BF2S Forums DAST Chat

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:

Randomness is more galling than anything. In the old days, combat lasted a day or so and you'd expect to be in danger a few days a year. Today, with the IEDs and the mortars and the rockets, it's so fucking random that I can understand if people get a bit shell shocked. I was always fatalistic about it and didn't worry too much, but the randomness of it was what always bothered me most. At least in the old days if you lost you could say (ha, you're dead) that you were beaten by someone stronger/smarter/tougher/quicker.

Not that I have any expertise or experience in the matter at all but this reminds me of something I read a while back about German citizens in the cities during WWII. IIRC what really got to them wasn't constant bombing campaigns, as they became "used" to it and somewhat inured, it was having a few days "break" from the campaign, lulling them into a false sense of hope/safety, and then a sudden and intense return of the bombers. That, apparently, was what they found really unnerving - that sense of unpredictability.

It's easy to be courageous for short spurts when you can see a clear beginning, middle and end. It's much more difficult to maintain that courage in the face of random events

FEOS wrote:

Also keep in mind that, even for "cosmopolitan" Romans, life was much more brutal on a day-to-day basis than it is today.

The tv show Rome gave pretty good insights tbh

Superior Mind wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Also keep in mind that, even for "cosmopolitan" Romans, life was much more brutal on a day-to-day basis than it is today.

Besides poorer medical science how was life in Rome brutal?

Most of the population were slaves? Poor diets. Poor hygiene. Short lifespans. Most people were born, lived and died within a few mile radius so escaping whatever deprivation you were born into was nigh impossible.

Life was pretty cool if you were a senator or rich, and that hasn't changed, but what has dramatically improved is the quality of life for those at the bottom of our own society. Our poor don't have to worry about starving to death. They have access to clothing and shelter. They have entertainment. Hell, we don't even require them to provide any labor in return.

For your average Roman, life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Superior Mind wrote:

Poor diets: Rome had a bounty of grain for its citizens.
Poor hygiene: Yes, but everyone got to bathe at least and everyone enjoyed running public water. (Even though disease was spread in the baths)
Short lifespans: Doesn't mean life is brutal.
There was mobility in Roman society. A slave could become a citizen.

Romans enjoyed circus and gladiatorial games.
Roman trade and military campaigns sent many Romans overseas.

So you're saying that the quality of life for the average person living in Rome was equal to ours today?

Superior Mind wrote:

Not equal, but not necessarily more brutal. Life would have been fairly decent. The differences in Rome's poorest people vs. NY's poorest people are very little.

Mama always said if you didn't have nice things to say, say nothing at all. Adieu.

Superior Mind wrote:

I don't believe I was saying anything not-nice.

Something shifty probably.

Romes poorest were often slaves. I think they had it slightly worse.

Last edited by AussieReaper (2012-02-14 11:43:14)

Roman slaves weren't treated as poorly as American slaves and had the prospect of upward mobility.

jord wrote:

subjectivity is paramount

Relativity*

Because you'd be giving up all the advances and advantages of modern life. What allows you to be a fake philosopher over the internet instead of a scratch farmer is the modern world you seem to take for granted.

Would you trade your life today for the life of an Amish farmer? That Amish farmer is infinitely better off compared to someone from the Roman era. He's got two thousand years of agricultural advancements to lean on. He can use steel for his plow and understands the basis for genetics and natural selection which helps him improve his crops. He understands field rotations and replenishing nitrates. By comparison, the modern farmer can work many thousands more acres than the Amish farmer, which frees up hundreds of people to do other jobs.

You, who have an infinite amount of leisure time, who get high every day, who don't work for a living, can really dare say that he doesn't have it better than a Roman that had to work from sunup to sundown every day for the thirty years of his lifespan? The modern world is built on machines that take the manual labor out of life and allow us to have free time to pursue other things than just putting food in our bellies. Open your eyes before you venture down such utterly retarded lines of thought.

There, that's a better answer than you deserved.

Last edited by Jay (2012-02-14 12:55:23)

The single biggest advance in regards to quality of life has been the migration of people from the farms to the city. Non-industrial life on a farm was hard. Long hours, hard work, and if there's a drought there's a good chance you die. You're comparing a time period where 99% of the people worked in agriculture just to keep themselves alive to a time period where about half of all people live in cities and have been freed from the land. Education, free time, entertainment, these are all things that are possible because we don't spend our lives mucking about in the dirt.




Compare lifespan to urbanization. Amazing.

Even as late as the 19th century (and today in the 3rd world) people die all the time from what in the 1st world would be considered minor stuff.  That's why you had families with 20 children, life was not taken for granted nearly as much as it is today. 

I'm sure plenty of Romans got PTSD, just instead of going back home and living traumatized they were probably left alone and died begging for food/became crazy hermits in the woods.