Greco-Roman Peoples React To Modern World

[Zyobot]

I wonder what they'd make of our more fictional depictions of them, particularly those that relate to their current circumstances? Time-travel stories like New Pompeii by Daniel Godfrey are a convenient example of what I'm referring to, though there are undoubtedly more.

[stevep]

Jan 13, 2021 21:08:29 GMT Zyobot said:

I wonder what they'd make of our more fictional depictions of them, particularly those that relate to their current circumstances? Time-travel stories like New Pompeii by Daniel Godfrey are a convenient example of what I'm referring to, though there are undoubtedly more.

  Well there's a lot of books set in the classical period as well as a fair few films over the decades so probably something for everybody to like and for everybody to find something to hate. 

[Zyobot]

As I've been watching a lot more ERB content lately, I wonder what Julius Caesar would make of his more parodic portrayal there?

Shaka Zulu vs Julius Caesar. Epic Rap Battles of History


I have my own thoughts on who might've won that, though whether Caesar himself is pleased with "his" performance is another debate.

[Zyobot]

Considering its importance in global affairs and at least topically similar history to the circumstances of Rome's founding, I wonder what they'd think of media that portrays key events in American history? Namely, those depicted by HBO's John Adams miniseries.

John Adams Theme Song HBO Intro


John Adams - God Save America (HQ) Independence Speech


King George's response to the Olive Branch Petition read by John Hancock


Ditto since, as I believe was mentioned previously, the Founding Fathers borrowed much from Rome when giving rise to the United States.

[oscssw]

Jan 23, 2021 3:01:07 GMT Zyobot said:

As I've been watching a lot more ERB content lately, I wonder what Julius Caesar would make of his more parodic portrayal there?

Shaka Zulu vs Julius Caesar. Epic Rap Battles of History


I have my own thoughts on who might've won that, though whether Caesar himself is pleased with "his" performance is another debate.

No doubt in my mind the Legion would eat the Zulu alive.  Both using edge weapons one with excellent armor the other with just a cowhide shield.   You can't really believe Caesar would make the same idiot mistakes the Victorian Brits did.

[Zyobot]

Jan 27, 2021 16:49:42 GMT oscssw said:

Jan 23, 2021 3:01:07 GMT Zyobot said:

As I've been watching a lot more ERB content lately, I wonder what Julius Caesar would make of his more parodic portrayal there?

Shaka Zulu vs Julius Caesar. Epic Rap Battles of History


I have my own thoughts on who might've won that, though whether Caesar himself is pleased with "his" performance is another debate.

No doubt in my mind the Legion would eat the Zulu alive.  Both using edge weapons one with excellent armor the other with just a cowhide shield.   You can't really believe Caesar would make the same idiot mistakes the Victorian Brits did.

Did the Brits' smug sense of superiority get the better of them, then? While I'm not particularly well-versed in Great Britain's colonial expeditions over the years, I'd think that their arrogance would make them complacent and cause them to under-prepare (only to regret it when actually confronted by Shaka Zulu and his forces).

That digression aside, what else would Caesar probably think? Zulu might not have much to offer in terms of how warfare has developed long after his demise, but historical giants like Genghis Khan and Napoleon do. Never mind all the game-changing advancements in tactics and technology that have totally transformed the way in which wars are fought throughout the centuries.

[stevep]

Jan 28, 2021 0:03:03 GMT Zyobot said:

Jan 27, 2021 16:49:42 GMT oscssw said:

No doubt in my mind the Legion would eat the Zulu alive.  Both using edge weapons one with excellent armor the other with just a cowhide shield.   You can't really believe Caesar would make the same idiot mistakes the Victorian Brits did.

Did the Brits' smug sense of superiority get the better of them, then? While I'm not particularly well-versed in Great Britain's colonial expeditions over the years, I'd think that their arrogance would make them complacent and cause them to under-prepare (only to regret it when actually confronted by Shaka Zulu and his forces).

That digression aside, what else would Caesar probably think? Zulu might not have much to offer in terms of how warfare has developed long after his demise, but historical giants like Genghis Khan and Napoleon do. Never mind all the game-changing advancements in tactics and technology that have totally transformed the way in which wars are fought throughout the centuries.

  We never fought Shaka as he died long before Britain followed the Boers inland.  However the state he founded was still prominent for another ~60 years and I would say oscssw, is referring to the famous victory over a British force at the Battle_of_Isandlwana, which saw an invading British army destroyed.  Its more famous in the west now as the precursor to the Battle_of_Rorke's_Drift, which is the source, albeit with quite a number of facts changed, of the 1960's film Zulu.  The 1st link gives an analysis of arguments why the main column of the force was destroyed although the main blame seems to lie with the force commander Lord Chelmsford  who survived the battle because he was with one of two flank forces that weren't with the main forces when it was attacked.  He seems to have ignored his own field regulations for laargering the camp and adequate scouting and the forces seem to have been dispersed too widely so they couldn't support each other while there are some questions of ammunition supply for the troops caught too far from where the ammo was stored in the camp.  Definitely not a good day for Britain, or the men involved.

  Caesar may find the rapid rise of the Zulu's and their level of discipline interesting even if they lacked the resources and technology of the Romans.  He would definitely be interesting in - and probably very jealous of - details of various later conquerors, including the two you mention.  Although he's probably more likely to respect Napoleon more than Genghis who would be seen as a nomadic barbarian and also probably too brutal even for the Romans.  Might be interesting to see what he thinks of some later Roman generals such as Trajan, some of the 3rd century commanders/emperors who managed to hold the empire together, Constantine, Julian and Belisarius plus possibly some of the later Byzantine generals/emperors.

 

[oscssw]

Zybot I believe Lord Chelmsford ignored his own field regs because he was an arrogant man, a real product of his Victorian upbringing. Underestimating an enemy because he is not as technologically advanced and/or his "Civilization" is different and therefore inferior is a real good way of getting yourself killed.

Steve, tactics are very much based on technology but Strategy seems quite timeless to me. I'd think Caesar would find the implements and tactics of war modern war interesting. I would think in any age his strategic genius would make him a very formidable opponent.

That said as an E-8 I was a "technician" of war not a tactician. I relied on the tactics I was taught and in most cases they served me well: I'm still here drawing my pension. I am even less of a strategist, so I am commenting on a subject I really have no great knowledge of.

[Zyobot]

It's an impressionistic rendition, but I wonder what the Greco-Romans would make of decisive wartime speeches made by Winston Churchill? I recall posting FDR's declaration of war on Japan, and I hope both men are recognized as talented orators and great statesmen who led their nations to victory in a conflict like no other. Especially given that, again, Roosevelt was disabled and polio-stricken, neither of which would've gotten him far in the ancient world.

Churchill's speech after Overlord with Arabic subtitles (Churchill, 2017)


And now I'm picturing the President of the United States addressing the Greco-Romans in a televised broadcast, or even flying to ancient Rome itself to speak to the Roman Senate. The former's probably more realistic, since every household has a TV and at least one computer. At most, I imagine they'd speak in a closed-door meeting with the Roman emperor and his entourage, or shake hands with some downtimer students who somehow get invited to the White House after spending a while at an American university(s). What an interesting spectacle it'd be, either way.

[oscssw]

Mar 5, 2021 19:39:26 GMT Zyobot said:

It's an impressionistic rendition, but I wonder what the Greco-Romans would make of decisive wartime speeches made by Winston Churchill? I recall posting FDR's declaration of war on Japan, and I hope both men are recognized as talented orators and great statesmen who led their nations to victory in a conflict like no other. Especially given that, again, Roosevelt was disabled and polio-stricken, neither of which would've gotten him far in the ancient world.

Churchill's speech after Overlord with Arabic subtitles (Churchill, 2017)

Thanks Zyobot.  I always enjoy a good portrayal of Sir Winston delivering one of his superb speeches.

For me, his speeches have to be heard.  Reading them does not invoke the emotional awe for me that seeing and hearing them does.   

I have no idea who that actor is/was but he surely fit the part for me.

I never could understand why the British people turned him out of office in 1945.  Had he stayed at the party too long?

Now here's an alternate time line idea.    Sir Winston decisively wins the 1945 election.  His influence on the opening moves of the Cold War would be interesting.  The immediate post war reconstruction of the British Empire might have been different also.   Anyone is free to run with this idea.  I don't know enough about the Post war UK to do it justice.  hell I don't even know where to begin.

[stevep]

Mar 6, 2021 14:19:00 GMT oscssw said:

Mar 5, 2021 19:39:26 GMT Zyobot said:

It's an impressionistic rendition, but I wonder what the Greco-Romans would make of decisive wartime speeches made by Winston Churchill? I recall posting FDR's declaration of war on Japan, and I hope both men are recognized as talented orators and great statesmen who led their nations to victory in a conflict like no other. Especially given that, again, Roosevelt was disabled and polio-stricken, neither of which would've gotten him far in the ancient world.

Churchill's speech after Overlord with Arabic subtitles (Churchill, 2017)

Thanks Zyobot.  I always enjoy a good portrayal of Sir Winston delivering one of his superb speeches.

For me, his speeches have to be heard.  Reading them does not invoke the emotional awe for me that seeing and hearing them does.   

I have no idea who that actor is/was but he surely fit the part for me.

I never could understand why the British people turned him out of office in 1945.  Had he stayed at the party too long?

Now here's an alternate time line idea.    Sir Winston decisively wins the 1945 election.  His influence on the opening moves of the Cold War would be interesting.  The immediate post war reconstruction of the British Empire might have been different also.   Anyone is free to run with this idea.  I don't know enough about the Post war UK to do it justice.  hell I don't even know where to begin.

  oscssw,

  Basically by 1945 Britain was exhausted and the Tories were blamed both for failure during the recession and then the run up to WWII.  Also Churchill, while a great motivational speaker was actually a poor decision maker with a long history of failures during and long before WWII.  He got some things right and not everything that was blamed on him was his fault.  Also he was deeply reactionary in policy by this time and would have been a disaster in power immediately post-war.  Before the conflict one of the things he had opposed was dominion status for India.  By 1945 full independence was the only option, albeit that the local politicians had got so divisive that you ended up with the terrible slaughter that was partition, but can you imagine how bad it would have been if Churchill had tried to hang onto India as a colony!!   Similarly he was opposed to the social reforms and spending that Britain desperately needed and wanted. 

  Attlee and his government made errors but nowhere near as many as a Churchill led Tory party would have done.

[oscssw]

Mar 6, 2021 14:27:43 GMT stevep said:

Mar 6, 2021 14:19:00 GMT oscssw said:

Thanks Zyobot.  I always enjoy a good portrayal of Sir Winston delivering one of his superb speeches.

For me, his speeches have to be heard.  Reading them does not invoke the emotional awe for me that seeing and hearing them does.   

I have no idea who that actor is/was but he surely fit the part for me.

I never could understand why the British people turned him out of office in 1945.  Had he stayed at the party too long?

Now here's an alternate time line idea.    Sir Winston decisively wins the 1945 election.  His influence on the opening moves of the Cold War would be interesting.  The immediate post war reconstruction of the British Empire might have been different also.   Anyone is free to run with this idea.  I don't know enough about the Post war UK to do it justice.  hell I don't even know where to begin.

  oscssw ,

  Basically by 1945 Britain was exhausted and the Tories were blamed both for failure during the recession and then the run up to WWII.  Also Churchill, while a great motivational speaker was actually a poor decision maker with a long history of failures during and long before WWII.  He got some things right and not everything that was blamed on him was his fault.  Also he was deeply reactionary in policy by this time and would have been a disaster in power immediately post-war.  Before the conflict one of the things he had opposed was dominion status for India.  By 1945 full independence was the only option, albeit that the local politicians had got so divisive that you ended up with the terrible slaughter that was partition, but can you imagine how bad it would have been if Churchill had tried to hang onto India as a colony!!   Similarly he was opposed to the social reforms and spending that Britain desperately needed and wanted. 

  Attlee and his government made errors but nowhere near as many as a Churchill led Tory party would have done.

Well Steve, being quite ignorant on the subject of Post war Britain I'll let Sir Winston's own words address your reply

"I have not always been wrong. History will bear me out, particularly as I shall write that history myself.”

Robert Will in his  article "Why Churchill Lost the 1945 Election" pretty much agrees with you but he adds an important final reason.  "A war-weary Britain with one eye on the future had rejected a party which had been complacent and a man who had focused entirely on the nation’s good, to his own detriment.​ "

IMHO, not a bad reason to loose.

[Zyobot]

Mar 6, 2021 14:19:00 GMT oscssw said:

Thanks Zyobot.  I always enjoy a good portrayal of Sir Winston delivering one of his superb speeches.

For me, his speeches have to be heard.  Reading them does not invoke the emotional awe for me that seeing and hearing them does.   

I have no idea who that actor is/was but he surely fit the part for me.

Thanks; I like the job he did, too. Brian Cox played Churchill here, and though I haven't watched many movies about Old Winston, this is probably the portrayal that'll resonate with me most. I'd hope that Greco-Roman audiences feel the same way, and recognize Churchill as an important statesman who led Britain to victory in a conflict of unprecedented proportions.

Mar 6, 2021 14:27:43 GMT stevep said:

Basically by 1945 Britain was exhausted and the Tories were blamed both for failure during the recession and then the run up to WWII.  Also Churchill, while a great motivational speaker was actually a poor decision maker with a long history of failures during and long before WWII.  He got some things right and not everything that was blamed on him was his fault.  Also he was deeply reactionary in policy by this time and would have been a disaster in power immediately post-war.  Before the conflict one of the things he had opposed was dominion status for India.  By 1945 full independence was the only option, albeit that the local politicians had got so divisive that you ended up with the terrible slaughter that was partition, but can you imagine how bad it would have been if Churchill had tried to hang onto India as a colony!!   Similarly he was opposed to the social reforms and spending that Britain desperately needed and wanted. 

  Attlee and his government made errors but nowhere near as many as a Churchill led Tory party would have done.

Wit and charisma will only get you so far, I suppose. Having said that, how do you suppose they'd view Churchill and his oratory? To repeat what I've said before in narrower terms, it'd be instructive for downtimers to realize that they weren't the only ones capable of producing great men or reaching heights that no one else has reached before. Perhaps he was a flawed man who didn't quite measure up to his larger-than-life image, but given that he's an easily citable wartime leader whose name will come up in conversations about recent history, well...

[stevep]

Mar 6, 2021 15:00:51 GMT oscssw said:

Mar 6, 2021 14:27:43 GMT stevep said:

  oscssw ,

  Basically by 1945 Britain was exhausted and the Tories were blamed both for failure during the recession and then the run up to WWII.  Also Churchill, while a great motivational speaker was actually a poor decision maker with a long history of failures during and long before WWII.  He got some things right and not everything that was blamed on him was his fault.  Also he was deeply reactionary in policy by this time and would have been a disaster in power immediately post-war.  Before the conflict one of the things he had opposed was dominion status for India.  By 1945 full independence was the only option, albeit that the local politicians had got so divisive that you ended up with the terrible slaughter that was partition, but can you imagine how bad it would have been if Churchill had tried to hang onto India as a colony!!   Similarly he was opposed to the social reforms and spending that Britain desperately needed and wanted. 

  Attlee and his government made errors but nowhere near as many as a Churchill led Tory party would have done.

Well Steve, being quite ignorant on the subject of Post war Britain I'll let Sir Winston's own words address your reply

"I have not always been wrong. History will bear me out, particularly as I shall write that history myself.”

Robert Will in his  article "Why Churchill Lost the 1945 Election" pretty much agrees with you but he adds an important final reason.  "A war-weary Britain with one eye on the future had rejected a party which had been complacent and a man who had focused entirely on the nation’s good, to his own detriment.​ "

IMHO, not a bad reason to loose.

  oscssw,

  On the last point I think the issue was he was focused on what he thought was the nation's good and that most people disagreed with him on that.  For instance maintaining the empire, including India regardless of the human, economic and military costs and being opposed to much of the Beverage Report which highlighted the urgent need for social reform.  It didn't help that according to a bit I read once he was warning that a Labour government would lead to secret police and a Soviet like regime.  Which suggests he had totally lost it.  Also an important point I also read was that during the war time coalition the main military and foreign posts were held by Tories while Labour got most of the civil cabinet posts.  Which meant they were more aware of what ordinary people are thinking and possibly also the population had more contact with them, which may have played an additional part in the Labour victory.

  One of the scores of TL's I've played with but doubt I will ever have the will power and organisation to full out and post has a 3rd alternative for PM in May 1940, a younger technocrat with experience of WWI who ends up as PM and leads the country through the war.  Britain is generally more successful although there are some problems and relations with the US are rather strained - while those with Stalin are definitely icy.  He's more aware of Britain's strengths and weaknesses and wins the 45 election but loses power in 46/47 when Churchill lead a break away group of more reactionary Tories over the issue of independence for India.  When then leads to an Attlee lead Labour government but in a somewhat better position. 

[stevep]

Mar 6, 2021 19:19:15 GMT Zyobot said:

Mar 6, 2021 14:19:00 GMT oscssw said:

Thanks Zyobot.  I always enjoy a good portrayal of Sir Winston delivering one of his superb speeches.

For me, his speeches have to be heard.  Reading them does not invoke the emotional awe for me that seeing and hearing them does.   

I have no idea who that actor is/was but he surely fit the part for me.

Thanks; I like the job he did, too. Brian Cox played Churchill here, and though I haven't watched many movies about Old Winston, this is probably the portrayal that'll resonate with me most. I'd hope that Greco-Roman audiences feel the same way, and recognize Churchill as an important statesman who led Britain to victory in a conflict of unprecedented proportions.

Mar 6, 2021 14:27:43 GMT stevep said:

Basically by 1945 Britain was exhausted and the Tories were blamed both for failure during the recession and then the run up to WWII.  Also Churchill, while a great motivational speaker was actually a poor decision maker with a long history of failures during and long before WWII.  He got some things right and not everything that was blamed on him was his fault.  Also he was deeply reactionary in policy by this time and would have been a disaster in power immediately post-war.  Before the conflict one of the things he had opposed was dominion status for India.  By 1945 full independence was the only option, albeit that the local politicians had got so divisive that you ended up with the terrible slaughter that was partition, but can you imagine how bad it would have been if Churchill had tried to hang onto India as a colony!!   Similarly he was opposed to the social reforms and spending that Britain desperately needed and wanted. 

  Attlee and his government made errors but nowhere near as many as a Churchill led Tory party would have done.

Wit and charisma will only get you so far, I suppose. Having said that, how do you suppose they'd view Churchill and his oratory? To repeat what I've said before in narrower terms, it'd be instructive for downtimers to realize that they weren't the only ones capable of producing great men or reaching heights that no one else has reached before. Perhaps he was a flawed man who didn't quite measure up to his larger-than-life image, but given that he's an easily citable wartime leader whose name will come up in conversations about recent history, well...

  I think provided the language translates well enough they will like his oratory and probably a lot of his ideas, although some of his comments about Italy probably won't go down very well.  He will definitely attract their attention, both for his speeches and his behaviour.