Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

Brucecarson

Plebes
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Brucecarson


  1. This is very true.

    As the article Neph linked above concludes at the end: "If Flynn is right, knowing how many picture-puzzles different cohorts of Dutch teenagers could solve is actually a window through which we can see a momentous change, the


  2. "The Flynn effect describes an increase in the average intelligence quotient (IQ) test scores over generations (IQ gains over time). Similar improvements have been reported for other cognitions such as semantic and episodic memory.[1] The effect has been observed in most parts of the world at different rates."

     

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

     

    The wikipedia page has also a "Possible projection of Flynn through ages" that shows a Rome year 0 average IQ much closer to 48 then of 100.

    The Flynn effect it's well proven, but of course romans did not preserved results of their standardized IQ tests so we can only presume that their average IQ was below those of the people in the western societies in early XX century when IQ testing begun. Also I doubt that IQ testing results tell us much.

     

    Still, I believe that any realistic view of ancient societies must take in account that they were not only less informed and less educated but also, on average, substantially less intelligent.

     

    I think it has more to do with the recent (last few hundred years) improvements in diet, better nutrition and so forth. The thing is, it doesn't scale down without end. Poor nutrition will hold one back mentally, but it's not linear. Having half the nutrition doesn't make one half as intelligent, perhaps a quarter less intelligent. So yes, Romans on average were probably less intelligent, especially the lower classes with a poorer and less varied diet. The wealthy would probably be roughly equal to modern people. Notably the improvement has recently stopped or slowed down... which backs up the nutritional theory.

     

    The point about "types" of intelligence has value as well... but I disagree with the conclusion they're reaching that we need some other sorts of tests to be "fair" to people. IQ tests are designed to test the types of intelligence needed in todays world. All this cultural relativist BS about different ways of thinking being perfectly valid is quite simply wrong. They're not all equal, some of them are pretty useless in a modern context. The point of testing is not to make people feel good, but to place people where they best fit.

     

    Also, there's probably some evolutionary improvement since ancient times. Not much though, if evolution were that quick one would expect more variance between genetically disparate groups of humans. But the IQ of equally well fed Africans is only about ~5 points lower than Caucasians (if that), differences between all the other groups fall in a similar range. (By the way I'm about 1/4 black so I'm not making some kind of racist argument here, just looking at the evidence).


  3. There must be some modern beast fights between either lions or tigers. I searched video search on Yahoo but I couldn't find any though.

     

    Perhaps it would be worthwhile to read up on dog fighting Do they starve them, or perhaps just beat them to get them sufficiently enraged and aggressive? Some people in my former Highschool (east St.Louis district 189) did dog fights, and to my understanding starvation and beating were the methods to train them. Not sure though as I tried to avoid those people.


  4. I can understand the decline in the teaching of Latin, but if you want to have a serious classics department you need to have a Latin department as well. There will always be some call for it.

     

    Personally, I think as a society we would be better off if people spent more time studying the classics (in translation in most cases) and less on post modern literature. In high school I was made to read "a small place," "catcher in the rye" and the like. What do those works teach us? The thoughts of the last generation of societal rebels and non-conformist thinkers. I basically learned how self important my teachers believed their baby-boom generation to be. They firmly believe the thoughts they came up with outweighed in significance all previous human thinking from the last three thousand years.

     

    On the upside, I did grow quite disgusted with post modernist, feminist and politically liberal literature (nothing against feminism and liberalism but I got the point after the first teacher drilled it into me). So today I'd much sooner read one of the classics than any of the supposed cutting edge literature of today. Cutting edge literature is boring when you're forced to read it.

     

    Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

     

    Maybe the above phrase is the unconscious reason for teaching us literature written by the last generation of rebels. The baby-boomers claim they're teaching us about their rebellions so that we don't slide into the societal patterns of the past. I think they do it to keep us from following their example, they don't want a rebellious young generation. They want to entrench their power structures and way of thinking... a bit of a conspiracy theory on my part.

     

    Wow... this is the first time I've ever really enunciated my feelings about literature as it's taught in schools today. I've been thinking this for years but never put my thoughts together like this.


  5. I see Quintus Pictor referenced here and there, a early roman historian. I haven't found any English translated versions, so maybe someone who knows Latin could suggest where to find an untranslated version. My Latin isn't very good but I'd be curious to at least make a quick read through. Also it would help out A LOT with my final report for AP Ancient History.

     

    If anyone has a PDF (or any other file format), I could PM you with my email and you could send me a copy? (I have a sinking feeling that this will otherwise only be available in some $$ academic journals which my HS library doesn't have access too).

     

    As I understand it there is very little if any surviving text. It exists as reference material for later writer Polybius, Livy, Plutarch, etc. Modern historians still debate his style of writing and functional historical role. Such an argument can only take place as conjecture and in the absence of direct evidence. If his work survived the debate takes a different form (ie the impact of his work, the historicity, etc.)

     

    Damn. Strange that Quintus was writing just around 180 years before Caesar yet very little(?) of his work survives but we have all of Caesar's conquest of Gaul. You can even buy it on Amazon.

     

    If anyone has info on where to get what portions are available I'd still very much like to know. It's got to be somewhere... in some old book somewhere in Europe.


  6. I see Quintus Pictor referenced here and there, a early roman historian. I haven't found any English translated versions, so maybe someone who knows Latin could suggest where to find an untranslated version. My Latin isn't very good but I'd be curious to at least make a quick read through. Also it would help out A LOT with my final report for AP Ancient History.

     

    If anyone has a PDF (or any other file format), I could PM you with my email and you could send me a copy? (I have a sinking feeling that this will otherwise only be available in some $$ academic journals which my HS library doesn't have access too).


  7. Somewhere in the Life of Vespasian there's an interesting comment. Someone came up with an innovative device which would make building the Flavian amphitheater easier. Vespasian rewarded the man, but declined to use his invention, saying it take the bread from the mouths of his workmen.

     

    That is interesting. Higher ups in an organization often stand in the way of large technological improvements. Fascinating to see a specific case of that transmitted all the way from Roman times.

     

    So perhaps the move from small farmers and entrepreneurs towards large Latifundia and state run enterprises removed the individuals drive to innovate? To clarify, I don't mean state run enterprises in the sense of the Soviet Union, rather I mean state run as in the large construction projects. Construction of the Flavian amphitheater was directed from the top down and not contracted out (if Maty is right). And armorers, after the Marian reforms individuals no longer directly purchased their armor from a small smithy. I'd suppose the state efficiently produced large amounts of armor in more centralized facilities.


  8. The idea of using caltrops is interesting however they are potentially equally effective against foot soldiers however and its a big however think of how many you would need to fire to cover a sufficiently large area, you need to transport both them and the means by which they are fired. Any siege weapon is of limited utility against a manouverable target if you fire a bag of caltrops then horsemen could probably have easily evaded its flight path. Ballista bolts are more problematical due to the speed with which they are fired but you still need to transport a lot of missiles along with the ballistae to wherever they are needed as well as ensuring the tension is correct before firing missiles. Although the Roman may have moved the lighter missile firers around on carts and possibly used them in some battles the preference appears to have been to only use them from or against fixed positions.

     

    Interesting.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caltrop#History

     

    According to Wikipedia, the Romans used Caltrops to take on chariots. Do you think they spread them on the field before hand? I think you're right about siege weapons. Firing Ballistae at horse archers wouldn't probably work now that I think about it.

     

    Guy, your totally right about disease of course. Questions like this really only apply for those rare times both the Parthians and Romans were organized enough to face each other on the battlefield.


  9. One theme I've pulled out of this thread is that the Parthians caused the Romans problems because of their horse archers. I would imagine that an infantry based military would have problems with them on the first encounter. But it seems to me that the counter to Horse Archers is not only obvious, but very easy execute.

     

    Simple. ARchers vs Horse Archers. Horses offer much larger targets than humans and therefore would be much easier targets. I would think that the Roman Auxiliary Archers would have no trouble dealing with horse archers.

     

    The second solution would be the Ballistae. Our resident Roman Army experts here can post more specifics than I can, but don't the Ballistae out range any bows of that era. Well placed Ballistae and archers covered by Infantry or Cavalry would easily counter Horse Archers and any Cavalry trying to take out the Roman Archers.

     

    And then there is the Roman ability to fortify their positions. THey could just dig in or form Testudo to mitigate the arrows. Meanwhile, send out some cavalry to set up ambushes for the Horse Archers.

     

    I can see where it would be a pain in the butt fighting Horse Archers, but being a nuisance doesn't necessarily equate to being a "worthy opponent" in my book.

     

    Solid analysis. I've been wondering for awhile what the best counter for horse archers are. I had come to the same conclusion. You need missile troops to counter. The use of Ballistae had however not occurred to me.

     

    Is there any other counter to missile cavalry besides other missile troops? Some sort of trebuchet with a flaming projectile filled with pitch perhaps? I'm guessing that wouldn't really be effective as it wouldn't ignite a large enough area. The other thing I thought of was putting a whole bunch of Caltrops in a loosely bundled cloth sack, so they separate out in flight. Then you cover a good section of the field with them, hopefully they wouldn't even be aware of the Caltrops presence. If they run onto them, the Caltrops would destroy the horses hooves and buck the rider.


  10. Technology did not appreciably develop in terms of 'scientific' advance, merely in terms of application of existing ideas (often other cultures but there you go) and some increasing sophistication. There wasn't much need for technical advance in the Roman world. As they became the dominant power they were strong enbough not to require technical advances as a means of winning domination, especially since Rome was intrinsically a conservative culture to begin with. Science as such was always a bit dodgy to the superstitious Roman mind since it was aping the powers of the gods. Also, why would a nobleman risk his reputation in a competitive cultural and politcal arena by investing in research? Surely a wealthy man demonstrates his wealth to his advantage by public largesse and the visible beneficence of slave labour? Science was also something very 'Greek' in Roman minds, and Greeks were.. well.. not to be trusted.

     

    Very clear answer, thanks. I suppose that's a real difference between the scientific revolution and one of the reasons it didn't happen in ancient rome. In renessiance Europe, science was a prestidgious pursuit for nobility. Not so in ancient rome.


  11. Is there any evidence for development of technology and increases in labor productivity over different periods?

     

    On the military front, the technological gap between various tribes and the Romans shrank. My layman's understanding is that after the period of around 0-100 the introduction of new devices and technologies vastly reduced. If anything, the quantity of slave labor available seems to have reduced the drive for innovation.

     

    What about mathematical and other scientific studies after 0 AD?


  12. I mention this minor point in order to illustrate some of the differences between History and Archaeology. Whilst Historical research can be entirely based on academia, I feel that Archaeology should draw on the resources of practical people, rather than solely on academics who may not have enough insight into building, food storage, water conveyance etc to make a valid evaluation of a site.

    To be fair that would not be a difference between History and Archaeology, or any other research discipline for that matter.

    Irrespectively of how we may define "academia" here, all research must be based on empyrical (practical) evidence and elementary logic (the uncommon common sense).

    Otherwise we would get invalid evaluations even in History, for example the famous mirror weapon of Archimedes.

     

    Agreed on that point.

     

    Personally, I'm against any unification of the disciplines. Archeology should be a purely practical, scientific pursuit. Archaeologists shouldn't be biased in what they are looking for by their dual career or interest as a Historian. They shouldn't go out into a dig site with an eye to the confirmation of their already existing theory. A bias like that only gets us even further away from the accurate, positivist understanding of History.


  13. Finally, although I find Greek philosophy too abstruse and Greek literature too boring, I do enjoy learning about the many personalities that played a role in Greek history (especially military history), including Pericles, Epaminondas, and Alexander the Great.

     

    No surprise there! IMHO, One wonders what exactly the point of Greek philosophy is. Sit around questioning the nature of existence, questioning the meaning of life, questioning things of no practical meaning. It gets you no where and benefits no one. If these Greek philosophers had so much doubt, why not just be done with it and throw yourself in a Volcano (well, actually, one of them did! Sadly, the rest did not follow suite). It's better to focus on the practical aspects. Too much Greek philosophy undermines good moral fiber and destroys the work ethic.


  14. Judaism has existed for a very long time, as we know, as well as ''phobia'' about Jews.

     

    I'm aware that Christians were persecuted off and on in the Roman Empire, so, there is some overlap there between Jews and Christians, and therefore the prosecution of such. Especially in the early days of Christianity. Various Emperors had programs to halt the spread of Christianity after it caused problems and unrest. Trajan and some of the other emperors from that period are noted by historians as implimenting these programs. For example Pliney's letters to Trajan.

     

    My question is, since Emperors took action against Christians in response to the unrest and instability that they were causing, did they do the same against Jews? In the middle ages, some of the anger towards Jews stemmed from their (Jews) disregard for laws which banned money lending. However, to my knowledge, money lending was entirely legal within the Roman Empire. I do understand from some sources that money changing was looked down upon at that time, a profession Jews were historically involved in. Beyond that, there is the age old problem that Jews primarily feel loyalty to the state of "Israel," whether it exists at the time or not. They either look to Israel for guidance, or want to create the state of Israel (the movement of Zionism).

     

    Did any Roman emperors or officials recognize these problems and undertake programs to destroy copies of the Talmud and Torah or expel Jews, similar to what the Russians, French and Spanish did in medieval times?

     

    As a side note... Personally, I am an atheist. I don't buy into any religious stuff. The intersection of Religion and politics, such as Israel today or George Bush's presidency, deplores me.

×