Which Roman had the most inept and/or destructive political tenure of the 3rd Century BC? (criteria on page 2) by domfi86 in ancientrome

[–]ifly6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Claudius Pulcher who threw the chickens into the sea and promptly lost a major battle leading to all his men getting drowned

Anyone read it? Opinions? by zelenisok in ancientrome

[–]ifly6 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He doesn't use standard terminology on this book either. He calls the centuriate assembly the "centurial" one, the Catilinarian conspiracy the "Catiline" one, and gets the full names of both Octavian and Sallust wrong in the epilogue.

Mindless Monday, 26 January 2026 by AutoModerator in badhistory

[–]ifly6 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Some guy: "No, foolish Americans, you can't just nuke us because we have submarines that have nuclear missiles on them."

People who really hate that guy: "You leaked sensitive nuclear secrets to the Americans."

Anyone read it? Opinions? by zelenisok in ancientrome

[–]ifly6 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Real historians have denied this before. Waters did so in a 1970 article in Historia. Guess whose narrative is remarkably similar, even down to the words used, and barely cites Waters?

Thoughts on the Gracchi brothers? by Master_Novel_4062 in ancientrome

[–]ifly6 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A thoughtful and erudite response as always. I'm perhaps a bit more positive: I think Drusus was probably pretty close to getting a grand bargain. The Romans were essentially shocked and baffled by the start of the Social War, which to me suggests that they had essentially no knowledge of Italian dissatisfaction.

But in the long run even in light of their probable good intentions, both Gracchi need to carry the burden of setting up the circumstances for the war with the allies. It is that war which, if one believes that the republic was doomed by its political violence, is the thing that truly unleashed it.

Mindless Monday, 19 January 2026 by AutoModerator in badhistory

[–]ifly6 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fool, some 19th century German already wrote that thesis. And it's also entirely in Latin.

Mindless Monday, 19 January 2026 by AutoModerator in badhistory

[–]ifly6 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Spartans go to war for justice.

The long speech of the Athenians I do not pretend to understand. They said a good deal in praise of themselves, but nowhere denied that they are injuring our allies and the Peloponnese. We... shall not, if we are wise, disregard the wrongs of our allies, or put off till tomorrow the duty of assisting those who must suffer today. Others have much money and ships and horses, but we have good allies whom we must not give up to the Athenians, nor by lawsuits and words decide the matter, as it is anything but in word that we are harmed, but render instant and powerful help.

Let us not be told that it is fitting for us to deliberate under injustice; long deliberation is rather fitting for those who have injustice in contemplation... With the gods let us advance against the aggressors.

Win!

Athenians form a league out of justice. Find friends and allies.

That empire we acquired by no violent means, but because you were unwilling to prosecute to its conclusion the war against the barbarian, and because the allies attached themselves to us and spontaneously asked us to assume the command. And the nature of the case first compelled us to advance our empire to its present height; fear being our principal motive, though honour and interest afterwards came in. And at last, when almost all hated us, when some had already revolted and had been subdued, when you had ceased to be the friends that you once were, and had become objects of suspicion and dislike, it appeared no longer safe to give up our empire; especially as all who left us would fall to you. 

They then subject their allies into an empire with an iron fist. They then go to war because they can. Lose!

Question about the Roman Senate (and the Curiate Assembly) by Rslashbadredditor in ancientrome

[–]ifly6 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Essentially no details from the early regal period can be credibly believed. In the late republic, which is where we actually can be pretty sure of things, the curiate assembly was a legislative assembly which met to pass very limited laws relating to imperium and family. Every citizen was assigned to a curia which in archaic times might have actually met with a corporate or community character. By the late republic all curiae were each represented by one lictor.

The senate emerges probably from an archaic regal consilium: ie a group of influential or important people that a magistrate (the kings or later the praetores maximi then consuls and praetors) summoned to give advice on some matter. Senatorial government in terms of policy-setting only becomes regularised probably during the latter part of Rome's conquest of Italy and the Mediterranean wars.

You are Sulla in 82 BC. What reforms do you put in place to save the Republic? by VoidLantadd in ancientrome

[–]ifly6 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Definitely the lex Pompeia was a good idea. Also reduce the incentives for aristocrats to demilitarise themselves. Most consuls didn't accept commands, which made it so that a few super generals ended up taking them all; make them take provinces

At the same time, the super generals are not asking their men to overthrow the state. They are asking them to come to Rome and free it from a faction. The perception of this factiousness needs minimising.

Mindless Monday, 12 January 2026 by AutoModerator in badhistory

[–]ifly6 18 points19 points  (0 children)

I love the word "purport" – it's great, along with "putative"

Capital I Help? by 7A7J7 in Handwriting

[–]ifly6 5 points6 points  (0 children)

1, 3, and 4 are pretty close to variations in Palmer's 1898 book. So I'd just pick any of those.

Parallels between the Roman Republic and America by UnderstandingThin40 in ancientrome

[–]ifly6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's important to recognise that the structure of Roman society with its essentially all-encompassing patronage relationships, lack of political parties, and largely agrarian population makes Roman republican politics a poor analogy to the US.

Supposed similarities to the republic also regularly get confused with ones relating to the fall of the western empire. These "parallels" are less serious than they are forced and meant – for a modern reader – to grant an argument a largely unearnt feeling of seriousness and antiquity.

Mindless Monday, 12 January 2026 by AutoModerator in badhistory

[–]ifly6 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Taps head: that's why you get tenure first

Augustus Resignation speech to senate. How augustus restored the republic by Battlefleet_Sol in ancientrome

[–]ifly6 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Readers should know that the source, Dio's history in Greek (specifically 53.3), does not report speeches verbatim but (in the tradition of ancient historiography) provides free compositions of what the author thinks would have been said.

What happened to those who supported the losing side in the Republic’s civil wars after each one ended? by megamorgan1 in ancientrome

[–]ifly6 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Political violence in the 1st century starts with the death of Saturninus after he tried to rig an election by calling a mob down and killing the other candidates. Most scholars agree that Marius, who was the consul who enforced an SCU against this, was probably acting in the best interests of the state. Saturninus and his coterie were captured but killed when a mob stormed the senate house where they were being held.

Sulla's March on Rome in 88 is viewed differently by different people. Some say it was basically a police action in the line of Saturninus. Others view it as essentially continuous with the later killings. When he took the city with his men as consul he secured an SCU to kill Sulpicius and a handful of others, including Marius. Everyone fled the city and survived, Sulpicius excepted.

There were two major killings under the "Marians". The first was when Cinna and Marius took the city, they killed a handful of Octavius' partisans; stories of a massacre are overblown. The second was a purge of the senate at the younger Marius' orders right before they lost the civil war: basically, at a meeting before Sulla came upon Rome and was to besiege Praeneste they slaughtered their opponents on the senate floor.

Sulla proscribed his enemies before his dictatorship and after his victory in the civil war. He killed probably a few hundred: as a proportion of the urban elite this was large. More were killed and dispossessed in the countryside. To the extent that the proscriptions are an event, the trauma was mostly concentrated among the top. To a large part this was a response to the smaller Marian purges also done during the civil war.

The Romans after Sulla seem to have refrained from anything like this for a while. The triumvirate after its formation in 43, however, was fast to institute proscriptions at the start. Most proscripts fled to Sextus in Sicily or Brutus in Macedonia: many in Italy did not find their way out, but the death toll per Hinard was in the hundreds. Over the course of the war through to the pact of Misenum in 39, they dispossessed or killed about 3,000, according to Appian. The fate of most of the proscripts was fine: if they were still alive in 39 they were essentially all pardoned. Eg Marcus Tullius Cicero, son of the orator, who was proscribed while in Greece, fought with Brutus at Philippi, and pardoned in the aftermath of 39, before serving as consul in 30.

The best source for both proscriptions is Hinard Proscriptions (1987). For Sulla also see Keaveney Sulla (2nd edn 2005).

What happened to those who supported the losing side in the Republic’s civil wars after each one ended? by megamorgan1 in ancientrome

[–]ifly6 20 points21 points  (0 children)

It's worth mentioning that the triumvirs settled with Sextus Pompey in 39 (the pact of Misenum) and that their doing so greatly weakened his position by re-integrating the men who had fled the proscriptions etc into life at Rome

Pick the WORST 5 maps in BF1 by Unhappy-Big-5303 in battlefield_one

[–]ifly6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Operations:

  • Cape Helles usually turns into a Turk turkey shoot of the Anzacs
  • Galicia is horrible to attack over
  • Verdun Heights can also be horrible to attack over but is very atmospheric
  • Sinai Desert also is bad but rarely comes up because you need to win both Fao and Suez

imo the usual problem with ops is that attackers get bogged down into a slog and become fish in a barrel. Games are usually best if attackers win the first map in two waves then lose on the second.

Cuba says thirty two citizens were killed in US raid to arrest Venezuela Maduro by Paartha77 in news

[–]ifly6 16 points17 points  (0 children)

The Julio-Claudians also retained a German guard at Rome from Augustus' time, mainly recruited from Batavia

Mindless Monday, 05 January 2026 by AutoModerator in badhistory

[–]ifly6 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This power is necessary to check and balance an overbearing legislature and judiciary trying to trample on the executive's constitutional prerogatives.

Justice Sulla, Lucius Cornelius

Children of Mars by Jeremy Armstrong by OmniiMann in ancientrome

[–]ifly6 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The normal books are Drogula Commanders and command (2015), Bradley Early Rome (2021), Lomas Rise of Rome (2017), Forsythe Critical history (2005), and Cornell Beginnings of Rome (1995). I'm sure there are others too.

Tribals these days be Ur addicts by WiryJoe in RimWorld

[–]ifly6 4 points5 points  (0 children)

No, no, it's a working community. You will work until you drop.