+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Ancient Civ Talk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: Common errors about Antiquity (/showthread.php?tid=14976)
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - D B Campbell - 06-17-2009
Just thought of another one today, though perhaps not particularly earth-shattering.
I have periodically heard the theory that the design of equestrian statues (not exclusively ancient, of course -- I was prompted by the statues of Albert and Victoria in Glasgow's George Square) gives a clue regarding the demise of the rider. Supposedly, there is a code connected to the position of the horse's hooves: two raised hooves (i.e. horse rampant) means that the rider died in battle, one raised hoof means that the rider died of wounds sustained in battle, and no raised hooves means that the rider died of natural causes. This is such a trivial example -- and demonstrably false, from the evidence of your own avatar, Jona -- that it may not be worth discussing (... though I wonder where it came from).
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Jona Lendering - 06-17-2009
Quote:From what I understand, it seems reasonable to say that Gaugamela wasn't a "fiercely contested battle," but it still seems to have been "big."Good point, I've improved it.
Quote:Supposedly, there is a code connected to the position of the horse's hooves: two raised hooves (i.e. horse rampant) means that the rider died in battle, one raised hoof means that the rider died of wounds sustained in battle, and no raised hooves means that the rider died of natural causes. This is such a trivial example -- and demonstrably false, from the evidence of your own avatar, Jona -- that it may not be worth discussing (... though I wonder where it came from).I've heard the story too, and have no clue about its origins either.
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Robert Vermaat - 06-19-2009
Quote:D B Campbell:1ducgpzl Wrote:Supposedly, there is a code connected to the position of the horse's hooves: two raised hooves (i.e. horse rampant) means that the rider died in battle, one raised hoof means that the rider died of wounds sustained in battle, and no raised hooves means that the rider died of natural causes. This is such a trivial example -- and demonstrably false, from the evidence of your own avatar, Jona -- that it may not be worth discussing (... though I wonder where it came from).I've heard the story too, and have no clue about its origins either.
Here's a link with more information about horse statues and the position of the hooves with a conclusion: "the stone cold truth is that the facts don't support it".
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - P. Clodius Secundus - 06-19-2009
Quote:Just thought of another one, Jona -- I don't think anyone has mentioned the old chestnut about how the UK (= English) railway gauge is based on the wheel spacing of Roman wagons.
I agree, just like the Roman's "normal" wheel spacing it was far more likely to be based upon the average width of two mule's asses.
While we are on the subject of wheels, how about a couple of my personal favorites.... Roman wheel barrows and wheels mounted directly on the bases of Roman artillery. There are a number meticulously built engines that have sadly been turned into "cart-a-pults" and "barrowlistas" by the addition of wheels and handles. Some fallacies are harder to kill than cockroaches, vampires, and kudzu combined.
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - D B Campbell - 06-19-2009
Quote:While we are on the subject of wheels, how about a couple of my personal favorites.... Roman wheel barrows and wheels mounted directly on the bases of Roman artillery.Agreed, the second one is clearly nonsense. But wheelbarrows are more interesting: see this thread from 2006
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - SigniferOne - 06-20-2009
Wheelbarrows are a fascinating example. Wasn't it once a key cornerstone used by Medievalists for revisionism? Sort of like the one where Roman/antique harnesses were inefficient and strangled the cattle (which was okay because most of labor was done by slaves anyway), whereas it was left up to the Middle Ages to develop a fully functional and normal harness.
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - M. Demetrius - 06-20-2009
Well, you know, they had to kill those cattle somehow so they could make the leather roofs for their siege equipment. Gee. How hard was that? :? lol:
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - P. Clodius Secundus - 06-21-2009
Quote:Wheelbarrows are a fascinating example. Wasn't it once a key cornerstone used by Medievalists for revisionism? Sort of like the one where Roman/antique harnesses were inefficient and strangled the cattle (which was okay because most of labor was done by slaves anyway), whereas it was left up to the Middle Ages to develop a fully functional and normal harness.There used to be a couple of excellent websites devoted to Roman transportation at http://www.humanist.de and http://www.transportarchaeology.com , but neither appears to be functional. The first one had a great section demonstrating that the neck/shoulder harness was far more effective than assumed. The "choking" myth was essentially about equines rather than cattle per se, oxen/bovines having been neck-yoked all along.
Your comment does remind me of another common myth or at least an incorrect attribution in agricultural history. Despite their demand for cereal grains, The Romans neither invented nor popularly adopted the harvester aka "vallus". Pliny the Elder wrote about it, but it was Gallo-Belgic not Roman in use and origin. Like with the wheelbarrow, despite their reputation as great assimilators of technology, they may have known of yet failed to adopt labor saving technologies. I'm not sure that the availability of slave labor is an adequate explanation.
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - SigniferOne - 06-21-2009
Quote:Your comment does remind me of another common myth or at least an incorrect attribution in agricultural history. Despite their demand for cereal grains, The Romans neither invented nor popularly adopted the harvester aka "vallus". Pliny the Elder wrote about it, but it was Gallo-Belgic not Roman in use and origin. Like with the wheelbarrow, despite their reputation as great assimilators of technology, they may have known of yet failed to adopt labor saving technologies. I'm not sure that the availability of slave labor is an adequate explanation.
Are you representing this view as a myth? It wasn't clear what you meant to say there.
But anyway, how do we know that the Romans never popularly adopted the Vallus? Nobody knew that Romans had humongous water-powered machines at Arles either, or similarly enormous water-powered machinery in mines (Wilson, Machines, Power, and the Ancient Economy), until we found them. Vast large-scale machine industry is not exactly our first image of Romans that springs to mind, yet that has little relevance as to what actually happened or not.
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - M. Eversberg II - 06-21-2009
As an amateur, I'm not sure if I buy the idea of slavery being exclusive to labor-saving techniques. American plantations made use of the cotton gin (which made cotton profitable, which ironically lead to more slavery), which is a labor saving device. Any item that increases agricultural output is an item that increases agricultural output. One would have to be stupid to ignore something that would make your slaves capable of doing even more work, or the same amount of work better.
It's like harvesting grains without scythes.
M.
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - M. Demetrius - 06-21-2009
Quote:It's like harvesting grains without scythesOr making bricks without having straw delivered to you? Not all our logic works.
And I'll just bet that Pharaoh's brick production numbers took a tumble when he made his slaves go and collect their own straw.
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - P. Clodius Secundus - 06-22-2009
Quote:
Are you representing this view as a myth? It wasn't clear what you meant to say there.
But anyway, how do we know that the Romans never popularly adopted the Vallus?
Since the "history books" (by which I mean general studies, not those specific to agriculture and/or technology) often cite the aminal-powered harvester as a Roman innovation and common practice, this is a perfect example of myth in need of correction. K.D. White's "Greek and Roman Technology" is a good source on the subject. Pliny the Elder described a simple version of the vallus in the First Century and attributed it to a specific region in Gaul. No other Roman source mentioned it until the Fifth Century, when Palladius provided a more thorough description of an apparently advanced version called the carpentum. He also confines it's use to that region. Coupled with the fact that the only artifacts, several carved images, were found there and nowhere else certainly indicates that it didn't see widespread use elsewhere in the Empire. Another RAT member Treveri Gaul has been doing much more research on this subject. I can ask him to join in if anyone's still interested in this particular example.
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - SigniferOne - 06-22-2009
It would be great to have his contribution!
On the issue of sources, I hadn't been aware that Palladius mentioned an even more advanced version of the device! But our sources, particularly the kind that would large cultural surveys (Cicero's corpus, Pliny's encyclopedia) are not exactly in very large supply. For ex. we know VERY little about the 2nd century, apart from what's contained in a few second sophistic references and meager historical scraps. Who were the Quintilii brothers? We dont know, although they served as major administrators, kept company with M.Aurelius himself, were a center of a major circle of literary culture, and according to Suidas even wrote influential books of their own . Thats just one example. So-- what is indicative of that the vallus would not be mentioned? There scarcely even survives a book from the third or second centuries. About the Arles water mills-- are they mentioned by any author at least anywhere? Yet by every measure they are such a ground-breaking discovery that they require us to rewrite pretty much all of our preconceived notions about the Classical world.
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - P. Clodius Secundus - 06-22-2009
"In the more level plains of the Gallic provinces they employ the following short cut or labour-saving device for harvesting." (Palladius) This statement, coming several hundred years after Pliny's earliest account, severerly limits the apparent spread of this technology. If it had caught on in the rest of the Empire why would an even more detailed description be warranted? Unless some in-your-face evidence like the Arles mill complex surfaces, its use elsewhere is mere speculation. There are several factors which may have prevented it's adoption elsewhere. First, was the type of grain. These "header" type machines would work best with a type of wheat known as spelt, a type not particularly favored by Romans. Next are the larger, flatter, and more open fields in that region. Third, a scarcity of labor relative to other grain producing areas. I hadn't really thought about the connection with the Arles Mill until you mentioned it, but since the only industrial scale mill was found in the middle of the only area known to use the harvester, I'm guessing that there's a strong local connection. One common thread to both is economy of labor. The modern harvester was actually innvented in Scotland, but it didn't initially catch on in Europe. It saw much more rapid adoption and development in the US and Australia. Notably, both areas shared vast open fields and severe manpower shortages. Anyone else having deja-vu? I guess conserving labor isn't as important when you've got slaves or the Irish. :wink: There's one amusing story I read about an American travelling through the French countryside. He saw a farmer and his family stooped over harvesting with sickles. He asked the farmer why he didn't get a modern harvester which would help him gather twice as much grain. The farmer replied "Monsieur, I do not have twice as much grain". :lol:
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - john m roberts - 06-22-2009
In any case the desire for ever-greater production is a modern mentality. In the ancient world, squeezing the last denarius from every form of investment took a back seat to things like patronage and social prestige.