I've got to say, I've been doing a lot of research on Italy recently and I literally can't stop thinking about your boys. I'm over here trying to read about whatever Crusade and my brain is just a constant loop of "isn't Machete a cardinal? And Vasco was from like Verona, right?" Not super conducive to learning anything, but I am enjoying myself and thought you should know.
Thank you for your lovely art and for sharing your darlings <33
That's adorable ;^; But also sorry the lads keep distracting you, hah.
I'd argue that getting invested in your characters and their stories and having to do background research for them is actually a great way to accumulate knowledge about various subjects. Often it's stuff you probably would never get around to reading about otherwise. I'm not saying it's always information you'll have many practical uses for, but learning about new things is fun and it's beneficial to you and your brain in the long run.
Vasco is from Florence actually! It's usually considered to be the birthplace and the main hub of the entire Renaissance movement. Leonardo da Vinci, Botticelli and Michelangelo lived and influenced there and Dante Alighieri (author of The Divine Comedy/Dante's Inferno) was florentine as well, albeit he lived several centuries prior to them.
165 notes
·
View notes
When did Rome fall?
Many historians consider the fall of the Western Roman Empire to have been when the emperor Romulus Augustulus abdicated, but not all historians agree.
The "Fall of Rome" usually refers to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century A.D. But historians don't agree about the exact date, nor about its causes. And some historians argue that the Roman Empire lasted until it fell in the East, centuries later.
At its height around A.D. 100, the Roman Empire stretched from modern Britain, France and much of Germany in the northwest to Egypt, Israel and Jordan in the southeast, and from what are now Morocco and Spain to Romania, Armenia and Iraq. Later emperors divided it into more manageable pieces, resulting in the Western and Eastern Roman Empires. But by the end of the fifth century A.D., the Western Roman Empire, from Britain to Italy, had collapsed and been replaced by a patchwork of "barbarian" kingdoms.
"Part fell to invaders, and part disintegrated," Bryan Ward-Perkins, a historian at the University of Oxford and author of "The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization" (Oxford University Press, 2006),said in an email. "What difference this made to people on the ground is disputed."
SACK OF ROME, A.D. 410
Some historians regard Aug. 24, 410, as the decisive date of the fall of Rome. On this date, an army of Visigoths sacked the city of Rome — the first time since it had been overrun by Gauls during the early Roman Republic, almost 800 years earlier. The Visigoths (Western Goths) had fled the Huns' invasions of Eastern Europe in the fourth century. But in 378, after defeating a Roman army at the Battle of Adrianople (now Edirne, Turkey), the Visigoths were given lands on the empire's northern border to control and guard themselves from invaders. However, a few decades later, they again began marauding the empire; in 408, they invaded Italy, and in 410, they besieged and sacked Rome.
By this time, the Roman Empire was centered in Constantinople in the east, and even Western Roman emperors lived in Milan (then called Mediolanum) or Ravenna in northern Italy. But Rome was the "eternal city" and the sacred heart of the empire, and many of the empire’s inhabitants saw this as the end. "The cultural shock was resounding … but the practical impact seems limited," William Bowden, a professor of Roman archaeology at the University of Nottingham in the United Kingdom, said.
As city sackings go, it doesn't sound too bad: Many famous monuments and buildings were untouched, and because the Visigoths were Christians, they allowed people to take refuge in churches. The Visigoths withdrew from Italy a few years later.
ABDICATION OF ROMULUS AUGUSTULUS, A.D. 476
Some historians regard the formal end of the Western Roman Empire as taking place decades later, on Sept. 4, 476, when Odoacer, the first barbarian king of Italy, forced the young emperor Romulus Augustulus to abdicate. Odoacer had been a Roman general of Germanic descent who professed loyalty to the Eastern Roman emperor, and he took Romulus captive at Ravenna after defeating the 16-year-old's father in battle. Odoacer didn't kill Romulus, however; because of his youth, he was instead given a pension and sent to live with relatives. (Odoacer ruled from Ravenna until 493, when he was killed by an invading Ostrogoth — Eastern Goth — army under their leader, Theodoric the Great, who established a powerful new kingdom in Italy.)
"It's kind of an important moment," Peter Heather, a historian at King's College London and author of "The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians" (Oxford University Press, 2007) said. "Odoacer sent the imperial vestments of the West back to Constantinople, along with delegation from the Senate of Rome, and the delegation says, 'There's no longer any need for an emperor in the West.'"
By this time, many regions of the Western empire were already effectively independent kingdoms, but "if you're looking for a symbolic moment, it's a pretty good one," Heather said.
EMPIRE IN THE EAST
By the fifth century A.D., however, the focus of the empire had shifted east to Constantinople, now Istanbul. Once the Greek city of Byzantium, the city was rebuilt in A.D. 330 by the emperor Constantine the Great, who transferred the imperial capital to his "New Rome."
"My own view is that the eastern half of the Roman Empire is still the Roman Empire," Heather said. "It's not unchanging, but there is a sort of continuity of change, not any great rupture."
Although Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453, Heather sees its decline in the Arab invasions from 632 until 661, when they captured Egypt, the Levant, and parts of Anatolia from the Eastern Roman Empire. "The Arabs take about three-quarters of the empire's revenue and about three-quarters of its territory," he said. "It's a totally different kind of entity after the Arab conquest. … it reduces the empire from a global power to a regional power."
By Tom Metcalfe.
41 notes
·
View notes
its not about kink you fucking moron
So you honestly believe someone is going to give his slave [someone made to work against their will and considered to be the slave-owner's personal property, which is a horrible thing and should ALWAYS be illegal as a violation of basic human rights] an engraved golden collar worth more than any other Roman citizen, even the richest ones, could hope to add to their own wealth in a year? And that they would never possibly give such a valuable piece of jewelry, essentially, to their Slave [willing participant in certain adult activities, which is the business of consenting adults in their own private places and sometimes parties or shows for that sort of thing and should not ever be illegal, as the government should not be in the business of dictating anyone's consent in those activities]?
Let me guess, kink hadn't been invented yet back then, which I'm sure somehow explains some of the rather kinky historical art from that time. Have you considered that there may be cultural differences between, say, plantation owners using slaves to pick cotton in the US/POC arrested and imprisoned under some absolutely clown-ass laws and worked for free under the US prison system vs. the system in ancient Rome in which entertainment in the arena were frequently done by slaves, in fact MOSTLY by slaves, who had signed up for that work? See, it simply meant someone who wasn't getting paid directly in coin, however, training and fame were payment options. Back under that system, if you wanted to gain fame and other perks in the arena, you could sign up as a slave to one of the richer citizens of Rome in exchange for training under other famous Gladiators. And it was even common enough for the highest earning Gladiators who had won enough fights to be presented with a wooden sword by their master, symbolizing freedom, and they could choose to retire or keep fighting as a free man, either as a trainer for their former master, for another slave-owner, or on their own if they could afford the villa, equipment, food, services and entry as an owner of Gladiators. Generally, you wouldn't call gym membership, training, and a chance to become a world-famous wrestler slavery today, but it's much the same thing now, minus the guaranteed food, shelter, medical care, and other perks they used to get as slaves.
The Greeks were popular slaves back then, too, as they were considered to be very highly educated and quite good at accounting, speech writing, and excellent at political science. As slaves, they were given rooms in the family home, food, fine clothing, and other perks, including the ability to discuss politics with their master, if perhaps their master happened to be in the Senate, similar to unpaid interns and activists in Washington, DC, only now they don't live with politicians or get gifts for their work (instead the politicians get gifts, usually referred to as bribes by people outside of politics). Imagine the looks you'd get if you claimed Obama started off as a slave on his path to becoming President, and yet he was an activist at one time, and as an activist, worked for others, sometime voluntarily (unpaid).
Sex work was also done by slaves, and if a rich guy who could afford it found a woman or man particularly interesting and they were willing, he could very well buy their contract out and add them to the household. Slavery meant different things in different cultures and has changed in meaning over time.
Maybe go study World History using credible sources and stop getting all your information from booktok.
6 notes
·
View notes