• ApeNo1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      2 days ago

      “We ordered a bunch of flatbreads topped with cheese, honey, and fruit for anyone who stays back late tonight.”

      • matlag@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        24 hours ago

        “Uh oh! Errr… chief! Bad news! How to say it… hmm… Now I get why someone was proposing to build the bakery first…”

      • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Beneath a shady tree, the hero spread
        His table on the turf, with cakes of bread;
        And, with his chiefs, on forest fruits he fed.
        They sate; and, (not without the god’s command,)
        Their homely fare dispatch’d, the hungry band
        Invade their trenchers next, and soon devour,
        To mend the scanty meal, their cakes of flour.
        Ascanius this observ’d, and smiling said:
        “See, we devour the plates on which we fed.”

        • tetris11@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          2 days ago

          Also, guys - guys - we don’t have to do everything the greeks did, okay? Like, maybe we just drink the wine as is, and don’t bother watering it down?

    • DagwoodIII@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      The Romans.

      There were a bunch of people living in the area, farming and worshipping the gods, who shared similar values and felt a certain unity. Those folks got together and started building a city.

      • onionguy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        But they weren’t romans tho, they only became romans when someone called the place “Rome” So in order for them to be called romans, they mustve vuilt the place and then named it. Before that they were called sth else.

        • DagwoodIII@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

          There were plenty of people living in the New England colonies before they started referring to themselves as ‘Americans.’

        • tyrefyre@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Maybe they called themselves Romans and were like hey what should we name our city? How about we name it after ourselves and call it “Rome”

          • Uruanna@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            “Ii’ve got a better idea” - Remus

            “Not if I have something to say about it” - Romulus

      • lugal@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        The question is if they were considered and/or identified as Romans before there was a city called Rome

          • lugal@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            24 hours ago

            What does that mean to you? What is the essence of being Roman that preexisted the name?

            • DaleGribble88@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              21 hours ago

              Would a rose by any other name not smell just as sweet? And more importantly, would a rose still smell if there was no one around to sniff?

              • lugal@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 hours ago

                That doesn’t answer the question because all roses belong to the genus “Rosa”. So there is a common ancestor of all roses and every plant descendent of that ancestor is a rose by definition. I ask you for a definition of Roman that exists independent of the word and you have me an example that does have a definition that exists independent of people using the word. Romans, on the other hand are biologically indistinguishable from other humans. They look, smell and taste the same (allegedly).

                The difference is that Roman is an identity marker and therefore a social construct. That doesn’t mean it’s not real. It’s like asking for a home no one ever lived in. Before construction, there is no house, just stone or wood or what ever. You could point to a cave and say “that could be a home” but it’s not a home unless someone lives there. A home doesn’t exist outside social reality. It might have different names but it needs humans it identity it as such.

                For identity markers, the name is much more tied to the construct. The name can change tho. The first Christians didn’t identify as such. In fact, the word started as an insult and was later reclaimed. But you can trace back a social group that later grew to identity as Christians.

                It’s not that a social group came to decide they need a city and than built Rome and live there happily ever after. I’m not sure but I guess it was a settlement that grew or sever settlements that merged or something but at no point was there a social group that meaningfully preexisted the city.

                Same with modern nationalities. There is nothing biological that differentiates Germans from its neighbors. Just a nation state that invented German identity and everything distinctly German came later.