View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
If you're expecting me to start defending my argument, then I'm going to disappoint you. In my experience, these sorts of conversations are just a waste of time. I really don't care what you think of what I said. Not my concern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ReformedSciolist
In: Johannesburg
|
|
|
|
To be honest, I thought this was a provocative, thought-inducing site (albeit for its members only). I was wrong - it's a load of bollocks. Frankly, the only ones here who make any sense (and you I might add make none at all) are Harper - and even then, it's not nearly so good as the stuff in his book, possibly thanks to editing - and Hatty (but not always). I don't need to become dumber by associating with you lot. So I'll do you the favour of not logging back in; the powers that be may permanently ban me and those of you with a smidgeon of common sense who read this before its deleted, take heed. If any of you actually care to indulge in intelligent conversation as against self-congratulatory speculation, feel free to email me.
I hate being duped; I should never have followed the link in that book, no matter how much sense it made.
Cue sardonic applause on exit. _________________ Yrs,
S
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Exactly.
It wasn't about "engaging" with me at all now was it? It was always about showing how stupid I am and how much you were looking forward to that. Sorry to disappoint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I'm a bit broken up meself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
admin
Librarian
|
|
|
|
ReformedSciolist has asked me to inactivate his account, which I just have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
I don't know if I misjudged the fellow or not. Something in the manner in which he wrote that message made me suspect he wasn't such a reformed sciolist after all.
I can see only one reason to engage with someone thought to "make no sense at all": To make oneself look so much more brilliant by comparison. I've had enough of that kind of discussion.
I seem to be a real magnet for though!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
What? Anyone who thinks in cliche isn't worth listening to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Oddly enough, Grant, this was the e-mail I sent Keimpe when Mr Sciolist applied for membership
Keimpe, can you let this guy in even though he uses phrases like "for my sins"
Mick |
|
|
|
|
|
|
admin
Librarian
|
|
|
|
Enough already. Let's carry on with All Things Roman, please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
For my sins, I've been looking at histories of Roman Technology. Being a boatie-sort-of-person, one thing that caught my eye was Bilge Pumps.
(Point of information for the uninitiated: all old boats leak, especially wooden ones, and a pump is better than a bucket at getting the water back out again)
It seems that the most well-preserved "Roman" bilge pump was discovered somewhere on Britain's south coast. It's labelled Roman because it was found in or near a port used in Roman times.
On the same basis, the Lucas Car Parts I occasionally find in my garden prove that my village was the centre of the Prince of Darkness's empire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Why did Roman society employ gladiatorial combat?
I now know the answer.
Of course those who are familiar with my present writings will know that I no longer believe in a Classical Roman world. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that Roman History is a complete fabrication. We have a historical claim that exists in the Roman Historical literature that, once upon a time, buildings like the Circus Maximum and Coliseum featured gladiatorial combat. Is this possible? Sure.
Let's assume it is in fact true. That gladiatorial combat was practiced in the "ancient" world (which may have been more recent than we think). I can now explain why it was practiced and why it died out.
First of all, we must understand that, even according to the sources, gladiators did not typically fight one another. They fought captives and criminals. Persons slated for execution. The condemned could win his survival by killing his executioner or by fighting exceptionally well. A combatant who lost but was still alive might be spared by the crowd with the "thumbs up" request. The Emperor---who had the power to release any criminal upon direct appeal---might then concede to the demands of the crowd.
But why have this system at all? Well in fact, it was extremely important to maintaining military effectiveness. To see why, watch This Documentary, fast-forward to 40:30 and watch until 43:00. The discussion concerns training in sword-fighting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
An interesting 'historian's error' last night from the normally reliable (within limits of course!) Mary Beard. She was telling us about the whopping stadium, seating 25,000, built by the Emperor Hadrian, a native of Seville, in Seville. She assured us that this was a case of Hadrian building a complete white elephant in Seville (population 5,000) strictly for vanity purposes.
All right, Mary, give us some other examples. I don't know of any cases of the rich-and-powerful building public works that can only lead to mockery from the rank-and-file. So I don't think Ms Beard will be able to do so.
Hadrian was, and Mary B will agree with me here, one of the ablest and cleverest of all the Roman emperors but apparently not as able or clever as Mary Beard. That's what makes it 'a historian's error'. They're always doing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
Hadrian's Wall is thought by some historians to have been built to prove a political point and enhance his prestige because the cost of building and maintaining garrisons seems too high to justify the purposes of defence and/or prevention of smuggling and cattle-raiding. As if linking the east and west coasts with regular toll-points wasn't a paying economic proposition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I don't necessarily agree with the proposition but even if true it would not be at all like the Seville Arena. Building things for prestige purposes is a perfectly proper, ie very effective, way of spending the public purse. A white elephant would not boost Hadrian's prestige.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Hadrian's Wall is thought by some historians .... because the cost of building and maintaining garrisons seems too high to justify the purposes of defence and/or prevention of smuggling and cattle-raiding. |
This is an example of the "we know better than them" school of history. As I said before, 'what other examples are there?'. There is the Antonine Wall. So now we can proceed.
1. Hadrian's Wall is built
2. Later on, the Antonine Wall is built.
There are now two possibilities
1. Hadrian's Wall was ineffective so they built the Antonine Wall
2. Hadrian's Wall was so successful they decided to repeat the policy, annexe southern Scotland, and build the Antonine Wall.
The first policy would appear to be dumbness squared. If something isn't working, do it all over again somewhere else. The second seems eminently reasonable. However the Antonine Wall appears to have been a failure and was abandoned. A failed policy is not the same as a dumb policy. Hadrian's Wall was not abandoned so we can assume it was not a failure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|