowed to have slaves. His hope was that then slavery would die out eventually in the slave holding states. If Lincoln hadn't won the election, the southern states wouldn't have seceded. Not at that moment at least. I think there is also an issue of a tariff on cotton. I.e., the north wanted to kill the cotton tariff so they could buy cheaper cotton from foreign countries, though I may be misremembering. I highly question the notion that the north depended on southern cotton.
Also, I don't think most foreigners (or Americans) understand just how loose the union was. The constitution and the bill of rights was a guarantee of rights ONLY at the federal level. Any state constitution/law was free to violate them. Your highschool history teacher may deny this, so ask a lawyer if you don't believe me. (This is an absolutel rock solid truth, I have no uncertainty on this one.) It is only after the civil war with the "due process" clause of the 14th amendment, passed by the radical Republican congress, that federal courts over time have ruled constitutional rights to be applied to the states.
In short, my country started as an uneasy union of independent states, and the constitution left a lot of loopholes in that relationship. We fought a war to decide the issue, and the more centralized nation won. (The south was hampered terribly by the confederation government's limited powers, especially in regards to taxes.) It has anecdotally been said before the war you would say "The United States are..." and after the war you would say "The United States is..."
-
Do you mean athoritarian regime?
The model citizens of the south moved to Wales and built a wall when the Anglo-Saxons started invading, did they not?
The Republic and the empire were always beset by nomadic barbarians thoughout their history. The empire fell because the number of people willing to die for its preservation had dwindled.
Great Britain was the backwater of the empire. England was the weakest of the European successor states until the 15th century under Elizabeth I turned it into a world power.
In fact, it could be argued that all the territorial acquisitions made in western Europe from Julius Caesar onwards weren't worth the cost in support. The Eastern Empire survived because there was enough tax revenue to pay mercenaries for defense after Adrianople.
-
Caesar, with his legendary promiscuity, was easily mocked by his opponents for being "a man for every woman and a woman for every man."
It's good to be the Caesar.
-
That depends on whether you would write a whole book for your own pleasure or not<note: people don't write as easily back then, no pencil or paper, hint, hint.>
You are correct. The notion of a college without a printing press is absurd. Obviously, education predated the printing press but it wouldn't have been anything like I was thinking.
-
The war college thing - did China have this? Just because someone wrote a book on the art of war doesn't mean they did.
It could be a big advantage - the reason the German army was so effective in World War II was that they had war colleges for the training of their officers. The post war U.S. military is modeled on the pre-war German one.
The Mongols never had a numerical advantage except when they invaded Europe. They were almost always badly outnumbered.
-
Were the shields of the Guard wood like the common soldier or were they metal?
What was left to garrison Rome when the capital was moved?
-
I never got to add the last post I wanted to add to that thread.
I am satisfied with the description of the Roman shield having metal on the edges and being mostly wood. Many armies banged on their shields, the Romans banged on their shields in unison, at least in their heyday.
I think geography is the most important factor in evaluating the armies. The Romans and the Greeks used heavy infantry because of the mountainous terrain they came from was ill-suited to cavalry. This is seen in the wars agains the Parthians - the Romans won when they fought in the mountains of Armenia.
In open field, the Romans would be toast against the Chinese.
-
Look at the Iraqi National Guard.
The term of service in the U.S. army is at least 3 years if I'm not mistaken. And it works because there are career NCOs to instruct them. That's something the Russian army has in short supply, even during the cold war.
-
I have now caught up with all the comments. Although I skimmed through a few of the last.
The Roman shield was mostly wooden - if that is right, it is toast against the Chinese crossbow. But I have a hard time believing it because what the army did at the outset of a battle (during the Republic days) was have all their soldiers bang on their shields in unison. The sound would intimidate their enemies. This would not have worked if the shield was wooden.
The Romans consistently got their butts kicked by the Parthians - I don't believe that. At their height the Romans were great at adapting to defeat their enemies. If they were fighting Parthia for that long I hardly believe they never would have adjusted. They did break the Parthian government eventually, didn't they? And afterwards is when they finally had direct contact with China?
The Romans had no cavalry - absolute nonsense.
The Romans were dumb - the Romans were engineers to the Greek's philosophers. Chinese philosophy is nothing to brag about. They deliberately discouraged individual thought, which is why China accomplished nothing for over 1000 years.
Europeans got slaughtered by Mongols - numbers do matter, and the Europeans were a pale shadow of Rome when they were invaded
To the numbers thing - A conscipt army, even with 2 years of training, is not a good match for a professional one. But it looks like Han had a professional army and a conscript army. If the size of their professional army was on par with Rome's then the almost certain advantage of numbers from the conscript army would be a big difference. They would, if nothing else, serve as gun fodder. And that matters.
The biggest difference maker in an army is the quality of the NCOs. Senior officers go inside the tent . Senior NCOs stay in the field.
-
your calling me stupid because i said something that is almost entirely true? body armor really does not help you much at all in a real battle.
yes sheilds do but sheilds arent really considered "armour" they are... "sheilds"
if you dont belive what im saying about armour then by all means.. go buy a roman lorica and put it on yourself and have a friend fire arrows at you and swing swords at you and see what happens...
PS.
jimbow, if you could guide me to a link supporting what you said about the Milanese armour, id appreciate it because i cant find any links really saying much about its effectiveness in combat...
Armor stops swords from being effective in slashing motions. This is why the Europeans went to the rapier in the Rennaissance, which is a stabbing weapon.
By way of comparison - the medieval full plate armored knight on a horse with stirrups (very important invention) was like a tank. There were very few of them, but they were extremely effective.
Full plate armor works against swords and arrows.
Chainmail is worthless against a crossbow. Chainmail was the armor of the medieval European foot soldier and this is partly why the Mongols were so effective.
To fight a knight in full armor you have to stab them at the joints between sections of armor. It came to be that being maneuverable was more important (think - the musketeers). I.e. an unarmored man with a rapier has an advantage over a knight on foot because the knight can't move well.
The Worst Betrayal In Roman History
in Imperium Romanorum
Posted
I am not expert enough to help you, but I remember something about the end of Rome, where some people on the inside opened the gates for the Visigoths. If an expert here could flesh out that story, it might give you some good material.