I heard that after Romans devastated Carthage, they ploughed the place where it once stood 3 times in a roow, and seeded salt there, so nobody would remember about existence of that city. Is it true?
no Romaioktonoi spam please.
Printable View
I heard that after Romans devastated Carthage, they ploughed the place where it once stood 3 times in a roow, and seeded salt there, so nobody would remember about existence of that city. Is it true?
no Romaioktonoi spam please.
There is no historical documentation stating that Rome salted the ground of Carthage after the Third Punic War. In all actuality; Carthage became a wealthy province of Rome and flourished for hundreds of years.
Salting te ground means to deprive the soil from nutrition and kill of floral life, but apparently the ROmans didn't know that what they do is replenish the soil sodium ionic pressure, and in turns, gave them more ability to withdrawn nutrients (that was indirectly coming from the corpses and dead plants), it was not a good things for the ROmans either, as salt was expensive...
~Sonic (ROMA VICTRIX! :clown: die Carthaginian scums!)
If you have access to Jstor there is a wonderful article which explains the origins of the myth, and how it's been taken for granted for so long. It's called To be Taken with a Pinch of Salt: The Destruction of Carthage
If you can't access Jstor then I would happy to email it to you.
Somewhere i read something similar to that, but anyway i would like to read that article you mentioned. Care to share a link? :)Quote:
If you have access to Jstor there is a wonderful article which explains the origins of the myth, and how it's been taken for granted for so long. It's called To be Taken with a Pinch of Salt: The Destruction of Carthage
Quote:
no Romaioktonoi spam please.
Now isn't that ironic?Quote:
(ROMA VICTRIX! die Carthaginian scums!)
Only if you unethically juxtapose the two quotes that in reality have two very different sources/authors...then yes, it is ironic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebivjetar
I'd like to read that article as well. It makes sense in hindsight I suppose, but I had never heard before of the connection between the "pinch of salt" expression and the myth of the salting of Carthage.
I don't think there is one - I think that's just the author making a play on words to create a clever title.Quote:
but I had never heard before of the connection between the "pinch of salt" expression and the myth of the salting of Carthage.
ehm...kind of. Carthage did become a wealthy province, but that was 100 years later. It was completely annihilated in the war and was uninhabited for quite some time. IIRC, Caius Gracchus tried to start a colony there, but it never really got off the ground, and the city of Carthage wasn't rehabilitated until Caesar founded a colony there. -MQuote:
There is no historical documentation stating that Rome salted the ground of Carthage after the Third Punic War. In all actuality; Carthage became a wealthy province of Rome and flourished for hundreds of years.
Lol... I'm starting nothing here, but if no romaioktonoi spams are allowed, no barbarophiloi should be neither... I agree with Jebi... how ironic!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic
now on subject, it is true that a link would be interesting to the article! it pinched my curiosity!
The sowing with salt was most likely a poetic expression of the fact that Carthage would never be able to rise again.
It is possible that Scipio Aemilianus symbolically threw some salt into the ground but it never was meant to be taken literally.
Salt was extremely valuable at the time and according to Pliny the elder actually used as a mean of payment for a time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary#..._word_salarium
If we are about to involve some ethics in here (if we really, but really ought to do that): there's nothing more ethical than to unmask the latent and so called "antiromaioktonoi" spam in this forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
why is this thread a poll?
Even if we ignore the fact that you shamelessly took those quotes out of context, how exactly is that ethical? I see no ethical system behind your actions, just an attempt to start something when Qvintvs asked us all not to. Also, I don't think you can realistically claim that "ROMA VICTRIX" was an explicit attempt to aggravate the Romaioktonoi. He was simply saying Rome is Victorious, which could be taken badly, certainly, but is not an explicit attack on the Romaioktonoi. -MQuote:
Originally Posted by Jebivjetar
Yes, let's drop the pro-/anti-Romaioktonoi debate and go back to the matter at hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duguntz
:focus:
I also say its just a myth, since the Romans wouldn't have been foolish enough to ruin all the soil around carthage - they turned it into one of there breadbeaskets later on and salt was quite valuiable at the time.
I was pointing at the statement "Die Carthaginian scums". Let me put it this way (i hope that you will be able to understand my point better then): in case if someone have typed "Die Romaioi scum!", that would be considered a spam. Or wouldn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulceber
Now, as the old saying goes: you do the math.
A fair point - although you didn't need to elaborate. Simply saying that you were referring to the "die Carthaginian scum" line would be enough. I just didn't notice that line so much since the all-capital-letters "Roma Victrix" drew my attention. -M
Ok. Enough.
I usually don't step in this kind of stuff but now it's going too far.
I don't care about romaioi or romaioktonoi, Carthaginian history goes far beyond its conflict with Rome and as flashy and enticing it might be (I'm not immune to the charms of the barcids either) it would be like reducing (with the due adjustments) German and French history to the world wars.
Cato's party (and the greedy newly rich class that used him as flagbearer in the senate) aside neither faction intended to raze the other to the ground.
To put it on the point of view of the protagonists after Zama:
- Scipio Africanus saw Carthage as the stone that would keep Rome's edge sharp in the future
- Hannibal had a similar view about Rome in case of victory, and in defeat he was the one that told the more warlike senators in Carthage to shut up and prepare to work on rebuilding their fortunes
So, who are we after over 2000 years to go and use such a football fan attitude in what was at the time a conflict of almost unseen proportion?
Usless statement... following your order of ideas : who are we to speak about anything that occured in the far past as we can't obviously step in their shoes for the simple that their view of the world, conflicts and how to resolve them were made in a state of mind and ideas that we will never be able to see or reproduce? in order to justly talk about history we should see the world threw the eyes of those we're speaking about, which is, of corse i'm possible.
so yes, we have all right to speak about Cartage and Romes conflict following our own opinion and today's known fact about those two protagonists. Let's face it. history of a people, nowadays, is only based on the personal opinion that historians have about them! we blindly listen to DEDUCTIONS that scientifics make after a discovery...
Just think about it logically for a minute.....Salt was extremely valuable (undeniable). Just think how much you would actually really need, to even make a dent in the agricultural capacity of a huge city like Carthage, which had extensive farmland. Tons, and tons and tons of the stuff. Fleets worth. Even then, the land recovers reasonably quickly, left to nature's own devices. And as we all know, even the better and more honest historians of the time, have to be taken with a large pinch of salt ;)
You know, we do have sources that recorded each protagonist attitude on the matter and it was not total annihilation.
You can look at Hannibal's treaty with Macedon or Polybius to see the scipionic side.
One can of course look at history and argue about it but there's a world of difference between arguing and useless statements like the ones that already appeared in this thread and routinely do in every one about Rome and Carthage.
Both empires left their mark in history and hostorians can barely estimate how much knowledge (not to mention human lives) was lost when their capitals were razed.
I see, sonic try to got a chemistry logical consequence, if those salting things was taken as real thing. But those "roma victrix" line was arguably just in line side jokes, since we could imagine those soldiers tasked to spread the salt will swear "die carthaginian scums" because they think that was a tad stupidity of their roman general, throwin such expensive thing away was pointless, but try to take some salt inside their pocket will made themself executed for corruption. It was ancient equivalent with you tasked to use $ 100000000 of real $1 banknotes for burn an enemy capital city that your gov displease with. I bet you'll sworn the same coz if u take teh bucks, you will got disciplinary punishment.
I'm sorry I should have clarified; the "pinch of salt" is just part of the title to make it catchy. It doesn't say anything about the expression.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
Here you go.
And on rapidshare.
Thank you, MButcher!
Btw i can understand both Zarax's and Dugunz's approaches to history. I wold say that Dugunz approaches to the phenomena of history in a manner of, like Nietzsche said, critical point of view. And he's right: the history belongs to humans, and we have the right to criticize history and make our own value judgments concerning historical events, persons etc. because that same history involves itself in our everyday lives (indirectly, but it does involves).
Zarax stands on a monumental point of view, he sees the past events as a valuables independent on us, humans of today, and in this sense he puts values of historical events as something we, people of today, can not judge. That kind of approach is also legitimate one.
Anyway, if someone is interested in Nietzsche's tematization of history, and wants to approach the phenomena of history in a theoretical way, i'd suggest this book: http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/Nietzsche/history.htm
Sry for OT, but it's not a spam, although Jebi is a proud Romaioktonos :knight:
That's actually really interesting. But I don't think Zarax was making a broad statement about our relation to history, but was rather objecting to the callous way this monumental and serious conflict was being discussed. If that's the case, then I absolutely agree with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebivjetar
But I don't want to put words in his mouth, so we should probably just wait for him to clarify :juggle2:
My point is to simply stop the bloody cheerleading attitude on the subject and see it from a more rational point of view.
@Nobo: i've just found that the direction of this discussion became appropriate for me to involve some philosophy in it. That's all.
I'm not complaining, I really did think it was interestingQuote:
Originally Posted by Jebivjetar
It's not impossible to resolve what was happening, how it was happening, and why it was happening in a certain location at a certain time in history. Humans aren't helpless when it comes to consciously fighting prejudices and modern contexts.
And Jebi, if you're "a proud Romaioktonos", then you are ten times a proud Neitzsche-philos, if I know you at all. :laugh4:
I was just about to say that....Quote:
Originally Posted by anubis88
Is it going anywhere at all? I think not.
Back on topic or let it die, thank you.