Try https://sh.itjust.works/c/roughromanmemes@piefed.social

the link doesnt seem to work on eternity

A reminder that the comm has moved to !roughromanmemes@piefed.social

One of us. One of us…

Wolf Milk Rocks!

Just starting a long Roman tradition of aggressive self-defence 🙏

The CIVILISED kind! Never mind one murdering the other.

Well, it's not a glass of milk now is it?

The stupid , undignified expression on her face

"BRUH WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF WOLF PUPS DID I HAVE"

I still can't believe

1. The stupid , undignified expression on her face
2. That the founding animal that made it so that the people that would found their city survived, has NO FUCKING NAME

Explanation: The legendary founders of the city of Rome, Romulus and Remus, supposedly were suckled by a wolf. A great story beginning with a tall glass of wolf milk!

(alternatively, 'lupa', 'she-wolf', was Latin slang for a prostitute - something the Romans themselves speculated may have been the true meaning of the story)

The way I see it, the difference between Sulla and Caesar is that one restored the republic in the end, and the other didn’t (or didn’t have the time to). I don’t mean to say that Sulla was in any way better than Caesar - In fact, he was far, far worse - but the Republic did survive him, and many of his reforms were repelled after his death.

Many of Caesar's reforms were also repealed after his death, though. Just because they were repealed by people claiming to be his defenders doesn't change that.

After Caesar’s death, the Republic existed in name only because, as you said, the Second Triumvirate immediately followed, which was as much democratic as Sulla’s dictatorship. Basically, after Sulla there was still a Republic to return to, while Caesar paved the path for nothing but dictatorship.

The Second Triumvirate's power was only enabled, though, by the breakout of civil war. If Caesar had died of a heart attack in his sleep on the Ides of March, it's doubtful that the figures of the Second Triumvirate would've been nearly so well-placed to seize such extraordinary power.

I think it’s poignant that what we call the “second” Triumvirate was an official commission, while the first one was an informal agreement among powerful individuals - the fact that Caesar and his merry companions had to do it in secret is meaningful proof that the Republic was still “somewhat” functional, while it had already been irremediably ruined by the time the second Triumvirate was born.

See, this I have to strongly disagree with - the secrecy of the First Triumvirate was not proof of the Republic's functioning, but rather proof that the First Triumvirate was a very different beast than the Second. There's a reason I compared the Second Triumvirate to the extraordinary commands post-Sulla rather than the First Triumvirate.

The First Triumvirate was a political alliance wherein three powerful politicians sought to achieve their goals without uniting the reactionary (in both senses, but in this case, in the sense of literal reaction - opposing anything that seemed too likely to succeed) opposition against them. Not that their goals were largely anything laudable, but the First Triumvirate was not-unusual-politiking whose only unusual feature was the small number of men involved compared to past-such alliances - itself a result of the Late Republic's dysfunction.

The Second Triumvirate - as you mentioned - was an official commission wherein figures were granted extraordinary and unconstitutional powers, not simply powerful politicians agreeing to cooperate in the face of an opposition all-too-eager to unite against them. The First Triumvirate did nothing illegal by the laws and norms of the Republic (or nothing illegal by its existence - obviously arguments can be made for several of the Triumvirs' individual actions as politicians); the Second Triumvirate inherently bypassed the legal norms and processes of the Republic.

This entire conversation is, of course, a huge oversimplification of far, far more complex historical events that I would certainly not be able to summarize in a shitty Lemmy post: looking for a single person responsible for the collapse of an entire political system is an exercise in futility; as futile as pointing to THE cause for the fall of the Roman empire.

Of course, I agree entirely with that!

That being said, it’s impossible NOT to include Caesar (and Sulla, and many others) among those responsible, and Caesar would certainly be one of the prime suspects, since he was the one on the crime scene when the Republic was found dead.

I would (and did) argue that Caesar predeceased the Republic, but if we're regarding the Second Triumvirate as proof of the Republic's death, then Caesar was on the crime scene when the Republic was found dead, but quite literally as a fellow corpse. It would seem more intuitive to me to treat the squabbling couple as both murdered by the same forces, regardless of the history of domestic violence.

EDIT: I didn’t mean “Shitty Lemmy post” but "Shitty Lemmy comment’, ie. I was talking about my own comment. I love your memes, I would never insult you :)

Don't worry, I understood you meant 'shitty Lemmy comment' as the futility of any Lemmy comment tracing out the causes of the Republic's fall to an academic degree, not any comment already made in particular!

According to The history of Rome (podcast that I discovered thanks to you - thanks!), both factions are responsible for the slow collapse of the Republic. Extreme wealth accumulation, loss of civic duty, individual ambitions destroyed the Roman Republic.

The way I see it, the difference between Sulla and Caesar is that one restored the republic in the end, and the other didn't (or didn't have the time to). I don't mean to say that Sulla was in any way better than Caesar - In fact, he was far, far worse - but the Republic did survive him, and many of his reforms were repelled after his death. After Caesar's death, the Republic existed in name only because, as you said, the Second Triumvirate immediately followed, which was as much democratic as Sulla's dictatorship. Basically, after Sulla there was still a Republic to return to, while Caesar paved the path for nothing but dictatorship.
I think it's poignant that what we call the "second" Triumvirate was an official commission, while the first one was an informal agreement among powerful individuals - the fact that Caesar and his merry companions had to do it in secret is meaningful proof that the Republic was still "somewhat" functional, while it had already been irremediably ruined by the time the second Triumvirate was born.

This entire conversation is, of course, a huge oversimplification of far, far more complex historical events that I would certainly not be able to summarize in a shitty Lemmy post: looking for a single person responsible for the collapse of an entire political system is an exercise in futility; as futile as pointing to THE cause for the fall of the Roman empire.
That being said, it's impossible NOT to include Caesar (and Sulla, and many others) among those responsible, and Caesar would certainly be one of the prime suspects, since he was the one on the crime scene when the Republic was found dead.

EDIT: I didn't mean "Shitty Lemmy post" but "Shitty Lemmy comment', ie. I was talking about my own comment. I love your memes, I would never insult you :)

But the Republic survived Caesar by several years - a period in which the Second Triumvirate exercised powers not dissimilar to the extraordinary commands common after Sulla's dictatorship. If we're allowing for "Yes it survived him, but he set the stage", then the argument can just as easily be pushed back to prior figures.

Rome was dysfunctional and would have fallen either way. That being said, Caesar was the person who destroyed it. Even if he didn't, someone else would've done it, eventually.

I think both are true.

Explanation: Julius Caesar is sometimes regarded as the man who destroyed the Roman Republic. This is a... contentious position for numerous reasons, not least of which being the extreme dysfunction caused by the conservative faction (Optimates) of the Republic.

Explanation: The Praetorian Guard were a unit of Roman soldiers whose nominal job was to protect the Emperor from threats.

... very often, the Praetorians were the threat, and assassinated more than their fair share of Emperors through the years.

The Praetorians were not particularly good soldiers, recruited largely from Italian families, and acted as a secret police. Their position was viewed with some disdain by the regular Legions, who saw them (not entirely incorrectly) as parade-ground soldiers who got to spend their careers eating grapes in sunny Italy at pay-and-a-half and with an early retirement bonus while the real troops were off fighting on the frontier.

The later Byzantine Empire, centered in Greece and claiming the mantle of the Roman Empire of old, would use a unit of Norse-Germanic troops known as the Varangian Guard to protect the Emperor - they were, notably, much more loyal and less inclined to murder their employer!

That's like saying dung beetles are no strangers to shit.

Explanation: On the frontiers during the Empire, Roman soldiers were regularly taken out on punitive expeditions against 'barbarian' polities. This served multiple purposes:

First, it served as a deterrent. Loot what you can, burn and drive off what you can't. By reminding enemy forces of Rome's ability to strike back at them, it discouraged similar enemy raids seeking to loot and enslave Romans.

Second, it served as a diplomatic tool, in a strange way - the threat of Roman raids incentivized 'barbarian' polities to become 'friends of Rome', pledging not to undertake hostile action or support hostile actions against Rome - which would exempt them from being the target of such punitive expeditions.

Third, the professional soldiers of the Roman Legions and Auxiliaries often joined up with an expectation of at least some enrichment beyond their regular pay - after a period of calm, some plundering could go a long way towards defusing tension amongst the bored and frustrated soldiery.

Distinction between combatant and noncombatant was rarely, if ever, made, and the Romans regarded such raids as in accordance with international/natural law (ius gentium). If you are not at peace with a polity, everything is fair game - and if you are at peace with a polity but the people are not adhering to the terms the polity agreed to, everyone in the disobedient regions are 'bandits', and deserve whatever they get coming to them.

The past is a cruel place, and the Romans were no strangers to cruelty.

It's optional in this dish, so no problem.

Ugh, I fucking hate chianti.

The original Japanese title was ハニバルの森 (Hanibaru no Mori), or Hanibal Forest, but was renamed to Hanibal Crossing upon its western release

Cannibal crossing

TFW the cutie you've been talking to asks to see your giant Rome map.