4 ms·

The Romans are 'ancient history' and not directly connected to current events in the US. Sure, we have some cultural inheritance from them, but they're many, ma

by davidw 1y ago

The Romans are 'ancient history' and not directly connected to current events in the US. Sure, we have some cultural inheritance from them, but they're many, many generations removed from us, whereas some of this 'western lore' stuff is not, really. I have a photo of my own great grandfather on a horse with a rifle in Montana. He was a ranger with the Forest Service.

the_af 1y ago
The Fascists did romanticize (a distorted version of) the Roman Empire. There's a similar and misplaced admiration of Sparta, which is wrong headed since Sparta wasn't even all that good at military matters, and, compared to other city states of the time, a failure at everything else.
- davidw 1y ago
  Don't get the downvotes for that - it was very much true for fascist Italy - they had a thing for the Roman empire. Still, a bit of a different situation though.
  - the_af 1y ago
    Don't worry about the downvotes, they seem to be drive-by style. I agree with your comment, and also agree it's not exactly the same situation. The romanticization of the Old West is much closer to the current political climate in the US. There's also the baggage of the "Lost Cause" that still permeates their politics, sadly. It was mostly a nitpick, I just wanted to point out this kind of misguided fascination for old history has also impacted the Roman Empire, Sparta (which I mentioned because there's a kind of rightwing admiration for "Spartan values", which is hogwash), etc.
- YeGoblynQueenne 1y ago
  What. Sparta, in its heyday, had one of the mightiest infantries in Greece, and that's saying something. One does not simply defeat Athens in a thirty years war without having serious military capabilities. They were fascist assholes who murdered slaves as a rite of passage, but they were also good soldiers. No reason to deny that.
  - the_af 1y ago
    I'm basing my opinion in this analysis of ACOUP (Brett Deveraux), who's a military historian and specializes in dismantling this kind of pop culture myths. https://acoup.blog/2019/09/20/collections-this-isnt-sparta-part-vi-spartan-battle/ https://acoup.blog/2019/09/20/collections-this-isnt-sparta-p... While the Spartans weren't a disaster, and in some respects they were marginally better (but in others, worse), the statistics don't lie: they had an average track record, certainly not on par with their current reputation. They didn't excel at any particular strategy, they were just hoplites like every Greek at the time. Their track record is disappointingly average: > We get 12 victories, 11.5 defeats and 0.5 draws Hardly impressive, right? And this is excluding naval battles, if we include them the Spartans do slightly worse. > Sparta had a formidable military reputation, but their actual battlefield performance hardly backed it up. During the fifth and fourth centuries, Sparta lost as often as it won. Spartan battlefield tactics were a bit better than other Greek poleis, but this is damning with faint praise. The spartiates themselves were mostly like every other group of wealthy Greek hoplites. But the Spartan military reputation was extremely valuable – the loss of that reputation during the Peloponnesian War does much to explain the rough decades Sparta would experience following its end. He also explains Sparta was also a self-defeating, ever-shrinking society, which ultimately proved to be its demise. But you're not disputing this, so this is just a side note.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 1y ago
      >> We get 12 victories, 11.5 defeats and 0.5 draws Without the context of the relevant battles those numbers mean nothing. E.g. Thermopylae was one of the losses but it would be hard to interpret it as evidence of the Spartans' average military capabilities. War is not football, to keep score. Rome lost more battles to Hannibal than they won, but they erased Carthage from the face of the earth. As to Bret Deveraux, my opinion is that he's a fucking idiot. You say he "specializes in dismantling this kind of pop culture myths". What he really specialises in, with respect to Sparta, is trying to troll nenoazis and other idiots who are the Spartans' biggest fans, by pointing out what fucking losers they were (the Spartans; but also by extension the neonazis). That's an easy win. Nobody thinks Sparta was some great beacon of civilisation, except perhaps for people who take all their history from watching 300. It was Athens that was a beacon of civilisation, Athens who went down in history for its contributions to science and culture, Athens whose glorious ruins are visited today by millions every year, when Sparta is lost forever, not even its location known. And good riddance to those fascist assholes. Anyway Deveraux is writing a blog and you shouldn't mistake blogs for sources of historical truth.
_DeadFred_ 1y ago
And I talked with my great grandmother about her family providing meals to visiting tribes on their farm in Iowa, and how there was some sort of marker indicating that they were a welcoming farm for traveling tribes. The majority of people in the frontier were northerners/immigrants looking to create a better life, not ex-Confederates looking to take out their being complete losers on the frontier. These were people often rejected by their own society for having the wrong religion (my family were German/Irish Catholics who were literally driven out, the Irish part arriving as orphans because their families died on the boats over), living in very rugged/primitive situations, dependant entirely on their individual ability to survive. There was very much an individualism yet a 'look out for others' ethic among these people whom had had no one look out for them (to the point their home countries had left them to die) and a very strong appreciation of America having providing them a place where they could go.

by davidw 1y ago

the_af 1y ago

The Fascists did romanticize (a distorted version of) the Roman Empire. There's a similar and misplaced admiration of Sparta, which is wrong headed since Sparta wasn't even all that good at military matters, and, compared to other city states of the time, a failure at everything else.

davidw 1y ago
Don't get the downvotes for that - it was very much true for fascist Italy - they had a thing for the Roman empire. Still, a bit of a different situation though.
- the_af 1y ago
  Don't worry about the downvotes, they seem to be drive-by style. I agree with your comment, and also agree it's not exactly the same situation. The romanticization of the Old West is much closer to the current political climate in the US. There's also the baggage of the "Lost Cause" that still permeates their politics, sadly. It was mostly a nitpick, I just wanted to point out this kind of misguided fascination for old history has also impacted the Roman Empire, Sparta (which I mentioned because there's a kind of rightwing admiration for "Spartan values", which is hogwash), etc.
YeGoblynQueenne 1y ago
What. Sparta, in its heyday, had one of the mightiest infantries in Greece, and that's saying something. One does not simply defeat Athens in a thirty years war without having serious military capabilities. They were fascist assholes who murdered slaves as a rite of passage, but they were also good soldiers. No reason to deny that.
- the_af 1y ago
  I'm basing my opinion in this analysis of ACOUP (Brett Deveraux), who's a military historian and specializes in dismantling this kind of pop culture myths. https://acoup.blog/2019/09/20/collections-this-isnt-sparta-part-vi-spartan-battle/ https://acoup.blog/2019/09/20/collections-this-isnt-sparta-p... While the Spartans weren't a disaster, and in some respects they were marginally better (but in others, worse), the statistics don't lie: they had an average track record, certainly not on par with their current reputation. They didn't excel at any particular strategy, they were just hoplites like every Greek at the time. Their track record is disappointingly average: > We get 12 victories, 11.5 defeats and 0.5 draws Hardly impressive, right? And this is excluding naval battles, if we include them the Spartans do slightly worse. > Sparta had a formidable military reputation, but their actual battlefield performance hardly backed it up. During the fifth and fourth centuries, Sparta lost as often as it won. Spartan battlefield tactics were a bit better than other Greek poleis, but this is damning with faint praise. The spartiates themselves were mostly like every other group of wealthy Greek hoplites. But the Spartan military reputation was extremely valuable – the loss of that reputation during the Peloponnesian War does much to explain the rough decades Sparta would experience following its end. He also explains Sparta was also a self-defeating, ever-shrinking society, which ultimately proved to be its demise. But you're not disputing this, so this is just a side note.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 1y ago
    >> We get 12 victories, 11.5 defeats and 0.5 draws Without the context of the relevant battles those numbers mean nothing. E.g. Thermopylae was one of the losses but it would be hard to interpret it as evidence of the Spartans' average military capabilities. War is not football, to keep score. Rome lost more battles to Hannibal than they won, but they erased Carthage from the face of the earth. As to Bret Deveraux, my opinion is that he's a fucking idiot. You say he "specializes in dismantling this kind of pop culture myths". What he really specialises in, with respect to Sparta, is trying to troll nenoazis and other idiots who are the Spartans' biggest fans, by pointing out what fucking losers they were (the Spartans; but also by extension the neonazis). That's an easy win. Nobody thinks Sparta was some great beacon of civilisation, except perhaps for people who take all their history from watching 300. It was Athens that was a beacon of civilisation, Athens who went down in history for its contributions to science and culture, Athens whose glorious ruins are visited today by millions every year, when Sparta is lost forever, not even its location known. And good riddance to those fascist assholes. Anyway Deveraux is writing a blog and you shouldn't mistake blogs for sources of historical truth.

_DeadFred_ 1y ago

And I talked with my great grandmother about her family providing meals to visiting tribes on their farm in Iowa, and how there was some sort of marker indicating that they were a welcoming farm for traveling tribes. The majority of people in the frontier were northerners/immigrants looking to create a better life, not ex-Confederates looking to take out their being complete losers on the frontier. These were people often rejected by their own society for having the wrong religion (my family were German/Irish Catholics who were literally driven out, the Irish part arriving as orphans because their families died on the boats over), living in very rugged/primitive situations, dependant entirely on their individual ability to survive. There was very much an individualism yet a 'look out for others' ethic among these people whom had had no one look out for them (to the point their home countries had left them to die) and a very strong appreciation of America having providing them a place where they could go.