Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Battle of Alesia

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 97 posts

Re: Battle of Alesia

#81

Post by PeterCorless »

adger wrote: post #49
PeterCorless wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminder: the Franks were Germanic invaders who kicked the Romano-Gaulish in the teeth. This is like Englishmen mourning King Arthur and his Romano-British followers, ignoring that their ancestors were probably more the Hengests and Horsas of the story.

But...Is it not more like Englishmen celebrating Alfred the Great? You know, the Anglo-Saxon leader. A Germanic peoples (Alfred's army was also made up of Britons)

Alfred would not be the correct analogy to Gaul/Rome. The Gauls were "Celtic" like Arthur's Britons. They were both facing invasions.

Alfred's French analogy would be Charles the Simple, who had to fight off the Norse invaders and made a treaty to give them Normandy. Though, it has to be said, Charles the Simple had a much better time of it.

Re: Battle of Alesia

#82

Post by mytailorisrich »

hrktb wrote: post #34
srge wrote: post #3

In France, this event is well known and taught in class (at least it was in the 80's). As I remember it now, this was taught as a bittersweet moment in our history. We united, we were brave and fought a stronger army but still we were defeated and our chief was captured and killed by the enemy. As a result we were colonized and we lost almost all our Celtic culture (Celtic culture remains present notably in Bretagne…

It’s always funny how the Franks are seens as “us”, when looking throught history France has been washed by waves of invasions that all left deep cultural mixes. Going to Normandy nowadays and looking at general public exposition it’s make pretty clear their ancestry is mostly from the Vikings and Nords. In the east it’s also clear that their frenchness is a fluctuating and partial attribute. All around the country,…

The Franks are not depicted as ancestors of the French people in general but rather as the founders of France.

Re: Battle of Alesia

#83

Post by flukus »

rurp wrote: post #80
kirrent wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"laying the groundwork for his eventual emperorship". Worth pointing out that Julius Caesar was never emperor and its difficult to say that he really aspired to such a position. Yes, he was dictator for life but Sulla had fairly recently been appointed dictator with no time limit applied so that wasn't without precedent. Working out what could have happened of he hadn't been assassinated is difficult. Did he take on…

True, but you could say similar things about his successor Augustus. He was outwardly modest and merely referred to himself as "First Citizen", not dictator. But for all practical purposes he was an emperor that ruled for decades. There was a whole PR strategy related to this that went on for centuries. Many of the rulers after Julius Caesar talked about restoring power to senate and/or the citizens, and downplayed t…

From what I understand one big difference between Caesar and Augustus was that Caeser had a fairly sizable domestic agenda with a list of reforms that had been building up and getting frustrated for decades, so it's possible/plausible he was planning to retire once this was accomplished. As far as I know Augustus never had such firm plan aside from consolidating power.

But understanding the domestic politics of the time certainly isn't easy, it's hard enough to understand the internal politics of another country today but throw in a radically different set of political structures and issues.

Re: Battle of Alesia

#84

Post by PeterCorless »

ryutin wrote: post #79
PeterCorless wrote: post #41

How has no one pointed out this awesome boardgame yet? https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1430/caesar-epic-battle-...

This is one of my all time favorites. Is there a internet or computerized version of this yet ?

http://www.vassalengine.org/wiki/Module:Caesar:_Epic_Battle_...

Re: Battle of Alesia

#85

Post by mongol »

nemo1618 wrote: post #11

Reading this made me realize how little Roman history I know. What's the best source for learning about the major people and events of that era? EDIT: I guess what I'm really looking for is a hierarchy of topics, starting extremely broad (e.g. Roman Republic vs. Roman Empire) and drilling down into individual people and events. In other words, I want to do a breadth-first traversal, rather than depth-first.

I recommend the TV series "I Claudius". Of course, you can read it as books as well, but I enjoyed the series. The books I have not read. Of course, it only covers a limited period of Roman history, but one that is quite famous.

Re: Battle of Alesia

#86

Post by hrktb »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #82
hrktb wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s always funny how the Franks are seens as “us”, when looking throught history France has been washed by waves of invasions that all left deep cultural mixes. Going to Normandy nowadays and looking at general public exposition it’s make pretty clear their ancestry is mostly from the Vikings and Nords. In the east it’s also clear that their frenchness is a fluctuating and partial attribute. All around the country,…

The Franks are not depicted as ancestors of the French people in general but rather as the founders of France.

Sorry I mixed up Franks and Gaulois, which are two different things altogether.

The part I had in mind is the old “our ancestors, the gaulois” which is not taught as is anymore, but still stays very present in the minds through an almost exclusive focus on Gaulois’ side when depicting that time period (not just fantasy depictions like Asterix, but also a lot of documentaries and reconstitutions funded publicly)

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nos_ancêtres_les_Gaulois

Re: Battle of Alesia

#87

Post by greggyb »

kirrent wrote: post #72
greggyb wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's plenty interesting. The sophistication of Roman siege warfare. There is an entrenched enemy. Caesar's legions build miles of fortification to surround and starve out the enemy. Many more enemies come to break the siege. Caesar's legions build second miles long fortification, around the first. It is a defining moment in Caesar's rise to fame and infamy, laying the groundwork for his eventual emperorshi…

"laying the groundwork for his eventual emperorship". Worth pointing out that Julius Caesar was never emperor and its difficult to say that he really aspired to such a position. Yes, he was dictator for life but Sulla had fairly recently been appointed dictator with no time limit applied so that wasn't without precedent. Working out what could have happened of he hadn't been assassinated is difficult. Did he take on…

Ah, thanks! I am a little embarrassed. I translated so much Caesar in Latin class. Oh well, it turns out you lose it if you don't use it.

Thanks for the correction and detail.

Re: Battle of Alesia

#88

Post by abrowne »

senderista wrote: post #54
srge wrote: post #3

In France, this event is well known and taught in class (at least it was in the 80's). As I remember it now, this was taught as a bittersweet moment in our history. We united, we were brave and fought a stronger army but still we were defeated and our chief was captured and killed by the enemy. As a result we were colonized and we lost almost all our Celtic culture (Celtic culture remains present notably in Bretagne…

Isn't Breton culture really rooted in ancient Cornish culture, not the historical continental Celtic culture?

Very roughly, Britons were the main population in southern Great Britain (roughly England, Wales and Scotland to the Firth of Forth), but were "squeezed" during the Anglo-Saxon settlement into more isolated pockets — Cumbria, Wales, Cornwall — and some crossed over to Brittany. How much of of the "squeeze" was population replacement as opposed to languistic and cultural change is up for debate.

Re: Battle of Alesia

#89

Post by rsynnott »

adamch wrote: post #37
nemo1618 wrote: post #11

Reading this made me realize how little Roman history I know. What's the best source for learning about the major people and events of that era? EDIT: I guess what I'm really looking for is a hierarchy of topics, starting extremely broad (e.g. Roman Republic vs. Roman Empire) and drilling down into individual people and events. In other words, I want to do a breadth-first traversal, rather than depth-first.

The Masters of Rome novels by Colleen McCullough are historically accurate, incredibly dramatic, gripping and realistic. They tell the story of Rome from the birth of Caesar in the Republic to the ascension of his successor Augustus in the Empire.

Historically accurate-ish; she’s clear in her author’s notes that she created some characters to fill gaps. Would second the recommendation, though. The major events are generally real enough, and it’s a compelling way to read about it.

Re: Battle of Alesia

#90

Post by rurban »

quotemstr wrote: post #63
PeterCorless wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tacitus.

Who remains one of the world's great historians. Sometimes we read old books because we want to understand how these books influenced the course of thought. But sometimes, old books are just genuinely good in their own right and would be just as good if published today: Aristotle, Thucydides, Tacitus, Aeschylus, and a bunch of other authors fit this latter mold. I wish more people read them.

But in this case I preferred Caesars book about the battle. Caesar had a very clear and engineer-like writing style, compared to Tacitus.
Post reply on HN