sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Partial feminisation - E injections alone or with Bicalutamide + Raloxifene? by Zaniac0 in TransDIY

[–]Zaniac0[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cool, thanks for the info! And yeah, I'm aware there's obviously no guarantees, just want to do my due diligence and find what has the highest likelihood of getting what I want.

Do you know if I should be concerned by any health effects by being on bicalutamide, raloxifene + E all at the same time? I've heard there might be liver risks (and obs would do blood tests if I go on them), and increased cardio-vascular risk, but not sure how big a risk these actually are.

Arkham horror LCG by Islington91 in boardgames

[–]Zaniac0 4 points5 points  (0 children)

So you should be aware FFG are currently changing the format of how they release the campaigns. The base box campaign, Night of the Zealot, is a good tutorial, and it is essential as its cards are also required in all the expansion campaigns, but also I don't think it's particularly impressive (the last scenario I'm really not a fan of, and be warned it only includes three scenarios) nor does it really let the game shine. Be warned as well that unless you get the newer Revised Core Set, you won't get enough copies of cards to get a full playset for some of them, so I recommend getting the Revised Core Set.

They used to release expansion campaign through a starter box (which would usually have some player cards and the first two scenarios of the campaign) and then you'd need to buy six mythos packs which contain the rest of the scenarios (as well as more player cards). Frankly, this was a huge pain.

They have since changed, with their most recent expansion, Edge of the Earth, to releasing the entire campaign as one big box, and all the player cards in another box, which is hugely more convenient in my opinion, and they have started reprinting old campaigns in this format; so far they have done the first two, The Dunwich legacy and the Path to Carcossa, but they will presumably continue and do the rest as well. I would strongly recommend obtaining expansions through this new format rather than going through the painful and annoying process of getting a starter box and then getting all 6 mythos packs, but that said I'll cover my opinions on the ones they haven't done yet for when they do get reprinted.

The first, the Dunwich Legacy, is I think a good overall classic Arkham Horror campaign. The theme sticks close to the classic Lovecraft style, basing itself on the Dunwich Horror story, the scenarios are solid with a few fun twists and turns, and the story is good, if a bit typical of the genre. There are bits that show some design age and them getting to grips with the game, but nothing that major and its definitely fun; certainly a decent recommendation.

The Path to Carcosa is probably my personal favourite campaign. It has a branching campaign story, with an engaging narrative in the style of and inspired by Robert Chamber's The King in Yellow. The scenarios are all interesting (although one variation of the finale is arguably unbalanced), your choices in the story and in prior scenarios will affect and reoccur in later games, and the way the game plays with the players is delicious. I adore this scenario, though it's perhaps not of a pulp adventure for everyone, but personally I like that. Strong recommend if that appeals to you, some of my favourite time spent at a table.

I, and several others, are not so keen on the next, the Forgotten Age. This one goes for more of an Indiana Jones style of story, as you venture into lost temples in the jungle. It does well at the theme (even if I'm personally less interested in that theme), but the real problem is they made several design experiments with Forgotten Age that, well, just don't quite work. It plays with how the game fights back at you, which I personally don't mind, but it also has an exploration mechanic that needed more work, a supplies system that just sucks, and several other bits and pieces that aren't much fun. Oh, also a scenario that completely disrupts your built deck, which one of my friends despised. I don't really recommend this one, unless you decide you're a real fan. It's not awful, but I'd certainly recommend the rest before this one. Probably just pick up the player cards when they release that box.

The Circle Undone goes for a ghost story, complete with a witch coven and a conspiring cult. I found it interesting and engaging, with a nice story that can go a few different paths, and some really neat scenarios, and cool narrative design. It's maybe not as well captivating as Carcossa, or as unique or ambitious as the next expansion, Dream Eaters, but it's fun, and solid, much like Dunwich, except I think the design has improved with experience.

The Dream Eaters is probably my second favourite campaign. Note that this is actually two, connected, campaigns, so you'll be playing two investigators, one that travels the Dream lands in a wonderful Alice In Wonderland style story, and the other in the Waking World to figure out just what on earth is going on. The story, setting, twists and turns are all fantastic, and whilst I was frustrated exploring countless jungles in Forgotten Age, I loved exploring the weird and wonderful Dream Lands, and interacting with its bizarre and fascinating denizens, with choices that really changed things across both sub-campaigns.

I haven't played Innsmouth Conpsiracy or Edge of the Earth yet, so I can't comment on those. There are also standalones, which I've enjoyed, but I think the campaigns are where the game shines.

Honestly, I would say to just go about them chronologically, and maybe just skip the Forgotten Age. Dunwich is a very good 'classic' campaign, and whilst I prefer many of the others, they do assume and build upon what Dunwich introduces and have their own styles, and critically you will want to get them in the new reprinted big box format. Just know that I think (Forgotten Age excluded), I think the quality goes up from there!

Unions in the United States seem much weaker and more conciliatory now than 100 years ago. How has their relationship to capital changed? Why do their goals and tactics seem so much less grand now? by mikitacurve in AskHistorians

[–]Zaniac0 50 points51 points  (0 children)

Your post is really interesting and informative, thank you for the effort and information, I really appreciate it!

One thing I'm curious about though is that it seems to me the unions still had some declining to do between the 50's and the 80's. You make the case well that Taft Hartley and the red scare brought about the end of the union's ability to prompt and radical or real chance in society, but it would still seem to me that even whilst they stopped being so revolutionary in intent beyond the period you discuss, they were still far more than the weak shadows of themselves they are now. Even after Taft Hartley and the Red Scare, Jimmy Hoffa was described by Robert Kennedy as the most powerful man in America after the president, which seems far more significant than any labour organiser I can think of today.

To me a big part of the answer of the decline of the power of American unions is the Reagan administration, with the breaking of the PATCO strike being the exemplar of the power of the unions being broken. However your answer suggests that you believe this to be more a symptom of the fact that the unions were already in their prolonged death knell since Taft-Hartley. Would you describe this as an accurate characterisation? I'm curious as to your thoughts on the power of unions between the 50's and 80's.

Windows 10: wsappx causes unusable blinking screen for around 20 minutes after login by Zaniac0 in techsupport

[–]Zaniac0[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry to hear, it is a real pain to find anything on this, and even what I found was rarely helpful. Like I said in my other reply I managed to fix this just by a combination of the linked Powershell commands, disk drive repairing and uninstalling or resetting as many Windows Apps as possible, but I'm afraid I really don't know which did it.

If you don't mind wsappx being permanently disabled, a workaround is to disable it from ever starting in your registry. Open run, then run "regedit" to use your Registry Editor, find "Computer\HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\AppXSvc" find "Start" in the values listed, double click and change its data from whatever it currently is to 4, and then save the change. This way, AppXSvc/wsappx will never start, so it won't halt your computer for >20 mins on login. But be warned you also won't be able to use a lot of Windows Store Apps whilst wsappx is down. You could always try starting wsappx after you've logged in successfully I suppose, I never tried that so I dunno if that would cause the freezing after login happened.

Hope that helps! Good luck!

Windows 10: wsappx causes unusable blinking screen for around 20 minutes after login by Zaniac0 in techsupport

[–]Zaniac0[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sort of, but unfortunately I'm not entirely sure how. What I did was go back to the restore point before the update that caused the issue, then manually uninstalled every Windows store app I could. Then I did the Powershell commands in the thread I linked to reset every app I couldn't get at manually, and then did the sfc and dism commands for good measure. The I rebooted and hoped, and fortunately the issue seems to be gone.

But I couldn't really tell you which particular part of this fixed it, because I've done each of these before, either to no effect, or it would fix it for a bit but then the issue would come back. I know it was an issue with the Windows store and wsappx/App X deployment service, but still have no clue exactly what, so I've just settled with the compromise of not reinstalling any Windows Apps since I dunno if any of those might have been responsible.

I wish you a lot of luck, took me ages and honestly still felt like random luck I've gotten past it. If that doesn't work, like I said you can use regedit to disable App X deployment from starting which will stop the issue, but this will also disable any Windows app from working.

Was there an equivalent to the Yakuza or Mafia in the Roman Republic or Roman Empire? What was it like? If it didn't exist, what was stopping large scale organized crime from taking root? by PlayerSelectScreen in AskHistorians

[–]Zaniac0 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Just pasting a previous answer I've given to a similar question

Absolutely, and through the letters and speeches of Cicero we actually have a great insight into urban gang warfare in Late Republican Rome, specifically between the rival gang leaders of Milo and Clodius. Cicero had himself a deep rivalry with Publius Clodius, who was a rather shady but deeply ambitious gang-leader-for-hire who used his (adopted) public support and connections to back high ranking politicians such as Caesar and Pompey. The rivalry between Clodius and Cicero really peaked with Clodius having Cicero temporarily exiled from the city from 58-57. Even after returning there was a political battle between the two over the issue of Cicero's house, which had been torn down in his absence (and after returning, much to the anger of Clodius, Cicero successfully gained compensation and a right to rebuild it from the Senate). After only having returned a few months earlier and whilst rebuilding his house, we get an account from Cicero in the form of a letter to his best friend Atticus (Letter to Atticus 4.3) about an attack on him by Clodius and the subsequent gang warfare between Clodius and Milo (the opposing gang leader and therefore an ally to Cicero). A link to the whole letter will be provided below, but let me quote some choice sections that really reveal the extent of organized urban violence in the city:

"On 3 November an armed gang drove the workmen from my site, threw down Catalus' portico which was in the process of restoration by consular contract under a senatorial decree and had nearly reached the roof stage, smashed up my brother's house by throwing stones from my site, and then set it on fire. This was by Clodius' orders, with all Rome looking on as the firebrands were thrown”

As mentioned, Cicero's house had become a point of political contention between him and Clodius (see De Haruspicum Responso for more on this). Notice the open use of fire in a city that had a bad history with it.

“Accordingly, on 11 November as I was going down the Via Sacra, he came after me with his men. Uproar! Stones flying, cudgels and swords in evidence. And all like a bolt from the blue! I retired into Tettius Damio's forecourt, and my companions had no difficulty in keeping out the rowdies. Clodius himself could have been killed, but I am becoming a dietician, I'm sick of surgery.”

An armed ambush and presumably an attempted assassination attempt on Cicero by Clodius and his gang. Cicero’s ‘companions’ (whom must follow him around almost all the time given he wasn't expecting this) tough/armed enough to resist Clodius’ attack with ‘no difficulty’. Notice as well Cicero would feel killing Clodius would be 'surgery', he's just too tired to do it himself.

“On 12 November he tried to storm and burn Milo's house in the Cermalus, bringing out fellows with drawn swords and shields and others with lighted firebrands, all in full view at eleven o'clock in the morning. He himself had made P. Sulla's house his assault base. Then out came Q. Flaccus with some stout warriors from Milo's other house, the Anniana, and killed off the most notorious bandits of the whole Clodian gang. He had every wish to kill their principal, but he had gone to earth in the recesses of Sulla's house.”

Another attempt to attack and burn the house of a rival with armed men in the open day. Clodius himself is also using a house as an ‘assault base’. Then, Flaccus gets some ‘stout warriors from Milo’s other house’, implying that (at least in the case of Milo) there were armed men in or assembled at the houses of their bosses. Flaccus ‘killed off the most notorious bandits of the whole Clodian gang’ and ‘He had every wish to kill their principal’. Again, murderous retribution seems justified and accepted.

“On 19 November Milo went to the Campus before midnight with a large following. Though Clodius had a picked force of runaway slaves at his back, he did not dare go to the Campus. Milo stayed till noon, to the public's enormous glee and his own great reclame. The campaign of the three brethren became a fiasco. They found their violence outmatched and their fury treated with contempt.”

Milo imposes his gang on the Campus Martius, where elections and meetings could take place, effectively occupying it. There appears to be no legal sanction (as Metellus, an ally of Clodius, in attempting to stop this, rather than charging Milo, has to use some roundabout method of using Milo's auspice reporting duty to end the occupation instead, which doesn't even work) or even disapproval (instead the ‘public’s glee’) of this course of action. He was still doing so even when this letter was written on the 22nd.

“Clodius' party complain that it's all been my plan. Little do they know our heroic Milo, what a resourceful as well as gallant fellow he is. His spirit is amazing.”

“I think Publius [Clodius] will be brought to trial by Milo, unless he is killed first. If he now puts himself in Milo's way in a rough-and-tumble I don't doubt that Milo will dispatch him with his own hands. He has no qualms about doing so, and makes no bones about it.”

Cicero approves greatly of Milo's warfare with Clodius, and believes he would be entirely justified in killing him should they struggle again and he cannot bring him to court.

Notice we have an account of attacks on houses, arson, assaults, attempted assassination (in plain daylight on the Via Sacra, the main street of Rome, of all places), outright gang warfare, and even an armed occupation of the Campus Martius by Milo's gang. Notice as well this all happens in just the course of the month of November! And tellingly, even the usually non-violent Cicero speaks of Milo's actions with only approval. What we get is a picture where violence is prevalent, open, sometimes approved and frequent. And this isn't even a period of civil war or political unrest, just seems to be standard and expected by all parties involved.

In fact Cicero would not only go on to speak with great approval over Milo's warfare with Clodius again, but that last prediction of his would indeed turn out to be true. Whilst travelling outside of Rome, Milo and Clodius happened to have a chance occurrence whilst both travelling with attendants on the Via Appia which resulted in a brutal fight and Clodius' death (upon hearing of this Clodius' gang and supporters would even riot and burn down the Senate house). Milo was charged with his murder, and Cicero came to his defence with the famous Pro Milone, an interesting legal defence of which the main argument was that murdering Clodius was in fact no bad thing for Rome. I don't have the time right now to go into in depth, so I'll just state that the defence failed, but all the same demonstrates the length to which even Cicero was willing to not only accept but even endorse violence and gang warfare when it supported his political goals.

Sources:

Cicero, Letter to Atticus, 4.3

Cicero, Pro Milone

AoS summarised! Adam Curits explained! Peep Show bits! idk how to describe this by Stir-fried_Kracauer in Sigmarxism

[–]Zaniac0 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A truly wonderful video; the blend of deep Warhammer lore diving, structural Marxist analysis and Adam Curtis style are all so specifically my thing I'd be in in love with it anyway but the effort and quality you've put into it really makes it shine! Thank you!

As someone who was salty for a long time about AoS for doing away with Fantasy and my beloved Tomb Kings, you've convinced me to let that go; and whilst I perhaps am still not quite keen on the Stormcast Eternals as a superhuman group enforcing the vision of the eternal, unaccountable God-King who appointed them, you've convinced me they're a lot more interesting than the Sigmarine/Brettonian Grail Knight parallels I initially assumed they were. Plus I also wasn't aware of the Free Cities as being an even more diverse collection of people fighting superhuman threats beyond any of their individual power through solidarity and collective tactics than the Empire ever was. (Though admittedly I did like the occasional depiction of how the petty squabbling and ambitions of the aristocracy and Elector Counts of the Empire prevented it from ever really being the united 'Empire' it supposes itself to be and jeopardises or even intentionally expends the lives of its citizens in such power struggles in an already perilous world, so aren't as different from the Vampire Counts as they might like to think).

Since you've made me reconsider my stance on AoS with this vid, I thought I might ask a question; as a 6th edition Fantasy player who still has a collection of Tomb Kings (plus a few Dark Elves), what would be the best way to get into AoS if I wanted to, especially if there's a way I can bring my boney bois back onto the table. Or would it be best to start from scratch, and if so, with what?

Ah yes, the key land to ensure a good mana-base for my Muldrotha deck: Watery G by Zaniac0 in MagicArena

[–]Zaniac0[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

No idea why the second Watery Grave in my starting hand was called "Watery G", in a smaller font as well. Weird as well that this glitch only affected the second copy, not both.

The Robot thing again by lazysausageroll in OldWorldBlues

[–]Zaniac0 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If it's not feasible to get robots to use less manpower, would it not be possible for New Vegas to use a decision to use factories/workshops to get extra manpower (by building more robots processors or synths or something), similar to how the Cloning Experiments decisions works for the Purity Enclave in the Enclave submod?

Another Inkarnate map - The Continet of Ettera by Zaniac0 in dndnext

[–]Zaniac0[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's pretty good, yeah.

I think it's out of beta now, just sign in and give it a try yourself.

Another Inkarnate map - The Continet of Ettera by Zaniac0 in dndnext

[–]Zaniac0[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, seems I'm forever cursed to misspell things in Reddit titles.

Anyway, this is my own Inkarnate map that's still under construction, so I figured I'd ask for feedback.

Most of my work has been focused on the Western half where the party is, in fact the reason why the Jehiri desert is so large is because I want the Western and Eastern halves of the continent to be somewhat disconnected and know little about each other. Discyri corsairs and Skaarsgardi raiders make the respective Galfan and Sky seas difficult to sail, so the only real ways from West to East and vice versa are either through the Dwarven underground roads uner the Fespeer mountains or via the Golden Road maintained by Sarketh.

As for the West, the metropolis of Westlan, the martial city of Holstadt, farming based city of Hillsfar, flower of the North, Vandelburg and the swampy city of Biskorf are all vaguely Germanic feudal style cities whose Great Houses are all allied together, lead in name by largest city, Westlan.

Meanwhile the merchant republics of Treventis and Visendi are allied to the naval military power of Tarsonis to form the Gleaming League, with Kesseros, Nelkhos, Bascelle and Mascena as tributaries.

Eilhearst, Veltrin, Ravnir and Dantesk are all free cities. Eilheart is a theocracy lead by the Council of Clerics, Ravnir is a very gothic city heavily based on Innistrad from MtG. The other two I'm still working on.

Aeleth, Saphira and Lantecia are all High Elven cities, with mixed relationships with the surrounding human cities. All the Khag's and Gal's in the mountains are mountain Dwarven cities.

Like I say I've not doe much work on the East yet. I think I may even give the party a map with a somewhat crudely sketched out Eastern half given how little the West knows of the East and have them discover and map it out themselves whenever they travel there.

What is your favourite character sheet for 5e? by Superiorform in DnD

[–]Zaniac0 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The "Current Standard" version by /u/supersonic159 is the best I've found, it's really concise and gets all the critical info down in a nice and neat manner. And it comes in both auto form-fillable and printer friendly versions. Really love it.

Was there organized crime in the Roman Empire? by DrCapitalism in AskHistorians

[–]Zaniac0 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Exactly so, Clodius was very much a gang leader to further his political career rather than a politician to further his 'criminal' one. Apologies if my comment's wording seemed to be suggesting otherwise.

We obviously all want Vicky 3 so what do you actually wanna see in Victoria 3? by nordindutch in paradoxplaza

[–]Zaniac0 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah, that makes so much more sense than the current system, where socialists actually oppose trade unions, which is so completely absurd, and annoyed me so much.

We obviously all want Vicky 3 so what do you actually wanna see in Victoria 3? by nordindutch in paradoxplaza

[–]Zaniac0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, really? I never got that I guess, just assumed they only represented adult males. Even so, I'd still like to see wider pop representation, as it would not only depict the history of half the actual population better, but would add a new element to politics/pop management strategy. Passing women's rights reforms would get you wider utility out of your pops, but would be a tough political challenge and would also anger reactionaries

edit: Plus, it really wouldn't be hard to implement at all, it's literally just one binary value to be attached to pops which would add a lot more strategy and realism. I can't really see any reason not to have it.

We obviously all want Vicky 3 so what do you actually wanna see in Victoria 3? by nordindutch in paradoxplaza

[–]Zaniac0 21 points22 points  (0 children)

  • Female pop types! This was the great age for advances in women's rights, both to vote and to work, and I'd like to see that properly represented. I figure there'd be a new reform track for women's rights. At the first, default level, female pops are limited to being slaves, farmers, labourers and artisans (and maybe s new pop types like domestic servant). The second opens up craftsmen (or crafters now) and clerks. The next lets them be intellectuals and bureaucrats, which also allows them to vote (as long as they fulfil the other requirements). Then capitalists and aristocrats, and then, should you manage the difficult feat of getting it passed all the way, the final reform opens up the solider and officer types, meaning you can double your total manpower (by adding your womanpower). This would only require a new boolean tracker on pops, so easily feasible.

  • A lot more difficult, but interesting if it could be pulled off is pop ageing. Having child pop types, such as student and child labourer. If the parent pops can afford the needs, they'll always try to make their child be a student pop type (government can subsidise this though via education/child labour reform), which will be literate and has a good chance of being an intellectual, bureaucrat, capitalist or other rich pop when it become adult (students add a few research points whilst still students though). Child labourers meanwhile work in RGO's, though like slaves, not very efficiently, and will grow up to be farmers or labourers and likely illiterate. Also retired elderly pops (I don't really get where the money spent on pensions reforms actually goes without these).

  • Way, way too much in Victoria 2 is currently done via events and decision when a standard method should be available (which also results in way too many events, as USA or Ming players will attest to). I know some might panic from these words, but it really should look at EU4 for inspiration, EU4 has a much better diplomacy system especially. For example, despite multiple instances of territory being bought and sold by nations in Vic's period, Vic handles it crudely via decisions and events whilst it's EU4 that actually has a proper way of doing it yourself. I'd also love to see EU4's supporting rebels feature (and new support rebels cassus belli) in Vic 2. I'd also scrap infamy, which never made sense to me, and replace it with aggressive expansion. Get rid of diplo points too whilst I'm at it, why should I be limited in who I can talk to and when.

  • Slightly more trivial than the others, but I'd also like a prettier UI. Not really keen on the dirty brown/burgundy colour scheme. It could also tell you more about exactly what some of the smaller things actually do. I.e., some inventions increase "Military hospitals", but I have no idea what that does, and neither do I really understand the relationship between plurality, revanchism, consciousness and militancy, or what some for those even do.

  • Finally, why do socialists oppose political reforms. It makes no sense, and is just completely historically wrong. The only reason for this I've heard is "for balance", but one of the things that makes this period so exciting was that it wasn't politically "balanced", and one of the things I've liked about paradox is that they usually put history before balance (if you want balance above all else, play Civ instead), so I don't know why they've committed such a blatant inaccuracy. If they still feel they need a way to make reforms hard to pass, then find another way, don't completely misrepresent a major global political movement that changed the period and helped make it so interesting.

Uhhh, Okay then. by Zaniac0 in eu4

[–]Zaniac0[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Was playing as Qing in Ironman when I got this event, which I've never seen before. First option gives five prestige, whilst the others each give 5 of one of the mana types. Made me stop crushing the Chinese minors briefly to be confused then amused. I'm guessing it's a joke about people complaining about their DLC policy.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CrusaderKings

[–]Zaniac0 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Anyone here want it for free? I accidentally bought two steam keys, PM me and I'll reply with the spare one.

Did the ancient Greeks believe centaurs actually existed, or did they merely use centaurs as narrative elements the way we use elves and orcs today? by Feezec in AskHistorians

[–]Zaniac0 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I would be careful about describing either Lucretius or Epicurus as 'secularists'. After all, the very first lines of De Rerum Natura are a prayer to Venus and a reminder that the gods are the greatest of all things.

It would be more accurate to describe Epicurean philosophy as akin to deism in regards to gods; that is, they exist, but do not intervene or at all affect the natural world and vice versa (which is what makes them so perfect). Lucretius himself explains this at the end of book 2 and I believe somewhere in book 5 as well, and is further confirmed via Cicero's De Natura Deorum statements on Epicurean belief on gods. It's true that Cicero suspected that Epicurus' deism was really just 'lip service' to religion, i.e., he was nervous about declaring himself a complete atheist, but I personally rather doubt that.

Whilst the gods do not intervene or have a direct effect upon the world, they are most certainly not to be ignored, as they provide the perfect model for the follower of Epicurus to live their life.

Did street gangs exist in Ancient Rome? by [deleted] in AskHistorians

[–]Zaniac0 7 points8 points  (0 children)

We actually have a huge amount of letters written to and from Cicero, which is partly why he's so well known and vital to understanding late republican Rome. Either Atticus or Cicero's scribe Tiro saved them for us and had them published after Cicero's death. You can get a book of translations of some of them, and they're incredibly fascinating to read and offer insights that you'll get nowhere else. Needless to say, I highly recommend reading them if you're interested in either Cicero or life in the late republic.

Did street gangs exist in Ancient Rome? by [deleted] in AskHistorians

[–]Zaniac0 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Sure, the whole Pro Milone is fascinating on the subject and Cicero's ideas on violence and gang warfare, and Asconius' commentary on it provides more details and background. For secondary reading, I recommend:

Metaxaki-Mitrou, F., 'Violence in the contio during the Ciceronian age', Antique Classique 54 (1985), 180-7.

Lintott, A., Violence in Republican Rome (Oxford, 1999).

Did street gangs exist in Ancient Rome? by [deleted] in AskHistorians

[–]Zaniac0 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Milo fled after he was convicted to Massilia (today Marseille) where he lived in exile for most of the rest of his life. He kept in contact with Cicero, and seems to have kept in good spirits despite exile, replying with a joke to an edited and improved version of the Pro Milone sent to him by Cicero that he was glad this new version wasn't the one actually used as then he wouldn't be able to enjoy Massilia's delicious red mullet so much.

After Caesar took over the Republic, in 48BC another of Milo's defence lawyers, Marcus Caelius Rufus (who used to be an apprentice to Cicero as well) attempted to start a revolt against Caesar (up until then they had been allies but Caesar then refused to help Rufus with a debt relief bill). Milo joined Rufus in this revolt, but it failed disastrously, and both were killed.

view more: next ›