https://www.bonhams.com/auction/30398/lot/6/a-mamluk-steel-helmet-egypt-or-syria-14th-15th-century/

Explanation: From a live-action adaptation of the manga Thermae Romae, about Ancient Rome. As the movie is Japanese and based on a Japanese work, most of the main cast actors chosen are, likewise, Japanese. I dig it, unironically.

We have just chosen to give the medieval Roman Empire a different name for convenience as it’s territory, ambitions, realities, and culture differed much from that of the ancient Roman Empire.

So what remains of the Roman Empire, in that view?

People are not always thinking of the past, they didn’t have Internet and most weren’t spending time reading books about events that had happened centuries before.

The title was taken precisely because of its antiquity and prestige, though. It was very much rooted in an understanding of the past.

I believe this was a parade in India a year or two ago.

As the great-if-short-lived Emperor Decius once said, the death of one soldier, no matter how high-born, is no great loss to the Republic!

Sockets into a shaft, I would think

It’s real, I just imagine that they don’t fire it on the camel. It’s more a mortar transport, I would think.

https://elderscrolls.fandom.com/wiki/Boethiah

Things Fall Apart

Now on my to-read list!

Explanation: Nothing too deep - just a reference to Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas with some… interesting medieval depictions of animals

That’s why it’s so important that boarding troops be specialized marines - landlubbers ain’t got sea legs!

If you fall into the drink in the middle of a large-scale naval battle, you’re probably in a pretty awful position even if you’re a good swimmer with no armor on. Contemporary depictions of naval battles show boarding troops in full armor, and armor was assigned to ship crews (and not just the troops they were transporting), so it’s pretty fair to say that armored boarding marines were a reality at least some of the time.

Pug Zen

This is a bit dramatized especially with “fucking children”. I’d like to see sources to back up such emotional claims, especially the chest-thumping parts eg. “Not own their children”. Families lived together and children weren’t treated like chattel. You exaggerated here.

“They weren’t chattel slaves, their children were just bound to lord and land in perpetuity”

Cool cool cool

“Nearly half of your working days” is an overstatement and labor obligations were typically 2–3 days a week plus extra during harvest (boon days).

Sunday off, at least pro forma.

Would you like to remind me what percentage 3 is of 6.

Enclosing timing and large-scale commons stripping were much more severe in the 15th–16th centuries than the 14th. While some pressures started in the late 13th, it wasn’t yet widespread.

“It was more severe later” doesn’t at all modify the point.

I can see why you had to be pressured to write a complete response.

I can see why you didn’t address the vast majority of my points, and why the points you did address, you did so without strong arguments.

It took some searching, but I found the masterpiece I was looking for.

Explanation: Just a caricature in Pompeiian graffiti of the 1st century AD, a rare Roman city preserved by (ironically) being buried under volcanic ash. “[This] is Rufus” is scrawled above the drawing. Say hi to Rufus, everyone!

Explanation: Just a caricature in Pompeiian graffiti of the 1st century AD. “[This] is Rufus” is scrawled above the drawing. Say hi to Rufus, everyone!

Since then and before, every empire is fighting for peace.

Not really. The idea of a state that is fighting for peace is not the norm in world history. Even simply “Our people stay safe, and everyone else can (and should) get fucked” that the pax romana represented was revolutionary because it recognized the interest and duty of the central authority to provide for the wellbeing and security of the common person, a development which also happened in Imperial China around this time. A development that would not re-emerge in Europe until the ~15th century AD, vague Christian platitudes aside.

Also, while the stated purpose of the Roman military by imperial propaganda was to maintain the pax romana, your average Roman soldier was fighting for loot and a paycheck, and when either were short, they could (and did) very quickly turn on ‘peace’.

https://www.bonhams.com/auction/30398/lot/2/a-khorasan-silver-and-copper-inlaid-bronze-war-hammer-in-the-form-of-an-elephant-persia-11th-12th-century/

Very common for Roman client states, actually! While by the Late Empire, when it was most common, it was… probably counterproductive, in earlier periods it was actually very effective. Roman ‘subsidies’ to their client states reinforced the power of pro-Roman elites and improved the capabilities of the clients to repel their neighbors - which was usually their primary purpose, as buffer states.