1st century BC practices

It's rather difficult to find practices of European, Asian, and North African cultures and armies in the 1st century BC; I have no clue where to look and where to start looking.

Specifically I'm looking for practices that western morals would find deplorable or controversial, such as slavery, extermination, salting the earth, multiple wives, etc. Mix in homosexuality, abortion, and all those other topics that rile conservatives up for good measure.

Also, I would like to look at the opposite of that. Practices that we do that ancient cultures would find disgusting during their time period.

Finally I'm looking for acts that seem merciful (edit: lenient) to cultures of the 1st century BC time period but would be considered human rights abuses in ours. For example I read somewhere that Julius Ceaser wanted to keep his image of compassionate fellow with the public, but also didn't want to let a revolting city to go unpunished. His solution was to chop off the hands of the males (or fighting men, I forgot) as a deterrent to other would be revolters. I'm sorry I don't have a source for this, I was reading randomly in book and can't remember the title :embarassed:

Thanks in advance.

We live in different times, (un)fortunately.

So true....

Not that I want to be on the receiving end of an extermination policy, but info like this is useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grade_A_Beef

It's rather difficult to find practices of European, Asian, and North African cultures and armies in the 1st century BC; I have no clue where to look and where to start looking.

Specifically I'm looking for practices that western morals would find deplorable or controversial, such as slavery, extermination, salting the earth, multiple wives, etc. Mix in homosexuality, abortion, and all those other topics that rile conservatives up for good measure.

---

most of this is after EB, but as there are next to no mentionings of arab customs, and as Arabs seem to have changed little, I think this is still relevent.

Arabs were tolerant of Nudity:clown:

Arabian peoples (especially arabs themselves) in that era did practice unlimited polygamy, free divorce (divorce without reason), contract-set marriages (where you are married for a definite period of time, purely for sex), drinking raw blood, burying unwanted babies, condoned alcoholism, condoned revenge killings, self mutilation, suicides, clothesripping (where rich rulers would buy expensive silks to wear a day, then burn it and buy more), free-wheeling spending, rampant violence, and animal sacrifice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grade_A_Beef

Also, I would like to look at the opposite of that. Practices that we do that ancient cultures would find disgusting during their time period.

---

well, actually, they'd be disgusted by the lack of circumcision (even pre-islamic arabs did it), lack of muroo'ah (manliness-long story) in modern men, lack of poetic creativity in Arabia, preoccupation with money (they were guilty of it anyways :wall:), lack of generosity, lack of moral and physical courage, lack of family/tribal pride (comparatively speaking), and disrespect/replacement of "traditional" arab values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grade_A_Beef

Finally I'm looking for acts that seem merciful to cultures of the 1st century BC time period but would be considered human rights abuses in ours. For example I read somewhere that Julius Ceaser wanted to keep his image of compassionate fellow with the public, but also didn't want to let a revolting city to go unpunished. His solution was to chop off the hands of the males (or fighting men, I forgot) as a deterrent to other would be revolters. I'm sorry I don't have a source for this, I was reading randomly in book and can't remember the title

---

I don't know of anything merciful by arab standards that isn't merciful by today's standards. heck, some merciful acts from that time are beyond the ability of modern peoples :shrug:
but when they were brutal, they always came down like hell :evil:

Yeah, that's exactly the type of stuff I'm looking for. I'll check up what moo'rah is, and find sources if I can now that I know what to look for. I'm really really bad at research, or searching in general....I'm more of a "finder", the type that stumbles into random info on said subject.

Thanks a lot, and more feedback will be even better =)

Personally, I think our ancestors will be disgusted in today's law, forbid much of us carrying weapons freely on the street... (for notable exception of Romaioi)

My friend, you have a big task ahead of you. I don't know how much you can get specifically from 1st century BC, but you can get quite a bit from the era. I wish I could think of a book that collected all that stuff together, but I'm at a loss.

Your best bet, I think, is to read a lot of Cicero - his letters, his speeches, his books. That should provide some insight into specifically 1st century BC. There will be a lot of little hints of things here and there. Also try Ceasar's De Bella Gallico, which by comparing Roman and Celtic culture should give you an idea. Augustus' writings and Ovid might have a bit here and there as well - Ars Armatoria would be what comes to mind.

Unfortunately, a lot of it would be indirect. You can find a bit more outside the time frame you're looking for though. Also, try The Latin Sexual Vocabulary, which has some info there as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

Also, try The Latin Sexual Vocabulary, which has some info there as well.

---

Mind giving us a link?
:pokemon:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Mind giving us a link?
:pokemon:

---

you can get it off wikipedia. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grade_A_Beef

Yeah, that's exactly the type of stuff I'm looking for. I'll check up what moo'rah is, and find sources if I can now that I know what to look for. I'm really really bad at research, or searching in general....I'm more of a "finder", the type that stumbles into random info on said subject.

Thanks a lot, and more feedback will be even better =)

---

well, now that I have some time, I'll enlighten ye:

muroo'ah literally means "manliness"; its basically everything that is supposed to make the ideal ancient arab man. according to it, a man must have:

-pride in his tribe/state/king.
-absolute loyalty to said tribe and tribe's shaikh (leader), or king or state.
-extreme pride in one's self (must be justifiable pride, otherwise its vanity, and not condoned)
-must be a freewheeling spender on his tribe/women/alcohol*, etc (i.e he must have karam, or generosity)
-must be compassionate, up to a point.
-mst be honest and blunt.
-virility :clown:
-bravery in combat.
-devotion to the old social order and religion. this is tied into tribal loyalty.
-help those who ask for it, even if they are bad. this is known as ighathatu ulmalhoof.


and that's just a few examples of what a man must be like. much of pre-islamic poetry talks about all of these in varying details; men boasted of fighting for a woman, killing a man who slights the tribe/family, etc, drinking, spending, and generosit. hati' at-ta'i could be considered the ideal pre islamic arab: generous, loyal, and kind to everybody.

wait, did I just describe European romantic chivalry? :wall:

*Arabs did put a limit on how much you could drink. drink too much, and you could become a "mufrad", or tribally expelled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

well, now that I have some time, I'll enlighten ye:

muroo'ah literally means "manliness"; its basically everything that is supposed to make the ideal ancient arab man. according to it, a man must have:

-pride in his tribe/state/king.
-absolute loyalty to said tribe and tribe's shaikh (leader), or king or state.
-extreme pride in one's self (must be justifiable pride, otherwise its vanity, and not condoned)
-must be a freewheeling spender on his tribe/women/alcohol*, etc (i.e he must have karam, or generosity)
-must be compassionate, up to a point.
-mst be honest and blunt.
-virility :clown:
-bravery in combat.
-devotion to the old social order and religion. this is tied into tribal loyalty.
-help those who ask for it, even if they are bad. this is known as ighathatu ulmalhoof.


and that's just a few examples of what a man must be like. much of pre-islamic poetry talks about all of these in varying details; men boasted of fighting for a woman, killing a man who slights the tribe/family, etc, drinking, spending, and generosit. hati' at-ta'i could be considered the ideal pre islamic arab: generous, loyal, and kind to everybody.

wait, did I just describe European romantic chivalry? :wall:

*Arabs did put a limit on how much you could drink. drink too much, and you could become a "mufrad", or tribally expelled.

---

Yep an Arab shouldn't drink more than 11 of cups of wine back then IIRC.

I'd say a lot would vary from culture at this time though. In Saba by the first century BC the clan was everything. The king was... well usefull when foreigners attacked. While the Nabataean in the north were making gods of their kings. Though in general they appear to have been men who tought one should be proud on what he has done, yet be humble at the same time. Making fincancial losses was a crime. And they are described to being very devout and faithfull when it comes to pledges, religion, or king/tribe.

Guns require little skill, and kill at long range. Dishonourable.

Not that this kept diverse warrior elites from embracing them with gusto, of course. And by all accounts the things are damn scary.

Anyways, methinks modern sensibilities would have some issues with the bygone times' unproblematic attitude to rape, pillage and torture...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Anyways, methinks modern sensibilities would have some issues with the bygone times' unproblematic attitude to rape, pillage and torture...

---

Ah those were the days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Yep an Arab shouldn't drink more than 11 of cups of wine back then IIRC.

I'd say a lot would vary from culture at this time though. In Saba by the first century BC the clan was everything. The king was... well usefull when foreigners attacked. While the Nabataean in the north were making gods of their kings. Though in general they appear to have been men who tought one should be proud on what he has done, yet be humble at the same time. Making fincancial losses was a crime. And they are described to being very devout and faithfull when it comes to pledges, religion, or king/tribe.

---

making financial losses was indeed a crime in Arabia, provided that the losses were for something pointless or excessive. cases where a person was swindled, spent his money on an emergency, and/or blood money were generally the exception, at least in hijaz and the najd plains. many tribal leaders IIRC were actually cahsh strapped from their generosity:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Though in general they appear to have been men who tought one should be proud on what he has done, yet be humble at the same time

---

hence when I said "justifiable pride". merit of one's work was a huge concept, then and now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

In Saba by the first century BC the clan was everything. The king was... well usefull when foreigners attacked.

---

Isn't that still true for much of that part of the world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Isn't that still true for much of that part of the world?

---

nope, things have changed.

nowadays, you're allowed no more than 0 cups of wine. financial loss is no longer prohibited (not from religion, but lack of care). and nowadays they can't balance pride with humility, so they are either vain c***s or with a serious inferiority syndrome. that last one can be atributed to the past century.

the ideals of preislamic arabia, and early islamic arabia have survived either in only a few people, or is just a hollow ideal to most arabs today.

Quote editted for clarity ^^^.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Quote editted for clarity ^^^.

---

oh, in which case it has still changed. Arabs don't even have the guts to stand up to the rulers (kurds do, and Kuwaitis are the only Arabs who do, or want to). those who do stand up make the mistake of joining terrorists, and the rest don't give a crap who rules them. why do you think Husni mubarak keeps getting away with being reelected with 99% of the popular vote? If arabs cared, Mubarak would be hanging from the nearest tree.:clown:

same applies to most of the "republics" in the Arab world.

Mubarak's got an army (and secret police and whatnot) and isn't afraid to use it, though.
That often puts a damper on people's interest in more proactive approaches to regime changes, unless the rulers treat them seriously horribly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Mubarak's got an army (and secret police and whatnot) and isn't afraid to use it, though.
That often puts a damper on people's interest in more proactive approaches to regime changes, unless the rulers treat them seriously horribly.

---

that too. but judging from the past, Arabs would typically revolt, even ifthe ruler was more "merciful" than husni or bashshar al-asad. I suspect there is a cultural undercurrent of Apathy, especially as I saw some signs of it in Kuwait.

Maybe they've just gotten disillusioned with new bosses who turn out to be just as bad and authoritarian as the ones they replaced ? Probably also the phenomenom that usually happens when the populace feels the governement isn't "for" them but pretty much a gang of greedy thugs at best - they try to ignore it as much as possible and get on with their lives without getting trodden on. Very common in acutely dysfunctional adminstrations, a description which AFAIK covers just about the whole Arab world and most of the Muslim world too.

And pretty much the whole Southern Hemisphere sans Oceania and the South Pole.

Ie. former colonies in general.
...hey...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Maybe they've just gotten disillusioned with new bosses who turn out to be just as bad and authoritarian as the ones they replaced ? Probably also the phenomenom that usually happens when the populace feels the governement isn't "for" them but pretty much a gang of greedy thugs at best - they try to ignore it as much as possible and get on with their lives without getting trodden on. Very common in acutely dysfunctional adminstrations, a description which AFAIK covers just about the whole Arab world and most of the Muslim world too.

---

exactly what I mean. there are actually some sayings in the Arab world regarding this:

"everything to the Arabs is soap" being particularlyfamous. it used to refer to the laid back Arabian behavior, but nowadays it refers to Apathy they now have.:shame:

anyways, are there anymore people here who deal in 1st century customs? I think we here have filled it up with some Ancient Arabian customs and traditions, and even a few modern ones.:beam:

Eh, it's an universal thing. Go ask a random slum-dweller in the mafialand of southern Italy, or the French banlieues, or the American ganglands, what they think of their elected leaders and what the governement has done for them...

The difference is just really if the lack of faith in the regime is limited to the down-and-outs in the bad parts, or ubiquitous.

and thus we blame the muslims while the spanish police keep beating up basque´s for stating their mind and labelling them as terrorists (last elections was actually an exception of a sms awakening to what was really going on when the spanish goverment tryed to imply that the march events/attacks was because of socialist "simpathy" for the basque claims) note: not defending terrorists here but the trufh is that anyone in spain that even dares to speak of basque indepence is labbeled as a terrorist

if it was just in the arab world but i suspect the entire southern europe is rotten with apathy

how can a gangster rule over italy and keep threatning the free press ? even going as far as threatning diplomats from a foreign nation cause a journal printed pictures that he proihibited in his own country and gets elected on the speach that he is changing the law so he doesn´t have to go to jail ?

not to mention portugal the land of the lusos who before never accepted any authority and today get ripped off in their common interest so the prime minister and a few friends can make a few millions in some shaddy deals

but ok lets leave the mediterranean, south america is still a pit hole for autoritharian rule masked under "democracy" wich is no more then a plebocracy rulled by whoever makes the most promisses to the humble and ungry to feed them where rullers ignore the constitution and change it so they can stay in office forever and use that power to either hug the usa to get some profits or then just call themselfs comunists, and start a policy of blame the usa for the leaders stupidity and greed ...

somehow the more information didn´t made the world a better place just made it a place with more envy and more aphaty and disconected people.

Well, i have some Basque blood in me and i would love to see the so wanted independence, but of course terrorism is not the rigth way. It reminds me alot of the case here in Chile, with the Mapuche people and the "Arauco Malleco" (terrorist group) who have made great harm and have created a terrible stereotype (at least here) in their search of independence. But well that´s pretty off topic now, so i will stop here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J.R.M.

Well, i have some Basque blood in me and i would love to see the so wanted independence, but of course terrorism is not the rigth way. It reminds me alot of the case here in Chile, with the Mapuche people and the "Arauco Malleco" (terrorist group) who have made great harm and have created a terrible stereotype (at least here) in their search of independence. But well that´s pretty off topic now, so i will stop here.

---

Sucks, doesn't it? :no:

One bad apple ruins the bunch? Not really, because the uniformity in which we view people groups tends to funnel them into stereotypes easily.