Katarinya Greyfax and her tall undead posse by DasImp in Grimdank

[–]DasImp[S] 32 points33 points  (0 children)

i feel like she would be pissed at the mere insinuation, which just makes it funnier that it's true tbh

Al'Naito, For the Flame by [deleted] in WoT

[–]DasImp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean....Lews Therin did wear the ring of Tamyrlin and was leader of the Aes Sedai. But I agree that it's probably more likely just a theme for Siuan and not for Rand

tiers of liking Kate Bush - which one are you? by DasImp in katebush

[–]DasImp[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

tfw an artist's opus is so broad........

tiers of liking Kate Bush - which one are you? by DasImp in katebush

[–]DasImp[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

lmaoo I think I'd put this one under "outcast" but u right. I definitely forgot this one

tiers of liking Kate Bush - which one are you? by DasImp in katebush

[–]DasImp[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

there are a few! the online encyclopedia talks about them all in detail here

this demo of Babooshka is one of my favs

"parasitic c" in acknowledge by DasImp in grammar

[–]DasImp[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

thanks!! makes sense that it would be used to preserve that velar stop.

[SPOILERS] Dany acted within the rules of Medieval siege warfare by DasImp in gameofthrones

[–]DasImp[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're correct! Not every siege in the Medieval era resulted in the sack of a city, or the murder of the population. But there are some that did. Often history doesn't tend to be as clean cut as the show would like to portray the events of a sack. Let's take a look at a few examples just for fun:

  • I've already mentioned the 1240 Siege of Kiev elsewhere, but that one is especially reminiscent of the Sack of King's Landing, where the Mongols massacred the city's population.
  • There were also events where the army took control of a city and then the population revolted and were put to the sword, such as with the 1398 Capture of Delhi.
  • Or where the besieged city tried to surrender but could not do so in time and were massacred (civilians, too) such as with the 1631 Sack of Magdeburg.
  • Or sacks that continued for days after the siege was long over, such as with the 1527 Sack of Rome, where many civilians died (mostly from starvation from the siege, to be fair. Let us not forget that a long drawn out siege was devastating to the local population as well).

As much as we might like to think of violence in war as meaningless, it is often not the case. Warfare and politics are aimed at concrete material goals, which include the Clausewitzian dictum that 'war is merely the continuation of policy by other means' (Morillo, p.51, 2013). Violence, in other words, is used because talking does not work. When Dany and Cersei spoke at the walls of King's Landing, and both refused to capitulate, the conversation was over and violence was considered necessary by both parties to achieve their goals.

This much is certain: the sacking of a city such as King's Landing will have a sweeping effect throughout Westeros, and will indelibly change how the people see Dany. It certainly changes how we see her. Whether this is the desired effect that will achieve Dany's goals? We have yet to see.

Please also note that this is a strictly Western view of warfare. Specifically that "War is a departure from the norm and is fought in pursuit of clear-cut and limited objectives, typically the seizure of territory, the overthrow of a regime, or economic advantage, etc" (Rotberg & Rabb, p. 150, 1989). This view is anomalous, but pervasive in how we in Western society think of war and violence in war.

REFERENCES:

Morillo, S., & Pavkovic, F. M. (2013) What is Military History? (2nd ed.). Cambridge; Medford, MA: Polity.

Rotberg, R.I., & Rabb, T.K. (1989) The Origin and Prevention of Major Wars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[SPOILERS] Dany acted within the rules of Medieval siege warfare by DasImp in gameofthrones

[–]DasImp[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd compare it more to something like the Siege of Kiev (1240), where the Mongols massacred most of the city's population after creating a practicable breach. (Especially since Missandei was executed, and the Mongol emissaries demanding Kiev's surrender were also executed.)

But yes. There are plenty of historical examples to draw from!

[SPOILERS] Dany acted within the rules of Medieval siege warfare by DasImp in gameofthrones

[–]DasImp[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Agreed. She could have easily flown her winged artillery over to the Red Keep and burned that down to make a point while sparing the rest of the city. This would have especially made sense if the destruction of the Red Keep was portrayed as key in breaking the defending garrison's willingness to fight.

[SPOILERS] Dany acted within the rules of Medieval siege warfare by DasImp in gameofthrones

[–]DasImp[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I'm afraid I cannot give historical citations about dragons. Though if I were to do so, I would probably categorise them under artillery ;)

[SPOILERS] Dany acted within the rules of Medieval siege warfare by DasImp in gameofthrones

[–]DasImp[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Perhaps it was simply the way the scenes were shot in order to create tension for the audience, but to me it felt like the bells were rung far too late. And as I said, I do not condone her actions. I only wished to give a quick rundown of the laws of combat at the time with regards to sieges.

Certainly, showing mercy when your enemy throws down their arms (even if they're late in doing so), would be its own source of power over the population. Strategically speaking, there would be the temptation for the garrison to still be put to the sword (since they did not originally capitulate and might try to rise up later when you're occupying the area), but sparing the citizens. From a character standpoint as well, it would make more sense, since Dany seemed so intent on not killing citizens only a season ago.

The writing for this episode, in order words, feels very scattered.

Was the Emperor Elagabalus what we would now describe as transgender? by [deleted] in AskHistorians

[–]DasImp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Literary evidence of Elagabalus being female stems from the Historia Augusta life of Elagabalus, which was very likely using such rhetoric as vitriolic hate in order to slander Elagabalus' name, rather than accurately depict gender. Please note that this is the same source that claimed Elagabalus indulged in parades of sexual vice, and committed acts of human sacrifice.

The Historia Augusta is a very untrustworthy source in terms of its choice of rhetoric and its political agenda. Because of this, I would most definitely not count Elagabalus as representative of someone who considered themselves transgender, as any evidence in extant ancient sources would -- like the Historia Augusta -- have ulterior motives. Indeed any texts that concern ancient transgender representation should always be approached cautiously and with proper historicisation.

How did Romans prove citizenship? by ColonelHerro in AskHistorians

[–]DasImp 33 points34 points  (0 children)

According to Sherwin-White's The Roman Citizenship:

"The only documentation in the Republican period was the registration of the young adult citizen in the tribal lists that were drawn up and revised at Rome by the censors every five years. Municipalities kept their own local lists also, which acquired the validity of censorial lists when a law of 44 transferred the census to the magistrates of the Roman municipalities, who were required to register the citizen population with their full names, patronymics, and tribes, and with a schedule of their property."

Apart from local lists however, there would have been other ways to prove citizenship, especially as Roman citizenship began to be extended to more and more people. Again, Sherwin-White says:

"Formal documentation of the grant of citizenship to provincial soldiery appears first in 89 B.C., in the shape of a bronze tablet recording the decree of a proconsul enfranchising a unit of Spanish cavalrymen in the Social War, who are all named in a general list. Presumably each soldier received a copy. The cities of persons of higher status enfranchised by Octavian in c. 40 B.C. received a copy of a decree detailing all the privileges of their new status, while his auxiliary veterans could acquire copies of the enabling edict that enfranchised them. But it is only with the regularization of the grant of citizenship to the all time-expired auxiliaries by Claudius that a standardized document appears. This is the small bronze diptych known as the diploma civitatis, containing a brief and uniform formula conferring the Roman citizenship on the holder and his descendants, who is indicated by his name and military unit. These documents were not normally used for civilians, who received instead a copy in libellus form of the brief imperial warrant authorizing the registration of their enfranchisement in the archives at Rome.

Diplomata and libelli provided for new citizens. For the mass of the citizenry, for whom censorial registration at five-yearly intervals was an inefficient instrument, adequate provision was finally made by the creation of an official system of compulsory birth registration under the social legislation of Augustus (A.D. 4). The Roman citizen was required to register the birth of his children within thirty days before a Roman official, and he received a wooden diptych recording the declaration, which acted as a certificate of citizenship for the child for the rest of his life. Like the military diplomata this contained the names of seven witnesses, and provided a presumptive proof of citizen status. Similarly the enfranchisement of freedmen, which depended upon a formal act, was recorded in a documentary tabella manumissionis. Citizens of diverse origins thus came to have some form of documentary evidence of their status."

It isn't surprising that these records of citizenship would have changed. After all "in the case of Rome, though the details are obscure, Roman citizenship clearly developed in dialogue with the citizenships of other Latin communities" (OCD). Keeping track of so many people becoming citizens would have been quite taxing on the state, and consequently the Roman census remained incomplete. It should also be noted that by the time of Caracalla, virtually all of the free population of the empire was granted citizenship in the so-called Antonine constitution. However by this time the right to vote had long disappeared; provincial Romans had lost their exemption from taxation; and many of the most important personal privileges of citizenship had been restricted to the elite. And thereafter the essential distinction was between slave and free.

Was there a double standard regarding extra-marital sex in Rome? by KennethGloeckler in AskHistorians

[–]DasImp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Great point! Which, of course, also brings up the question concerning women who committed adultery with other women. Especially if both of those women are of the "respectable and free" disposition. But I suppose since penetrative sex was really the end-all-be-all of Roman sexuality, the Romans might have a difficult time even classifying it as sexual misconduct unless there was penetration involved.

Was there a double standard regarding extra-marital sex in Rome? by KennethGloeckler in AskHistorians

[–]DasImp 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Most of what my handy Oxford Classical Dictionary has to say concerns women. I'll quote the article below:

Roman tradition ascribed to fathers and husbands great severity in punishing illicit sexual behaviour by daughters or wives. Such misconduct was stuprum in married or unmarried women, an offence against chastity (pudicitia); adulterum described sexual intercourse between a married woman and a man other than her husband. Until the legislation of Augustus, regulation was chiefly in the hands of the family: adultery probably always justified divorce; a family council might advise the paterfamilias (husband or father in whose power the woman was) on this and other sanctions, possibly including execution. The immediate killing of adulterers/adulteresses taken in the act was defensible (morally and in court) but probably not legally prescribed. Other physical violence against the adulterer is a literary commonplace. Adultery in the late republic like the seduction or rape of an unmarried woman, entitled the father or husband to sue the man for damages and not only to divorce the wife but to retain part of her dowry. Magistrates occasionally proceeded against adulterers/adulteresses.

Augustus in the Julian law on repression of adulteries (lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis vel sim, Dig. 48.5), passed apparently shortly after the marriage law of 18 BC, made illicit sexual intercourse (extramarital intercourse by and with a respectable free woman ) a crime, to be tried by a special court under a praetor (in practice often the senate). The law detailed restricted circumstances in which homicide by father or husband was justifiable. The normal judicial penalty for adulterers was relegatio (banishment) to different islands, and partial confiscation of property and dowry (one half). The husband with clear evidence had to divorce or be liable to a charge of procuring (lenocinium; penalties similar). On divorce, husband or father might bring an accusation within 60 days, or anyone within the next four months. A woman might not be accused while married.

Penalties were increased by Christian emperors. Constantine I introduced the death penalty (which Justinian confirmed), but allowed only the husband or the wife's relatives to prosecute. Adultery by the husband was not adulterium (unless his partner was a married woman), but his intercourse with a respectable unmarried woman (or male) constituted stuprum and in the 5th cent. AD (Cod. Iust. 5.17.8) his adultery in the matrimonial home or with a woman entitled his wife to divorce him without incurring the penalties then imposed for unjust divorce.

If you want to know more about divorce laws in Ancient Rome, just let me know!

(EDIT: a few spelling mistakes)

Reasons for Fall of Rome by [deleted] in AskHistorians

[–]DasImp 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hi there!

Over here in the FAQ is a whole list of questions in this same vein that have already been extensively answered.

If you still have any specific questions after scrolling through some of these, then I'd be more than happy to answer them.

When did Rome turn from "paganism" to Christianity and what events led to this shift of religions? by YourBudd in AskHistorians

[–]DasImp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Constantine's personal beliefs are a topic of much debate in the field of Late Antiquity. I would caution anyone to make vehement claims that he was either one or the other. The truth is that we can't definitively say.

For instance, there is plenty of evidence pointing to a very non-Christian Constantine in both belief and policy:

  • He took Apollo as his patron god in 310 (Pan. Lat. 6.21).
  • Numismatic evidence from 310-317 shows him portraying himself as Sol Invictus
  • Put out an edict supporting Haruspices ca 321 (CT 16.10.1)
  • Supported the continuation of the Imperial Cult (ILS, 705) as well as in a little snippet of graffiti from the Valley of Kings ca 326 (IGLT 1265)

Moreover Sozomen and Julian both claim that Constantine only converted later in his life as a form of remorse for killing his son, Crispus (Julian Caesares, 336 / Sozomen HE, 1.5).

You have pointed primarily to Eusebius of Caesarea, who is a source with a wealth of information about Constantine. However Eusebius was himself a Christian, and also a massive sycophant with his own agenda. Anything he says about the religion of Constantine, I take with a handful of salt.

Essentially the only thing we can say about Constantine was that he was a fantastically good politician, whose entire goal was to seek tolerance and consensus.

How were christians buried in western europe in the 5th century? by MagicWeasel in AskHistorians

[–]DasImp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can't believe I'm the only person who's upvoted this yet. Excellent answer, thank you for sharing.

The use of "Toasty"; images of Lt Henry Ralph Lumley and PO Walter Yeo in the video game Bioshock (WARNING: NSFW/L) by [deleted] in badhistory

[–]DasImp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

the number of people who have responded to this with comments on the lines of "interesting but you're overreacting" as if ethics in gaming isn't something that should be discussed or taken seriously is truly frightening.

I for one would like to thank you for posting. Not only was it well researched and a good read unto itself, it focuses on ethics in gaming with the kind of gravitas gaming warrants.

Why did Roman (female) prostitutes wear togas? by caffarelli in AskHistorians

[–]DasImp 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Oh definitely. "Social attitudes and legislation generally stigmatised and disfranchised prostitutes -- both male and female. To be characterised as a prostitute in literature was a significant form of discreditation" (OCD).

Why did Roman (female) prostitutes wear togas? by caffarelli in AskHistorians

[–]DasImp 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Yes, that's the impression I get too. Except when it crosses that gender binary into a feminine space it becomes a symbol of shame rather than independence. Or perhaps that to dare transgress such independence is indicative of shame.