Forum • Non-Gaming • General Non-gaming

The History Thread • Page 3

  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

  • glaeken 11 Jan 2013 15:45:50 10,366 posts
    Seen 20 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    @Alastair That probably helped it last as long as it did to an extent. I have always thought the main issue they had was with succession of rule. For every good emperor they had they ended up getting a couple of crap ones and over the long run this inspired lots of challenges to the leadership and in fighting. If they had been able to maintain a more consistent standard of emperor they could have preventing a lot of the issues that weakened them.

    Democratically elected emperors voted on by the whole of the empire with terms of say 10 years could have helped them no end.
  • RelaxedMikki 11 Jan 2013 15:46:02 753 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    andytheadequate wrote:
    OK, for those who aren't as keen on military or What If history, the Roman empire only lasted so long because it successfully made its conquered subject believe they were Romans...

    Discuss!
    I should be able to answer this one - it was one of my old stoner mates specialist subjects when intoxicated. (You've got to love intelligent people! Before I'd gone to uni I'd only ever seen stoned people play Sensible Soccer or watch The Shopping Channel... Never seen anyone play chess or chunter on about Roman culture...).

    He'd go on about the spread of 'being Roman' for hours. Now, if only I could remember any of what he'd actually been saying...!
  • RelaxedMikki 11 Jan 2013 15:55:42 753 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Shit. I've got a good one.

    What did blokes talk about before football was invented? Did we all just sit round the camp-fire in silence wondering what to say...?!

    What was the 'go to' conversation in 1800? Politics? How the war with the French was going? The harvest? The weather...?
  • andytheadequate 11 Jan 2013 15:58:06 7,050 posts
    Seen 22 seconds ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    glaeken wrote:
    @Alastair That probably helped it last as long as it did to an extent. I have always thought the main issue they had was with succession of rule. For every good emperor they had they ended up getting a couple of crap ones and over the long run this inspired lots of challenges to the leadership and in fighting. If they had been able to maintain a more consistent standard of emperor they could have preventing a lot of the issues that weakened them.

    Democratically elected emperors voted on by the whole of the empire with terms of say 10 years could have helped them no end.
    There were a lot of succession issues even at its height. The succession issues became worse as the state became weaker, as more people felt they could do better, and as the state was less able to defeat them quickly.

    The inability to assimiliate the visi-goths, Franks et al in the 4th and 5th century was the major reason for its fall. Whether this was due to military weakness, economic decline or weak leadership is another matter (or all three)
  • andytheadequate 11 Jan 2013 15:58:53 7,050 posts
    Seen 22 seconds ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    RelaxedMikki wrote:
    Shit. I've got a good one.

    What did blokes talk about before football was invented? Did we all just sit round the camp-fire in silence wondering what to say...?!

    What was the 'go to' conversation in 1800? Politics? How the war with the French was going? The harvest? The weather...?
    They probably rambled on about What If history :D
  • RedSparrows 11 Jan 2013 15:59:04 16,848 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I have a friend who did Ancient History and waffles on about homosexuality whenever the subject of Romans comes up. He is the least covert in-the-closet-gay ever.

    Edited by RedSparrows at 15:59:16 11-01-2013
  • whatfruit 11 Jan 2013 15:59:49 402 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    @glaeken There was a point called the golden age when historians have theoriesed that the senate elected empererors through succession by adoption with the consenses of the senate between 96-180 A.D.
  • Alipan 11 Jan 2013 16:01:49 729 posts
    Seen 33 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Thing is in many ancient cultures 'relations' with young boys were quite acceptable.

    Poor old Jimmy Saville - born a couple of thousand years too late.
  • andytheadequate 11 Jan 2013 16:02:14 7,050 posts
    Seen 22 seconds ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    RedSparrows wrote:
    It's interesting, when thinking of the Romans and the Roman identity, what that means at a time when the collective identities of other groups around them were... what? I have no idea.

    We're taught the nation state appeared in Europe somewhere around 1400 to god-knows, depending on who you read. So what were the identities around the Roman empire, that could compete (in *any* way)? Religious? Tribal? Geographical? Material - literally, this is mine, bugger off?

    I'd love to hear.
    Well, religious is the obvious one. Romans basically assimilated conquered state's Gods into their own religion.

    Giving Roman citizenship to the Italian states is the obvious example. The Italian states had their own history and had countless rebellions against Rome rule. But once they became part of the Empire, rather than being ruled by it, the trouble pretty much stopped overnight.

    It wasn't just the leaders (who were often killed), but the prosperous who were given citizenship. The lower classes probably didn't care as much as they had few rights anyway. Citizens in the ancient world were generally only males who owned property

    Edited by andytheadequate at 16:03:46 11-01-2013
  • RelaxedMikki 11 Jan 2013 16:05:10 753 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    @RedSparrows

    For some terrible reason I have just imagined a chap hidng in a closet that is equpped with a glory hole...! (For the discerning, non-covert, closet dweller...)

    Yuck!
  • Alipan 11 Jan 2013 16:06:51 729 posts
    Seen 33 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    RelaxedMikki wrote:
    Shit. I've got a good one.

    What did blokes talk about before football was invented? Did we all just sit round the camp-fire in silence wondering what to say...?!

    What was the 'go to' conversation in 1800? Politics? How the war with the French was going? The harvest? The weather...?
    Good question. Im guessing the lower classes talked about all the usual human things. Food, women, health and most probably more about religion and God than we do now.
    News travelled slow - people in the country or remote locations probably knew very little of what was going on in the wider world. Other people maybe more so.
    Lots of folk tales and singalongs I would imagine!
  • glaeken 11 Jan 2013 16:09:13 10,366 posts
    Seen 20 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Some of us still don't talk about football. I find the weather to be a good substitute.
  • Trafford 11 Jan 2013 16:09:23 3,999 posts
    Seen 23 seconds ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Bremenacht wrote:
    Bound to be loads of EG types who'll get this:

    Kind Baldwin IV. AKA?
    The Leper King
  • Alastair 11 Jan 2013 16:10:57 11,887 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    glaeken wrote:
    Some of us still don't talk about football. I find the weather to be a good substitute.
    Men have always been able to boast about shagging birds. I'm sure that has happened since Adam first slipped Eve a length.

    Not as nice as I used to be

  • RedSparrows 11 Jan 2013 16:12:56 16,848 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I'm fairly sure the 'upper classes' talk about very similar things to the 'lower', just in a different way.
  • whatfruit 11 Jan 2013 16:15:47 402 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Like instead of "I fucked her right up the wrong'un and she loved it" they say "She let me put it in her poop shoot, it was most invigorating."
  • RedSparrows 11 Jan 2013 16:18:49 16,848 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Pretty much.
  • RelaxedMikki 11 Jan 2013 16:28:44 753 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    I was walking the dog last weekend. We live on a council estate a a young man of the lower class persuasion was holding court on that very subject. His window was open and he was drunkenly bellowing details of his conquest to the whole street.

    "She was on top, like, and going right at it"
    "She's one o' them is she?"
    "Oh aye. She's going right at it and I pops out and she pops me right back in again only I've not gone back in where I came out"
  • Bremenacht 11 Jan 2013 17:52:04 11,022 posts
    Seen 54 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Alipan wrote:
    Thing is in many ancient cultures 'relations' with young boys were quite acceptable.

    Poor old Jimmy Saville - born a couple of thousand years too late.
    The Romans thought it very dodgy to bugger another adult. Buggering boys was just fine though.

    This post is unsuitable for those with a high rumour-sensitivity.

  • meme 11 Jan 2013 18:19:13 15,310 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    That's 'cause of flexible gender roles. Young boys were basically considered girls. Buggering them was right of passage in order to make them into men (don't ask me how that was supposed to work). Homosexuality was approved as long as the receiver looked very feminine, otherwise it was considered offensive.

    That may be more Greek than Roman, though.

    GHOSTBUSTERS

  • Bremenacht 11 Jan 2013 18:21:15 11,022 posts
    Seen 54 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Trafford wrote:
    Bremenacht wrote:
    Bound to be loads of EG types who'll get this:

    Kind Baldwin IV. AKA?
    The Leper King
    Yay.

    This post is unsuitable for those with a high rumour-sensitivity.

  • disusedgenius 11 Jan 2013 18:22:41 4,808 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Yeah, from what I know the Romans weren't as cool with it as the Greeks. Apparently Augustus was often made fun of (behind his back, obviously) for being fucked by Julius Caesar when he was a boy.
  • Bremenacht 11 Jan 2013 18:23:25 11,022 posts
    Seen 54 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    meme wrote:
    That's 'cause of flexible gender roles. Young boys were basically considered girls. Buggering them was right of passage in order to make them into men (don't ask me how that was supposed to work). Homosexuality was approved as long as the receiver looked very feminine, otherwise it was considered offensive.

    That may be more Greek than Roman, though.
    I think social status was more important for the Romans. So, buggering someone of lesser social status or a prostitute was fine. Being buggered lessened your status, so it was a no-no for anyone with ambition. Unless you were already Emperor, I suppose (Hadrian).

    This post is unsuitable for those with a high rumour-sensitivity.

  • RedSparrows 18 Jan 2013 16:13:04 16,848 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Bump!

    Again, too late. I blame snow.
  • teamHAM 18 Jan 2013 16:20:06 1,472 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    What do you think is the biggest American military blunder?

    A) Dropping atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki

    B) The Vietnam War (particularly the decision to get involved and then the overall strategy and decision to exit when they did)

    C) The Second Gulf War and subsequent invasion of Afghanistan

    C) Something else?

    XBox Live, Origin and Games for Windows Live Gamertag: teamHAM

  • RedSparrows 18 Jan 2013 16:29:04 16,848 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    War of Independence, OBVIOUSLY
  • andytheadequate 18 Jan 2013 16:43:02 7,050 posts
    Seen 22 seconds ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    For the south, the American civil war must be an obvious candidate as it is by far the bloodiest war for America. Obviously good came from it, but at the start of the war it wasn't about emancipating the slaves.

    Vietnam is another obvious one, getting stuck in a war they couldn't win. Afghanistan is similar but much less costly on human life for America. It also began before the invasion of Iraq.

    On a smaller scale, Pearl Habour was devastating to the navy and the morale of the country, but not necessarily in human life.

    The atomic bombings were a diplomatic blunder (as well as a war crime), but militarily a success in the short term
  • RedSparrows 18 Jan 2013 16:51:49 16,848 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    The biggest US military blunder I can think of is the assumption that massive force will always triumph without concentrated, focused, understanding of cause and effect in terms of, to use a cliche, hearts and minds. Apply liberally.
  • andytheadequate 18 Jan 2013 16:56:41 7,050 posts
    Seen 22 seconds ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Thing is, after World War 2 they won (to an extent) the hearts and minds of the Germans and Japanese by successfully rebuilding their countries. They've had much less success in mainland Asia and the Near East though, or any time before WW2 for that matter.

    To use another cliche, they win the war but lose the peace

    Edited by andytheadequate at 16:58:15 18-01-2013
  • teamHAM 18 Jan 2013 17:00:12 1,472 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    andytheadequate wrote:
    For the south, the American civil war must be an obvious candidate as it is by far the bloodiest war for America. Obviously good came from it, but at the start of the war it wasn't about emancipating the slaves.

    Vietnam is another obvious one, getting stuck in a war they couldn't win. Afghanistan is similar but much less costly on human life for America. It also began before the invasion of Iraq.

    On a smaller scale, Pearl Habour was devastating to the navy and the morale of the country, but not necessarily in human life.

    The atomic bombings were a diplomatic blunder (as well as a war crime), but militarily a success in the short term
    Yes course (2001 Afghanistan, 2003 Iraq iirc). Blonde moment.

    Surely any military actions can be blamed on diplomatic blunders with the exception maybe of small scale tactical operations. Ie most wars are started by governments. I know building the bombs, getting the planes over Japan, dropping them accurately and getting a successful detonation were I suppose military successes, but overall surely it must be seen as a disaster. As you say a war crime and with huge humanitarian consequences.

    I'm probably going to use Vietnam War as the example.

    What I should have mentioned before, post 1900 examples only.

    XBox Live, Origin and Games for Windows Live Gamertag: teamHAM

  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

Log in or register to reply