07-12-2014, 10:16 AM
I will say as in that joke with a Rabin, you (and others who share similar views) are right, but Mark Hygate for example is right too. At least this is how I see the things
Well, I think since the aparition of bow and arrow the hunting was close to how you will hunt today. The hunter will stalking too his prey, and would have been probably even better to that then most modern hunters (but was harder for him too, obviously). Especially as today you can shot a deer from 300 meters fairly easy with a good rifle. Back then he would have needed to come maybe at 30 meters to shot an arrow in the deer.
Some people use traps too, modern ones are iron/steel, with some "teeth" and a spring to close it or so when the animal step on it, back then they will dig a hole, put some sharp spikes in it for stabing the prey when fall in and cover it too with some branches and dirt to not be visible. I am pretty sure they knew how to cover their smell too when doing that trap, so not scare the animals away.
Same principle, different tools because of the advance of technology, bow and arrow-rifle, ancient traps-modern traps
Sometime this was the case back then too. Going for example to Trajan market in Rome you'll find for sure quite few things from other places in the world (as far as India, if not China too). And the differences you mention, which obviously exist, are really from modern era, until the aparition of modern use of electricity people didnt lived much different then in previous eras.
Well, (most of) the methods of indoctrination and mental preparation of soldiers for battle may be different today. But as Mark said too I think, the basics are the same. The principles are similar, one may fight for the country (motherland/fatherland) now or then, or for glory, or for money. Both may look at the unit flag (or traditions, or colors, or name) almost in a religious way of worship.
How they prepare them for that may differ, make them think they will win and rising their morale and fighting spirit based on some silly beliefes (for us today) was one method.
We do have priests too in some modern armies for example, soldiers may pray to God to protect them when in danger or wear some "lucky symbol" with them.
Romans used too the most modern weapons of their era and werent shy of taking from others what they see fit. They used too the study of history and their battles to improve their army. After lost battles they adapted and improved. They abandoned the phalanx and took from Samnites the maniples and scutum I think. They moved to fully profesional army, created the legions and cohors and such. Allowed a much more freedom for them, some as Tribunes or Centurions were able to make their own decisions depending on the situation at that moment on the battlefield without waiting the orders of the supreme commander or general who was leading the army. The battles against Macedonians are an example here.
They had at some point well developed tactics too, that worked almost by themselves even with some less good general in charge (sure, a really bad one will screw the battle or the situation nevertheless but thats not uncommon today either).
And I think just some Celts or some Germans were doing that silly bare chested charge :-)
Yes, I was agree that on the other way Romans were very different, these are ones of those instances. Except the prostitution part which exist today too, and existed before Roman era probably (to not be understand that I agree in any way with the forced exploatation or opressing of women, I was just pointing an unfortunate similarity betwen our times).
However, cultural wise, you probably go to watch a movie at cinema (or watch it at TV) as a Roman was going to watch a play at the theater. Some like to watch a boxing match as many back then liked Gladiator fights. You read books, some back then was doing that as well.
The political intrigues are almost similar and Romans knew some mass psychology as well, see just "divide et impera" or "pane et circensis" still used in same way today. Romans had the parties of populares and optimates, you have the democrats and republicans. Americans were even big influenced by the Roman architecture when they build the US Capitol or Supreme Court building, or named towns after some role model Romans (Cincinnatus).
And if we came to politics, Roman women sometime had an important role even there, even if normally they were not allowed to be involved in politics. An example is Cornelia, the daughter of Scipio Africanus (my fav Roman general) and mother of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus. She had a big influence in their education and even political career that attempted to reform the Roman society and give more rights to plebeians and common people. Women (at least from certain classes) were educated, go to schools when they were kids (same classes with boys up to an age), have the right to own properties and do as they please with them, were able to divorce and remarry without much difficulty. Women were involved in businesses too, I think one of Cicero's creditors was a woman.
And how Sallust describe Sempronia, a woman involved with Catilina and his conspiracy
<<One of these women was Sempronia, whose masculine boldness had already led her to commit many crimes. This woman was favoured by fortune in birth and beauty as well as in her husband and children. She was well read in Greek and Latin literature; she played the lyre and danced with greater skill than propriety warrants; and she had a number of other accomplishments all of the sort that promote dissipation. But to her nothing was more worthless than modesty and chastity. It is not easy to say which she threw away more wantonly, her money or her reputation. She was so oversexed that it was more often she who went after men than the other way around. She had often broken promises, disavowed her debts, and been an accessory to murder. Love of luxury combined with poverty had driven her headlong. And yet, she had real talents. She could write verse, make jokes, and converse with modesty, tenderness, or wantonness. She was a woman of considerable wit and charm.>>.
Then as recreational activities, is this looks familiar?
http://www.crystalinks.com/RomanWomenSports.jpg
Not to mention some of them participated even in gladiator fights (including not just random free women but even some from upper classes, same as some free Roman men did). I am sure some more knowledgeable person here can shed more light in this
http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_murray_0703.htm
It is known as well that to Scythians for example existed warrior women, we can see on Trajan Column as well how Dacian women torture Roman prisoners (so they participate either in battle either was the ones interogating and possibly killing war prisoners) and we know of Boudica and her revolt, so women back then werent always opressed, in fact had much more liberties and possibilities then women of more modern eras, not just medieval but even more close to us. I dont think a woman from a "puritan" era society back there enjoyed anyway near the rights and liberties a free (and arguably wealthy enough) woman from Roman times enjoyed, or women from Dacia, or Scythians, Sarmatians or even Celts.
You're correct but I dont think Sulla or Caesar were quite at the level of some plebeian or peasent, living in a small poor house at the edge of the town or village
Quote:
I eat hunt, eat food, have fought other men in battle, and have sex with women. Does that make me similar to a early homo sapien from the stone age? Sure, why not. They do the same. Therefore in a lot of ways we're the same. Wait a minute, me, a man living in America in the 21st century, the same as a cave man? That can't be true? Right? Wouldn't that be the most generalized comparison ever? Looks look at it in detail.
When I see a herd of deer, I don't run after them and try to run the deer to death before I club it with a branch or stab it will a sharpened rock. I set up in a blind and shoot one. Or I come up with some other efficient hunting method that has evolved over thousands of years.
Well, I think since the aparition of bow and arrow the hunting was close to how you will hunt today. The hunter will stalking too his prey, and would have been probably even better to that then most modern hunters (but was harder for him too, obviously). Especially as today you can shot a deer from 300 meters fairly easy with a good rifle. Back then he would have needed to come maybe at 30 meters to shot an arrow in the deer.
Some people use traps too, modern ones are iron/steel, with some "teeth" and a spring to close it or so when the animal step on it, back then they will dig a hole, put some sharp spikes in it for stabing the prey when fall in and cover it too with some branches and dirt to not be visible. I am pretty sure they knew how to cover their smell too when doing that trap, so not scare the animals away.
Same principle, different tools because of the advance of technology, bow and arrow-rifle, ancient traps-modern traps
Quote: When I eat, I grab my food from my refrigerator that someone else almost always killed and prepared and I heat it up. Often, this food comes from other places in the world, nowhere near where I live.
Sometime this was the case back then too. Going for example to Trajan market in Rome you'll find for sure quite few things from other places in the world (as far as India, if not China too). And the differences you mention, which obviously exist, are really from modern era, until the aparition of modern use of electricity people didnt lived much different then in previous eras.
Quote: When I fought other men in battle, I didn't need to worship a standard, I didn't seek solace in reading the movements of birds or the entrails of animals, nor did I freak out because it thundered during battle.
Well, (most of) the methods of indoctrination and mental preparation of soldiers for battle may be different today. But as Mark said too I think, the basics are the same. The principles are similar, one may fight for the country (motherland/fatherland) now or then, or for glory, or for money. Both may look at the unit flag (or traditions, or colors, or name) almost in a religious way of worship.
How they prepare them for that may differ, make them think they will win and rising their morale and fighting spirit based on some silly beliefes (for us today) was one method.
We do have priests too in some modern armies for example, soldiers may pray to God to protect them when in danger or wear some "lucky symbol" with them.
Quote: I used modern weaponry and the most efficient tactics possible, which are designed using scientific methods, such as statistics and the study of history and human behavior and psychology. Screw tradition. I'd sooner frag an officer than charge bare chested at an enemy machine position because he's too clueless to understand modern methods.
Romans used too the most modern weapons of their era and werent shy of taking from others what they see fit. They used too the study of history and their battles to improve their army. After lost battles they adapted and improved. They abandoned the phalanx and took from Samnites the maniples and scutum I think. They moved to fully profesional army, created the legions and cohors and such. Allowed a much more freedom for them, some as Tribunes or Centurions were able to make their own decisions depending on the situation at that moment on the battlefield without waiting the orders of the supreme commander or general who was leading the army. The battles against Macedonians are an example here.
They had at some point well developed tactics too, that worked almost by themselves even with some less good general in charge (sure, a really bad one will screw the battle or the situation nevertheless but thats not uncommon today either).
And I think just some Celts or some Germans were doing that silly bare chested charge :-)
Quote: And when I have sex with women I didn't rape them silly while still covered in the blood of their dead male family members. Prostitution is not only illegal its immoral, exploits oppressed women and is a good way to develop an STD. When I got married I didn't have to deal with dowries and I didn't buy my wife or have to steal her. Because I'm not actually like a cave man. Nor a Roman, because we're different cultures.
Yes, I was agree that on the other way Romans were very different, these are ones of those instances. Except the prostitution part which exist today too, and existed before Roman era probably (to not be understand that I agree in any way with the forced exploatation or opressing of women, I was just pointing an unfortunate similarity betwen our times).
However, cultural wise, you probably go to watch a movie at cinema (or watch it at TV) as a Roman was going to watch a play at the theater. Some like to watch a boxing match as many back then liked Gladiator fights. You read books, some back then was doing that as well.
The political intrigues are almost similar and Romans knew some mass psychology as well, see just "divide et impera" or "pane et circensis" still used in same way today. Romans had the parties of populares and optimates, you have the democrats and republicans. Americans were even big influenced by the Roman architecture when they build the US Capitol or Supreme Court building, or named towns after some role model Romans (Cincinnatus).
And if we came to politics, Roman women sometime had an important role even there, even if normally they were not allowed to be involved in politics. An example is Cornelia, the daughter of Scipio Africanus (my fav Roman general) and mother of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus. She had a big influence in their education and even political career that attempted to reform the Roman society and give more rights to plebeians and common people. Women (at least from certain classes) were educated, go to schools when they were kids (same classes with boys up to an age), have the right to own properties and do as they please with them, were able to divorce and remarry without much difficulty. Women were involved in businesses too, I think one of Cicero's creditors was a woman.
And how Sallust describe Sempronia, a woman involved with Catilina and his conspiracy
<<One of these women was Sempronia, whose masculine boldness had already led her to commit many crimes. This woman was favoured by fortune in birth and beauty as well as in her husband and children. She was well read in Greek and Latin literature; she played the lyre and danced with greater skill than propriety warrants; and she had a number of other accomplishments all of the sort that promote dissipation. But to her nothing was more worthless than modesty and chastity. It is not easy to say which she threw away more wantonly, her money or her reputation. She was so oversexed that it was more often she who went after men than the other way around. She had often broken promises, disavowed her debts, and been an accessory to murder. Love of luxury combined with poverty had driven her headlong. And yet, she had real talents. She could write verse, make jokes, and converse with modesty, tenderness, or wantonness. She was a woman of considerable wit and charm.>>.
Then as recreational activities, is this looks familiar?
http://www.crystalinks.com/RomanWomenSports.jpg
Not to mention some of them participated even in gladiator fights (including not just random free women but even some from upper classes, same as some free Roman men did). I am sure some more knowledgeable person here can shed more light in this
http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_murray_0703.htm
It is known as well that to Scythians for example existed warrior women, we can see on Trajan Column as well how Dacian women torture Roman prisoners (so they participate either in battle either was the ones interogating and possibly killing war prisoners) and we know of Boudica and her revolt, so women back then werent always opressed, in fact had much more liberties and possibilities then women of more modern eras, not just medieval but even more close to us. I dont think a woman from a "puritan" era society back there enjoyed anyway near the rights and liberties a free (and arguably wealthy enough) woman from Roman times enjoyed, or women from Dacia, or Scythians, Sarmatians or even Celts.
Quote: Also, the term Patrician really means "Father of the City of Rome" (a much abbreviated definition). Its incorrectly used to mean rich person, at least in the context of the time period you mentioned. As examples, both Sulla and Caesar were of Patrician families and were known to have grown up either outright poor or at least not all that wealthy.
You're correct but I dont think Sulla or Caesar were quite at the level of some plebeian or peasent, living in a small poor house at the edge of the town or village
Razvan A.
