Greco-Roman Peoples React To Modern World

[Zyobot]

Maybe it's less pressing than other concerns, but I wonder what Greco-Roman historians would make of the various events and changes that followed since their time? Ditto with all the new statistical techniques and such that their modern counterparts make use of in their line of work. That, and the conversations they'd probably have with uptimer academics would prove interesting, given how their insights and interpretations of what they read about will differ immensely. They'd likely be quick to point out how flawed Whig historiography is, considering how striking the darker side of Modernity would be--nuclear weapons, total war, and ideological extremes aplenty.

Specific trends aside, I'm also wondering what their thoughts on macrohistory and cliodynamics might be, considering the sheer time-span and multitude of variables that go into devising long-term predictive models of that sort. That we like to draw parallels between Rome and America in such discussions also wouldn't escape their notice, though whether they'd necessarily agree with those comparisons is another story. Let alone how some of us having taken that comparison further to encompass whole cycles that rhyme (if not repeat exactly) over thousands of years.

[stevep]

Dec 27, 2020 3:06:22 GMT Zyobot said:

Maybe it's less pressing than other concerns, but I wonder what Greco-Roman historians would make of the various events and changes that followed since their time? Ditto with all the new statistical techniques and such that their modern counterparts make use of in their line of work. That, and the conversations they'd probably have with uptimer academics would prove interesting, given how their insights and interpretations of what they read about will differ immensely. They'd likely be quick to point out how flawed Whig historiography is, considering how striking the darker side of Modernity would be--nuclear weapons, total war, and ideological extremes aplenty.

Specific trends aside, I'm also wondering what their thoughts on macrohistory and cliodynamics might be, considering the sheer time-span and multitude of variables that go into devising long-term predictive models of that sort. That we like to draw parallels between Rome and America in such discussions also wouldn't escape their notice, though whether they'd necessarily agree with those comparisons is another story. Let alone how some of us having taken that comparison further to encompass whole cycles that rhyme (if not repeat exactly) over thousands of years.

  On the last point I suspect their view of the Roman empire, and also the reason(s) for its fall will depend on who they are and when they lived.  I suspect they might also object to the idea that there is a standard format that all cultures follow.  [Which I also suspect is a fairly universal attribute].  I 1st met the idea in an abridged version of Toynbee's "Study of History" and rejected the idea of such a fixed, deterministic  'solution' which really denied people any choice.  Must admit as I've got older and less optimistic about humanity I'm no longer as confident that we aren't immune to such pressures.

  Of course as Toynbee did say the current culture is pretty much a world-wide one, although in some places there are attempts to impose a more traditional viewpoint on it.  As such if we do screw up there may be no barbarian external culture to pick up the pieces and build a new successor.  Especially when you aid all the problems of issues such as mineral exhaustion - especially of the easy to obtain reserves that a technologically primitive culture would require in their early stages, pollution, environmental devastation and the sheer destructiveness of modern human weapons.  As such we can't afford to mess things up if we're going to leave behind anything more than at best limited numbers of survivors scraping for an existence.

[Zyobot]

Dec 27, 2020 11:47:48 GMT stevep said:

Dec 27, 2020 3:06:22 GMT Zyobot said:

Maybe it's less pressing than other concerns, but I wonder what Greco-Roman historians would make of the various events and changes that followed since their time? Ditto with all the new statistical techniques and such that their modern counterparts make use of in their line of work. That, and the conversations they'd probably have with uptimer academics would prove interesting, given how their insights and interpretations of what they read about will differ immensely. They'd likely be quick to point out how flawed Whig historiography is, considering how striking the darker side of Modernity would be--nuclear weapons, total war, and ideological extremes aplenty.

Specific trends aside, I'm also wondering what their thoughts on macrohistory and cliodynamics might be, considering the sheer time-span and multitude of variables that go into devising long-term predictive models of that sort. That we like to draw parallels between Rome and America in such discussions also wouldn't escape their notice, though whether they'd necessarily agree with those comparisons is another story. Let alone how some of us having taken that comparison further to encompass whole cycles that rhyme (if not repeat exactly) over thousands of years.

  On the last point I suspect their view of the Roman empire, and also the reason(s) for its fall will depend on who they are and when they lived.  I suspect they might also object to the idea that there is a standard format that all cultures follow.  [Which I also suspect is a fairly universal attribute].  I 1st met the idea in an abridged version of Toynbee's "Study of History" and rejected the idea of such a fixed, deterministic  'solution' which really denied people any choice.  Must admit as I've got older and less optimistic about humanity I'm no longer as confident that we aren't immune to such pressures.

  Of course as Toynbee did say the current culture is pretty much a world-wide one, although in some places there are attempts to impose a more traditional viewpoint on it.  As such if we do screw up there may be no barbarian external culture to pick up the pieces and build a new successor.  Especially when you aid all the problems of issues such as mineral exhaustion - especially of the easy to obtain reserves that a technologically primitive culture would require in their early stages, pollution, environmental devastation and the sheer destructiveness of modern human weapons.  As such we can't afford to mess things up if we're going to leave behind anything more than at best limited numbers of survivors scraping for an existence.

That makes sense, and I can imagine them wincing at how readily we compare out-of-context uptimer cultures to their own so easily. Your point about the mass-deployment of modern weapons meaning that there may be nothing left to inherit is similar to a point I raised before, with the author replying that they expect nuclear missiles to receive (mostly) limited use as chemical and biological weapons become more advanced and readily available over time. Granted, they also stressed that this was only their expectation, and that they could easily be wrong about that (meaning that the "Great Slaughter" they foresee may very well succeed where close calls like the Cuban Missile Crisis had failed).

Having said that, I also predict that Tacitus and other Greco-Roman historians would quickly note the factors mentioned above. Especially with how WMDs and total war as we practice it are more than enough to wipe out humanity many times over as is; never mind the kinds of wonder-weapons likely to emerge anywhere from six to nine decades from now.

On the flip side, I'd hope that shock value combined with casualty numbers would show Greco-Romans the impracticality of all-out war nowadays. For sure, there will still be a handful of idiotic hotheads just itching to get their hands on a loose nuke(s). Not that they'd be terribly successful in their attempt, mind you; ditto with how uptimers catching one (or a few) of their own trying to cause trouble would force the Greco-Romans at large to do damage control and prove that they're not an army of fanatical, one-dimensional lunatics who'll set the world ablaze at a moment's notice.

[Zyobot]

Another thing that's been on my mind is Greco-Roman reactions to modern food? It's far more plentiful and varied than in their time, and the fact that famines don't happen on a semi-regular basis in at least the First World would cause disbelief on their part. Other things that come to mind are how certain items--maize, potatoes and tomatoes--would be wholly unfamiliar to downtimers, given that they were confined to the New World up until the last several centuries. I believe that noodles originated in the East, and pasta only became a thing long after Rome fell. My (admittedly rudimentary) culinary understanding being that their cuisine was much more "earthy" and "simple" than what we eat, I wonder what they'd make of cooking like this?

Kimchi Pancakes with Dancing Fish Flakes - Food Wishes


Chocolate Yule Log (Buche de Noel) - Food Wishes


Let alone famous chefs like Gordon Ramsay, or the various food shows on TV.

[Zyobot]

Considering their reverence for oratory and public speaking, I wonder what they'd make of highly praised modern speakers and the speeches they delivered? Even leaving aside what'd probably be variable standards as to what a charismatic speechmaker sounds like or how a well put-together speech is written, the fact that microphones exist to amplify their voices--and radio, television, and the internet to broadcast them to people all over the world, as well as permanently archive them for future viewing--would doubtlessly attract their notice.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt Declares War on Japan (Full Speech) | War Archives


"Why go to the moon?" - John F. Kennedy at Rice University


President Ronald Reagan's Speech at the Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987

[Zyobot]

Now I'm wondering what books geared towards teaching Greco-Romans about uptimer life would probably look like? Authors would probably seek the input of their more well-informed constituents in terms of catering to their worldview and expanding their frame of reference.

Furthermore, while they're certainly not representative of the average downtimer in this regard, I'm also wondering what big names in Classical Antiquity--Plato, Aristotle, Augustus, Constantine, and so on--would likely read, insofar as which modern works would interesting them? They'd probably glance at our more creative literature every now and then, though getting a feel for the more academic material that's arisen since their time would likely take priority. Suddenly, the mental image of Julius Caesar sitting at his desk and perusing through his translated copy of The Guns of August--with a lifetime's supply of other books behind him, some neatly arranged, while others lay about in Jenga stacks--is impossible for me to shake. Similar is to be expected of other well-read greats who lived during that thousand-or-so-year period, I'd think.

[Zyobot]

One other thought that occurred to me is what Greco-Roman children would think? They'd probably be getting most of their information through the adults members of their family, whose age renders them more "set in their ways" as is. For those who learn something meaningful about uptimer life, I can imagine them creating some imaginative rumors telling of great metal birds and weapons that'd make the Gods themselves tremble in fear. Which would have more truth to them than not, though there's a point at which they'd become too fantastical to make sense.

I also believe that pretending to be their favorite senator or one of the greats of Classical history was a pastime of theirs, so maybe you'd get a few of them to start impersonate uptimer figures like King George III, Napoleon, or Genghis Khan to entertain their playmates. Hopefully, they'd steer clear of a certain Austria-born, rabidly anti-Semitic German statesman who butchered his way across Europe back in the day. Not to mention an agglomeration of other tyrants who spilled plenty of blood over the course of the last century. Those wounds are still fairly fresh compared to those inflicted by the Thirty Years' War or the Taiping Rebellion, after all.

[Zyobot]

Another interesting mental image that comes to mind right about now is someone like Julius Caesar or Augustus becoming a guest on Joe Rogan's podcast. While I'm not sure how agreeable their lot would necessarily be to humoring online presences, I've a feeling that some interviews with uptimer news agencies will take place once the dust settles.

Who knows, maybe there'll even be a TV show(s) that revolves around Greco-Roman students who come to study in America or something like that, as they come to terms with everything from how to use a smartphone to the thousands of years of history that have taken place since their time (albeit telescoped into a general lesson adapted for their preexisting, more limited frame of reference). It's probably bound to happen eventually, but exactly how one might convince downtimer authorities (and lots of aghast fathers) to let adventurous youths head out into the world remains uncertain to me. Hopefully, the diplomatic apparatuses of uptimer nations would figure something out at minimal cost to themselves.

[Zyobot]

I don't know as much about Roman theater, but I wonder what ancient Greeks would make of modern cinema and TV? They may hold less antipathy towards actors, though the fact that more than three of them regular appear in the same scenes would be hard to miss. There's also how blood and gore is far more acceptable to portray directly nowadays; I shudder to envision how they'd react to Saving Private Ryan or The Purge. Cartoons and animation seem like they'd be an outside-context problem, considering that they're literally moving drawings, as opposed to live actors with costumes and props.

Suddenly, the mental image of Greco-Roman children delighting in Disney movies is also hard for me to shake. Albeit, with concerned parents in the background and a few elders shaking their heads in dismay.

[stevep]

Jan 8, 2021 1:58:12 GMT Zyobot said:

I don't know as much about Roman theater, but I wonder what ancient Greeks would make of modern cinema and TV? They may hold less antipathy towards actors, though the fact that more than three of them regular appear in the same scenes would be hard to miss. There's also how blood and gore is far more acceptable to portray directly nowadays; I shudder to envision how they'd react to Saving Private Ryan or The Purge. Cartoons and animation seem like they'd be an outside-context problem, considering that they're literally moving drawings, as opposed to live actors with costumes and props.

Suddenly, the mental image of Greco-Roman children delighting in Disney movies is also hard for me to shake. Albeit, with concerned parents in the background and a few elders shaking their heads in dismay.

  Zyobot ,

  That last is an interesting idea and I could see it being seen as a significant threat by the parents and elders, especially given the sort of social ideas presented in them.  They might like the ardent nationalism [and borderline at least anti-Mongol racism] of Mulan but would be disturbed by having a female 'hero'.  Even more so with other Disney princess stories.  Aladdin might go down well with them as it has a male lead but a lot of others would be hard to take.  Older ones also like 101 Dalmatians would probably also confuse them totally.

  The ancients might be more accepting of cartoons/animations than your thinking as didn't classic plays [or at least some of them] use masks to display emotions and hence you never saw the actors faces.  Mind you the inclusion of a lot of different cultural ideas and also representatives of other cultures and races might be a bit off-putting to them.  While the Roman empire much of the time seems to have been pretty racially tolerant, as long as you were an obedient subject who caused no problems, it had a strong 'national' identity so foreign and potentially hostile cultures being shown as equals and of interest. They might be more tolerant of some of the more violent or sexually explicit productions.  Just don't show them western classics like say the Asterix the Gaul stories or Carry_On_Cleo.  Mind you with the latter mockery of the powerful was sometimes prominent in common entertainment - at least if they weren't very sensitive about their image - so it might go down well quite well.  At least as long as a certain Gaius Julius Caesar isn't among the audience.

  Steve

[Zyobot]

Jan 8, 2021 12:31:44 GMT stevep said:

  That last is an interesting idea and I could see it being seen as a significant threat by the parents and elders, especially given the sort of social ideas presented in them.  They might like the ardent nationalism [and borderline at least anti-Mongol racism] of Mulan but would be disturbed by having a female 'hero'.  Even more so with other Disney princess stories.  Aladdin might go down well with them as it has a male lead but a lot of others would be hard to take.  Older ones also like 101 Dalmatians would probably also confuse them totally.

Well, there was Antigone, so I assume that Greco-Romans active after it was first released would have (some) precedent for a female lead. The fact that Mulan and other female characters are actually portrayed by actresses would run afoul of their sensibilities, of course . Why they sidelined females in even their entertainment remains a mystery to me, and I doubt most could give a coherent answer when asked what the whole point of having an all-male cast is. Something else that might get their heads spinning is how female voice actresses often play young boys in cartoons, though we should probably let them process things one bite at a time rather than all at once.

Jan 8, 2021 12:31:44 GMT stevep said:

  The ancients might be more accepting of cartoons/animations than your thinking as didn't classic plays [or at least some of them] use masks to display emotions and hence you never saw the actors faces.  Mind you the inclusion of a lot of different cultural ideas and also representatives of other cultures and races might be a bit off-putting to them.  While the Roman empire much of the time seems to have been pretty racially tolerant, as long as you were an obedient subject who caused no problems, it had a strong 'national' identity so foreign and potentially hostile cultures being shown as equals and of interest. They might be more tolerant of some of the more violent or sexually explicit productions.  Just don't show them western classics like say the Asterix the Gaul stories orCarry_On_Cleo.  Mind you with the latter mockery of the powerful was sometimes prominent in common entertainment - at least if they weren't very sensitive about their image - so it might go down well quite well.  At least as long as a certain Gaius Julius Caesar isn't among the audience.

You raise an interesting point about masks obfuscating actors' faces; I almost forgot about that in my first post on the subject. On the other hand, the world we live in is larger and much more interconnected than it was when they walked the earth, and modern entertainment simply reflects that reality. Times have changed whether they like it or not, and they need to get with the program in order to remain viable. Romans don't strike me as the kind to complain too much about our entertainment being too "graphic" or "ribald", but the Greeks definitely do. What they'd say if we were to point out that having death and other gory incidents only happen off-stage gets boring after a while--coupled with over-reliance on monologues that "tell" rather than "show" dramatic developments--I don't know.

If individual downtimers want nothing to do with modern entertainment, that's their business; that still doesn't empower them to infringe on their fellow Greco-Romans' freedom to do otherwise. Which, considering how we're more individualistic than they are, may raise yet more "meta-disagreements" over how much power people should have to run their own lives, as opposed to having traditions dictate them instead. Hopefully, they'd understand that internet and other forms of modern mass-media render censorship based on their personal tastes impractical in the long run, though I'm sure you'd have at least a few reactionaries attempt to undercut their proliferation to begin with. Or, perhaps, set up a system more like China's so that they can at least control what their constituents see. At most, I can imagine Greco-Roman playwrights and any centralized moviemaking establishment that arises agreeing to their own version of the Hayes Code, which would probably be even more short-lived thanks to both foreign media trickling in and the ability for kickstarters, independent studios, and average netizens to make their own content and post it online.

With time, perhaps uptimer movies and television could even be used to teach students enrolled in uptimer language classes. It doubles as a way to acquaint them with our culture too, as well as keep young children entertained during class. Hopefully, at least a few teachers are both perceptive and sufficiently reasonable authority figures to make use of these as soon as everything's been set up.

As one last side-note, the link to Carry on Cleo loops back to this page. I could easily look it up myself, of course, but I just thought you'd like to know anyways.

[stevep]

Jan 9, 2021 1:46:54 GMT Zyobot said:

Jan 8, 2021 12:31:44 GMT stevep said:

  That last is an interesting idea and I could see it being seen as a significant threat by the parents and elders, especially given the sort of social ideas presented in them.  They might like the ardent nationalism [and borderline at least anti-Mongol racism] of Mulan but would be disturbed by having a female 'hero'.  Even more so with other Disney princess stories.  Aladdin might go down well with them as it has a male lead but a lot of others would be hard to take.  Older ones also like 101 Dalmatians would probably also confuse them totally.

Well, there was Antigone, so I assume that Greco-Romans active after it was first released would have (some) precedent for a female lead. The fact that Mulan and other female characters are actually portrayed by actresses would run afoul of their sensibilities, of course . Why they sidelined females in even their entertainment remains a mystery to me, and I doubt most could give a coherent answer when asked what the whole point of having an all-male cast is. Something else that might get their heads spinning is how female voice actresses often play young boys in cartoons, though we should probably let them process things one bite at a time rather than all at once.

Jan 8, 2021 12:31:44 GMT stevep said:

  The ancients might be more accepting of cartoons/animations than your thinking as didn't classic plays [or at least some of them] use masks to display emotions and hence you never saw the actors faces.  Mind you the inclusion of a lot of different cultural ideas and also representatives of other cultures and races might be a bit off-putting to them.  While the Roman empire much of the time seems to have been pretty racially tolerant, as long as you were an obedient subject who caused no problems, it had a strong 'national' identity so foreign and potentially hostile cultures being shown as equals and of interest. They might be more tolerant of some of the more violent or sexually explicit productions.  Just don't show them western classics like say the Asterix the Gaul stories orCarry_On_Cleo.  Mind you with the latter mockery of the powerful was sometimes prominent in common entertainment - at least if they weren't very sensitive about their image - so it might go down well quite well.  At least as long as a certain Gaius Julius Caesar isn't among the audience.

You raise an interesting point about masks obfuscating actors' faces; I almost forgot about that in my first post on the subject. On the other hand, the world we live in is larger and much more interconnected than it was when they walked the earth, and modern entertainment simply reflects that reality. Times have changed whether they like it or not, and they need to get with the program in order to remain viable. Romans don't strike me as the kind to complain too much about our entertainment being too "graphic" or "ribald", but the Greeks definitely do. What they'd say if we were to point out that having death and other gory incidents only happen off-stage gets boring after a while--coupled with over-reliance on monologues that "tell" rather than "show" dramatic developments--I don't know.

If individual downtimers want nothing to do with modern entertainment, that's their business; that still doesn't empower them to infringe on their fellow Greco-Romans' freedom to do otherwise. Which, considering how we're more individualistic than they are, may raise yet more "meta-disagreements" over how much power people should have to run their own lives, as opposed to having traditions dictate them instead. Hopefully, they'd understand that internet and other forms of modern mass-media render censorship based on their personal tastes impractical in the long run, though I'm sure you'd have at least a few reactionaries attempt to undercut their proliferation to begin with. Or, perhaps, set up a system more like China's so that they can at least control what their constituents see. At most, I can imagine Greco-Roman playwrights and any centralized moviemaking establishment that arises agreeing to their own version of the Hayes Code, which would probably be even more short-lived thanks to both foreign media trickling in and the ability for kickstarters, independent studios, and average netizens to make their own content and post it online.

With time, perhaps uptimer movies and television could even be used to teach students enrolled in uptimer language classes. It doubles as a way to acquaint them with our culture too, as well as keep young children entertained during class. Hopefully, at least a few teachers are both perceptive and sufficiently reasonable authority figures to make use of these as soon as everything's been set up.

As one last side-note, the link to Carry on Cleo loops back to this page. I could easily look it up myself, of course, but I just thought you'd like to know anyways.

  Zyobot,

  Well I know in Britain, not sure about the continent, having men playing all roles was still going on past Shakespeare's time.  Talking of Will I wonder how his ancient plays would go down, especially about Julius and Mark Antony but possibly also some of the stuff set earlier in their history.  Suspect they would like Macaulay's Lays of Ancient Rome.

  In terms of the Greeks having so much of the action off stage was that a deliberate decision or possibly because they lacked the resources to dramatise things like battle scenes?  Or was it more general like not showing an assassination say because they preferred not to for some reason?  They definitely couldn't handle the sort of special effects that even theatres can often supply OTL let alone films or cartoons.  I don't really know much about Greek drama as it was preformed.  Nearly didn't remember the bit about them using masks to display emotions.  The Romans are likely to be different because their entertainment is often a lot bloodier and in real life.

  Thanks about the faulty link.  Fixed now.

  Steve

[Zyobot]

Jan 9, 2021 11:50:33 GMT stevep said:

know in Britain, not sure about the continent, having men playing all roles was still going on past Shakespeare's time.  Talking of Will I wonder how his ancient plays would go down, especially about Julius and Mark Antony but possibly also some of the stuff set earlier in their history.  Suspect they would like Macaulay's Lays of Ancient Rome.

I was aware that Shakespearean Britain had all-male casts in its theater, yes.

Jan 9, 2021 11:50:33 GMT stevep said:

  In terms of the Greeks having so much of the action off stage was that a deliberate decision or possibly because they lacked the resources to dramatise things like battle scenes?  Or was it more general like not showing an assassination say because they preferred not to for some reason?  They definitely couldn't handle the sort of special effects that even theatres can often supply OTL let alone films or cartoons.  I don't really know much about Greek drama as it was preformed.  Nearly didn't remember the bit about them using masks to display emotions.  The Romans are likely to be different because their entertainment is often a lot bloodier and in real life.

My understanding is that it was some of each, at least if Ancient History Encyclopedia is to be believed. Their inability to depict graphic scenes was probably a factor, though the fact that serious plays dealt with grave subject matters made violence a no-no on stage. I also once had an English teacher in high school who claimed that this taboo was born out of need for an escape from how brutal everyday life could be in Ancient Greece, which sounds semi-credible to me; how much truth there is to that claim, I don't know. Anyhow, you're probably right to argue that they couldn't handle today's special effects or choreography, both for reasons pertaining to their distaste for on-screen violence and how its sheer realism would force viewers to remind themselves that it's just a movie (or show), and that none of the actors were actually maimed or killed when filming. Some Greeks may be more receptive if they were told it was just hyper-realistic artistry that made it look like Person A's arm was hacked off or Person B's guts spilled right out of their stomach, though there'd be plenty of them who want nothing to do with it regardless.

The Romans, as you note, would be much less squeamish. In fact, given their penchant for gladiatorial games, the reverse of the previous situation would apply as we uptimers demand that they cease all real-life bloodsports and move to refereed, non-lethal fights that resemble wrestling or MMA matches. Returning to the matter at hand, though, their desensitization to real-life gore and death presumably means they could handle graphic on-screen violence (e.g. watching 300). How they'd react to movies and shows that depict modern war, such as Saving Private Ryan or 1917 seems more debatable to me, chiefly due to the shock value of the weapons and tactics featured. Not to mention the fact that, much to the scrutiny of at least Greek viewers, such movies often show masses of men charging at the enemy (and therefore, go well beyond the three-or-thereabouts actor limit they're normally used to).

Something else that occurred to me is what Greco-Roman playwrights would do as soon as they receive their first taste of uptimer entertainment. Once they get over all the new techniques and technology they'd have available to them, some would still express disgust at the actual content and agree to a Hayes Code-like agreement amongst themselves. Others would be more open to breaking preexisting taboos, though I'm not sure if some distinctly "Greco-Roman" approach to cinematography would emerge anyway. Maybe it'd face threats of censorship from more reactionary officials at first, though that doesn't mean they'll get their way in the final analysis.

[Zyobot]

Given how little we know about it, I wonder if they could tell us anything about the Bronze Age collapse? Their take is bound to have biases and be based on serious misconceptions as to how the world works from time to time, as they lack the scientific techniques and technologies we have to explain economic phenomena, trace a disease back to its origin, or use carbon dating to estimate how old something is. This may lend itself to uptimers cultivating a "know-it-all" attitude that grates downtimers who they're comparing notes with, which is in some ways misguided (in addition to being rude). Presumably, the downtimers have records and artifacts that have since been lost to time; maybe some Greco-Roman historians have written commentaries lying around that we just don't know about, for instance.

The Bronze Age Collapse - Before the Storm - Extra History - #1


The Bronze Age Collapse - The Wheel and the Rod - Extra History - #2


The Bronze Age Collapse - Fire and Sword - Extra History - #3


The Bronze Age Collapse - Systems Collapse - Extra History - #4


There's lots more where that came from, for those who enjoyed the videos above.

[Zyobot]

As an addendum to my last post on the subject, I wonder what they'd think of CGI? It still being animation that looks three-dimensional and lacks the obvious outlines, I imagine it'd be pretty baffling to Greco-Romans (even more than film and television in general, anyway). They'd also be curious as to how we make it in the first place, the explanation for which would likely go over their heads. It's one thing to explain live-action content as permanently recorded plays or traditional animation as a long sequence of drawings that create the illusion of motion; it's another to describe CGI, which is using computers to create models and visual effects that are then modified and manipulated in certain ways to produce the desired content. Greco-Roman playwrights and aspiring filmmakers who like what they see will study it much more intently than the average downtimer, though.

The Clone Wars - Animating Darth Maul