Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink
Rome: The greatest ever?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by blackjackreviewtime (U7153099) on Wednesday, 17th January 2007
Hi,
Dear reader,
Just want to introduce myself as a student. I love Rome and am extremely interested in anyone's opinion of it. Were they really the greatest people of all time? -
Message 2
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 17th January 2007
Hi blackjackreviewtime,
Like you I love Rome, but I think it's going to be hard to claim anyone as the greatest people of all time and be objective. But it is definitely safe to say that the Romans were miles better than the Greeks and could have had Alexander the Great in a fight any time...
Now as far as stupidest people go, I'd like to nominate the people of Easter Island for chopping down all their trees to move statues without realising that you can't make boats out of stones....
Cheers,
RF -
Message 3
Posted by irene (U2450323) on Thursday, 18th January 2007
The Romans.
I don't know if they were really the greatest people of all time but they were certainly the most famous. Look at their Empire for a start, look at their armies. Look at their achievements in war, in buildings, in organisation. They would fight a country & say "Give in & we will bring you our civilisation, if you don't surrender to us then you will be crushed" and this is exactly what did happen. You will guess by now that I am a great fan of Ancient Rome. Salve. -
Message 4
Posted by U2280797 (U2280797) on Thursday, 18th January 2007
Bit like the Japanese, only without the charm? Good at viaducts, lavatories and (in one or two cases - Horace, Catullus) poetry. Main sport watching people killing one another and/or animals. There's LOVELY!
-
Message 5
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Thursday, 18th January 2007
If the definition of greatest means best at crushing their neighbours and destroying any civilisation that wasn't Roman, then, yes, they were great.
Romans were very practical and excellent engineers but compared to the Greeks, where were their mathematicians and philosophers?
If building monumental structures, conquering neighbours and wiping out enemies in a bloodthirsty way is a definition of greatness, then do the Aztecs not beat the Romans? They took bloodthirsty slaughter to levels the Romans never dreamed of.
For those who think greatness is perhaps more than military sucess, other civilisations achieved great things but are less well known in western Europe. The Chinese had a highly sophisticated civilisation for many centuries. -
Message 6
Posted by blackjackreviewtime (U7153099) on Friday, 19th January 2007
thanks for the feedback,
but were the greeks realy as skilled in their buildings? It's true that they had brilliant mathematicians, but could they survive? -
Message 7
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Saturday, 20th January 2007
Have you never seen the Parthenon? The Romans learned about monumental building from the Greeks.
Militarily, the Greeks were outclassed by the Romans, of course, but in terms of the advancement of civilisaitn, I don't think the Romans have much to their credit. After all, what did the Romans ever do for us? -
Message 8
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Saturday, 20th January 2007
TonyG, as to building, the Romans invented concrete (or, if not actually invented it, produced a form of it that could be widely applied). The monuments left by the Romans far outweigh those left by the Greeks.
You mention the Chinese, but what did THEY ever produce in their 5000 year civilisation? Gunpowder, foot binding, earthquake detectors. On the last one of much use.
Still, I am almost wholly ignorant of Chinese civilisation, so perhaps somebody will put me in my place. -
Message 9
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Saturday, 20th January 2007
blackjack, I have long been interested in the Ancient Romans, and have thought a great deal about their contribution to civilisation. The first thing to say is that nobody can be called 'the greatest people of all time'. What does that mean, under what criteria can you make such a judgement? I take it as a given that all people are equal, and we only judge people's ACTIONS as good or bad.
To cut to the chase, I have decided that the Romans were, basically, fascists, ie they ruled by force. The word 'force' does not quite convey the extreme brutality with which they conquered nation after nation. (Prime examples, Dacia was ethnically cleansed, the state of Israel was destroyed and emptied of most of its people). Many prisoners of war suffered inventive tortures before being murdered in the arena for public entertainment.
My basic philosophy is that all individuals should as far as possible be allowed to live in their own way, so long as they do not harm others. The Romans went against this simple rule, imposing, by force, their will on whole nations, enslaving millions and bleeding the millions who were left free in taxes. On the other hand, they were little worse than almost every other civilisation on the planet at this time, just that they were able to do these things on a much larger scale than most.
Moreover, millions were able to prosper as never before as an enforced peace and a huge market enabled the economy to grow. Municipal building expanded more than ever. Archaeological evidence indicates that the area of land under agriculture, the export of goods, the length of roads and the size of cities, all became larger in the second century than they would be for at least another 1000 years, and probably more like 1600 years.
It may be said that the Roman civilisation might have been able to prosper in the following centuries had they not had to undertake the huge and costly task, lasting centuries, of fighting the invading barbarians. But my own view is that the basic problem was that the economic system which the Romans imposed was too crushing and caused farmers to abandon their land, in many cases. Thus the base upon which the whole system was built ie the agriculture that provided the food to keep everybody, including officials and army, alive, slowly withered.
On the other hand, maybe I am wrong. Fascinating subject isn't it? -
Message 10
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Saturday, 20th January 2007
RF
"But it is definitely safe to say that the Romans were miles better than the Greeks and could have had Alexander the Great in a fight any time."
If we are talking about a Roman army of the time of Alexander then I believe they would have lost due to their lack of cavalry, both quality and quantity.
Tim -
Message 11
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Sunday, 21st January 2007
What did the Romans give us you say? They gave us politics, law, military tactics, philisophical thought, medical knowledge, architecture, poetry, RELIGION, the histories of Tacitus and Livy, and the list goes on and on.
-
Message 12
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 21st January 2007
I'm not saying the Romans didn't leave a lot to influence western Europe. The quesiton was whether they were the greatest civilisation ever. There is a huge amount to admire about the Romans, but we also have to recognise that their empire was built on brutality and conquest and while they certainly had poets, historians, law-makers and politicians, I would disagree about philosophy and religion. Roman religion was largely based on the Greek panthen, and other religions such as Mithraism came from the east.
I am not aware of a Roman philosopher who could stand alongside Epicurus, Plato or Socrtaes, to name but three; or a Roman mathematician who could be favourably compared with Pythagoras or Archimedes. Modern medical terms are almost all based on Greek.
As for Roman remains being more plentiful than Greek that is largely becasue the Romans built over a lot of Greek cities when they conquered them. However, while the Romans were superb buildiers, their monumental buildings were mostly built using the basic structures develope dby the Greeks. The Colosseum, for example, has three tiers, each with different types of column on the facade: Doric, Ionian and Corinthian. All originally Greek styles.
As for military prowess, Tim is quite correct that the Romans at the time of Alexander could not have stood against the Greeks / Macedonians. However, by the time of the early empire, there is no doubt the Roman army was the most efficient the world had seen. Unfortunateky, it's a bit like arguing over whether David Beckham is better than Tom Finney - they are from different eras so any comparison is purely subjective.
I did mention the Chinese a while back and they seem to have been dismissed. While I am no expert on Chinese culture, I would submit that the Great Wall must stand favourable comparison against any similar object. As well as ginpowder, the Chinese also gave us Taoism, Confucianism, silk, paper, and, much to Marco Polo's astonishment, invented paper money centuries before Europe. The Chinese empire also lasted a lot longer than th eRoman one did (unless you want to count the Byzantines as Romans). Again, I am not saying the Chinese were a greater civilisation, just that there are different criteria for judging and we are too ignorant of most civilisations simply because the Romans are the greatest influence on us by virtue of geography. -
Message 13
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 22nd January 2007
Hi Tim,
If we are talking about a Roman army of the time of Alexander then I believe they would have lost due to their lack of cavalry, both quality and quantity.Ìý
Apart from the fact they took the easy way out by heading east, those silly hats the Macedonians barbarians wore would have caused them real problems...
RF
p.s. Where is E_Nik? Haven't seen him around for quite some time
-
Message 14
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 22nd January 2007
Hi Fascinating,
You mention the Chinese, but what did THEY ever produce in their 5000 year civilisation? Gunpowder, foot binding, earthquake detectors. On the last one of much use.Ìý
Well, the Chinese could knock up a bloody long wall. Mind you, it wasn't half as straight as the Romans would have built it though.
Cheers,
RF -
Message 15
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 22nd January 2007
TonyG, I did not realise that the Chinese gave us ginpowder. I did not even know you could get such stuff, add water, then drink neat gin.
Joking apart, I am of the opinion that gunpowder is the worst invention ever (see the thread about worst inventions). The Chinese may have 'gave us' Taoism and Confuciunism, but do we actually want them? Silk is nice but we could easily do without it, moreover it is not something that the Chinese invented, it is a naturally occuring substance. The only very useful thing on your list is paper - but again, the West did have paper (from papyrus), though of course it was very expensive.
Roman building did do more than the Greeks. I have already written about concrete. The Roman arch allowed much more spacious buildings to be erected. The magnificent aqueducts and city baths which the Romans construced are not seen in Greece before the Romans came.
The Great Wall is amazing, to be sure, but I point out that it is over 1000 years later than the Romans. At that time Europe was constructing great cathedrals, which I like better. The lack of any substantial buildings in China, from any time before 1700, is remarkable. Is there anything at all that has survived intact (with the roof still on) from before then?
The amount of building the Romans did is not matched by any other civilisation, except our own. -
Message 16
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 22nd January 2007
Hi Fascinating,
But my own view is that the basic problem was that the economic system which the Romans imposed was too crushing and caused farmers to abandon their land, in many cases. Thus the base upon which the whole system was built ie the agriculture that provided the food to keep everybody, including officials and army, alive, slowly withered.Ìý
The Romans really screwed themselves up as far as agriculture was concerned during the Republic, and I can't believe that they never seemed to get something so important (yet simple) right. I love the Gracchi brothers (Tiberius & Gaius), but they weren't even the first to confront the agrarian problems that Rome had - it seems to be a common thread in Roman history from the birth of the Republic onwards. Livy's early histories are riddled with tales of patricians and tribunes/plebians arguing over land. A real biggie is when the consul Camillus gave way to the tribunes with the Lex Licinia Sextia in 367BC which limited ownership of public land (Ager Publicus) to 500 iugera - this really came back to haunt them when Tiberius Gracchus was a tribune a few centuries later in 133BC.
When you read the history of Rome from after the 2nd Punic War, it seems so blatantly obvious what a huge problem agricultural land distribution was. Trouble was, almost everyone with influence seemed to be looking after their own interests, what with new territories being conquered/bequeathed, and the influence of the "decadent" Greeks.
For example, I remember reading about Scipio Aemilianus's troops coming back from quite a pretty long service (for a farmer anyway) in Spain in the 150-140sBC and getting paid a pittance for their efforts. Can you imagine coming back after (quite considerable) military service, your small-holding is run-down and overgrown, and all you get given is a few denarii...
Funnily enough, the land did eventually get distributed - but by generals such as Sulla, Marius, and Caesar to their own troops, and in those armies they created the power-bases that ultimately led to the fall of the Republic.
Cheers,
RF (just waffling) -
Message 17
Posted by blackjackreviewtime (U7153099) on Monday, 22nd January 2007
But did they really screw themselves up in agriculture? Think about it: didn't everyone screw up in agriculture, i.e: the greeks? Did anyone succeed in agriculture?
BJ -
Message 18
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 22nd January 2007
" am not aware of a Roman philosopher who could stand alongside Epicurus, Plato or Socrtaes"
Seneca? I'd suggest you read his "On the Shortness of Life", then come back! Well, that's if it hasn't persuaded you to quite your job, sell up and go and have some fun with your life!
Seneca is quality. He didn't practice what he preached though, and wasted too much time on the petty things in life, instead of living.
"When you see a white haired man of seventy years, has he LIVED a long life, or has he merely existed for a long time?" -
Message 19
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 22nd January 2007
Hi blackjackreviewtime,
With the Romans, it's more the distribution of land rather than any lack of agricultural know-how I guess.
In the 2nd Century BC new provinces appeared which required a military presence and there were almost always a good few wars going on - Spain for example took absolutely ages to pacify. Land was the qualification for Roman military service, and if there were fewer peasant landowners then Rome had fewer soldiers. Bit of a crisis really!
But come to think of it, when you ask if anyone succeeded in agriculture, I'm not sure that anybody ever did 100% - but I know nothing about that kind of thing. I suppose the Egyptians could knock up a couple of canals for irrigation, and they always had that double annual harvest from the Nile, but I bet they weren't perfect. Hopefully, somebody else will hopefully come along and show an example of a society that did get agriculture right.
Cheers,
RF -
Message 20
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 22nd January 2007
So long as they didn't get Crassus to dig the canal! His earthworking expertise wasn't too great!
-
Message 21
Posted by U2280797 (U2280797) on Monday, 22nd January 2007
It makes a good game, but it isn't really sensible to compare civilizations, is it - you just think better of the ones who fit your own predelictions?
Rome was extremely militarist, China wasn't; Rome was imitative (of anyone, but mostly of Greece), while China was inventive; Rome was extremely superstitious, and so was China - but I like the Chinese religions better, I think.
Rome was very good at engineering which, given their number system, was quite something, and at history. For myself, I see their philosophy as imitative, but, then, I've always seen philosophy as much inferior to crossword-puzzles as a human activity. China was better at irrigation, at literature (despite some excellent Roman work) and - at least in my own view - at building a lasting civilization.
To me, though, it is the murderous wars, the murderous games and the murderous, self-righteous paternalism that condemn Rome - for all that the Empire gave rise to, and converted to, Christianity.
I once studied Chinese and am now trying to re-learn Latin, so I am at least serious about these issues . -
Message 22
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Monday, 22nd January 2007
By religion, I was refering to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches rather than the pantheon of pagan dieties.
-
Message 23
Posted by blackjackreviewtime (U7153099) on Tuesday, 23rd January 2007
could be. But some of their military inventions were brilliant! They crushed some wars!
-
Message 24
Posted by blackjackreviewtime (U7153099) on Tuesday, 23rd January 2007
i personally find them somewhat superior to any other tribe of their time.
-
Message 25
Posted by michalP (U7214484) on Tuesday, 23rd January 2007
Romans were very well technologically developed, I think that thanks to that they were able to be an empire for more then 1000 years.
-
Message 26
Posted by blackjackreviewtime (U7153099) on Tuesday, 23rd January 2007
michalp,
so your saying that the romans survived soley on their technology? You don't think that their army had anything to do with them keeping their empire for that amount of time?
BJ -
Message 27
Posted by michalP (U7214484) on Tuesday, 23rd January 2007
I ment that they developed their agricolture technology, building technology, army technology etc. So the technology helped them develop and be infront of other countryes.
michalP
-
Message 28
Posted by blackjackreviewtime (U7153099) on Wednesday, 24th January 2007
i guess so. So do you agree with roman war tactics such as 'Turtle'.
-
Message 29
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 30
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Thursday, 25th January 2007
For DL,
I must confess I have never read Seneca, so perhaps he is on a par with teh Greek philosophers. Thanks for pointin ghim out. I still think the gereal point stands, though.
As for Roman war tactics, I don't think anyone can argue that they were anything but the best, at least by the time of the late Republic and early Empire. Once they had learned the lessons of Hannibal, their military tactics and organisation generally were superior to all of their enemies except the Parthians where, despite notable victories on either side, it was more of a long-running stalemate. -
Message 31
Posted by MavvyUK (U7234668) on Friday, 26th January 2007
then read it.
-
Message 32
Posted by MavvyUK (U7234668) on Tuesday, 6th February 2007
???
-
Message 33
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 6th February 2007
Hi TonyG,
As soon as the Romans professionalised the army via Marius, they improved considerably as a military force. No longer a militia (for want of a better word) made up of farmers, it became a career. And as for the Parthians, well they just didn't play by the rules. Pretending to run away and then turning on their horses and firing arrows - it's just not cricket is it?
Re: Seneca - I haven't read the book DL recommends, but The Apocolocyntosis is pretty amusing, although this is just him trying to curry favour with Nero by mocking his predecessor Claudius. Always great to read his claim that Claudius's last words were "Oh dear, I believe I've shat myself".
Cicero comes recommended - although DL hates him because he stopped the conspiracy of that baby-eater Catiline from being successful. Not the most original thinker, but his "On Duties" has some really nice stuff in it, and his speeches are legendary - if not actually the most honest and truthful.
Cheers,
RF -
Message 34
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 6th February 2007
Bah!
Cicero, the original example of "All talk and no toga"! He's not a patch on Seneca.
Also RF, Catiline was NOT a baby-eater, he couldn't manage a whole one! Wah wah wah waaaaaaaah! -
Message 35
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Tuesday, 6th February 2007
I have read some of Cicero's legal speeches and, although it was a while ago, I recall being a bit disappointed as I was expecting something brilliant. Mind you, it might have been the translator who was at fault.
I will definitely have a go at Seneca some time in view of your recomeendations, although my backlog of "must read" books is pretty impressive just now. -
Message 36
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 7th February 2007
Tony,
A good translation is available in Penguin's "Great Ideas" series. I've just got hold of "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius from the same set, so will post on here when I've finished that one. -
Message 37
Posted by blackjackreviewtime (U7153099) on Wednesday, 7th February 2007
So back to the subject,
i have a random question:
does anybody know if the Romans knew the effects of electricity? By that I mean did they think electricity was man made or a sign from the gods? Thanks,
BJ -
Message 38
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 7th February 2007
How would they have encountered electricity? If you are thinking of lightning then yes, there expalanation would probably have been something to do with the gods.
I know of no references in ancient writings to electricity. -
Message 39
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 7th February 2007
Most of what I had read above is simply out of the way.
First of all, the question is mistaken. Greeks or Chinese or Indians were distinguishable people (call it 'people', 'nations') while Romans were no specific 'people' but had been a multinational alliance right from their begginings (mainly Italic tribes, some Etruscans and a bit of Greeks that mainly formed the initial patrician families e.g. "Graecchi").
2nd Romans had nowhere near the best army in their times. Their legions were pathetically equipped (non-patrician class legionaires till 1st B.C. century were looking like primitives, the rest were looking like Greek hoplites in bad-quality armour) and trained to simple (yet often effective) methods. Strange? Want a proof? for every Roman glorious victory there is a ridiculous defeat whereas I remember only Romans that managed to lose 50,000 soldiers in one battle against a smaller army (usually battles in ancient times ended in casualties of the level '500 to 5000 men". Romans never managed to outclass Greeks in military terms - in military terms (and not diplomatic-political) they managed to have half a million more soldiers than them! They outclassed though armies of the likes of Celtics etc. against Germanics they came around even and did not manage to do anything about the mighty (yet royal and without Imperial ambitions) Parthians (Persians) who imposed their fighting styles throughout the medieval times in the Empire (and all over Europe, e.g. full chain armour, mounted cataphracts, knights etc.).
In terms of culture Romans brought little innovation: most innovetion came from the east and not accidentally from the greek speaking world - it is not also accidental that despite the first backwards shock of christianism (undoubtfully, an initially backwards and dark religion in terms of culture), the greek speaking Eastern Roman Empire was evolving more in 100 years (and despite all those mighty enemies confronted practically every decade!) than Romans in 200 years. It is just that we simply now nothing (thanks to earthquakes, crusaders and to a lesser degree ottomans).
In terms of organisation it is true that Romans evolved certain structures though even there they just continued from eastern examples - however what we call Roman Law it is actually an Eastern Roman work as its foundations were layed by Justinian and majorly reformed to a form better known to us in the 8th and 1Ã th century.
In terms of science we know few if any scientist, these were simply all of them Greeks.
Now what made them so great? -
Message 40
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 7th February 2007
Their diplomacy!
Yes! They were simply excellent diplomats. They were the faster to understand the needs of their times. They could swell and fit their society into the smaller of the holes. Not surprising for a city that passed through various difficult phases. Unlike the Greek cities, Romans were not a specific nation but rather a city led by certain families (patricians), hence, the latter wuold be only interested in augmenting their power without second thoughts and the easiest way to do that is by augmenting the number of people under control. Greeks generally avoided to ally with foreigners but Romans not only allied but made them eventually Romans. Hence the term of Roman right from the beggining had been vague. This vagueness had been their real power. Anything could changed and altered according to needs, their religion, their history, their beliefs in front of the ideal of power (rome is a greek name of course and means power). -
Message 41
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 7th February 2007
(rome is a greek name of course and means power)
Ìý
E_Nik, you promised you wouldn't do that again! Back of the class, now! And no more silliness! -
Message 42
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 8th February 2007
Hi E_Nik,
Long-time no-see and welcome back! I've missed your pro-hellenic view of the ancient world, and it's good to see a post on a thread on Romans that mentions the word Roman(s) 4 times, and the word Greek(s) 3 times.
Greeks generally avoided to ally with foreigners but Romans not only allied but made them eventually Romans.Ìý
Come on E_Nik, if you're honest, even you must admit the Greeks generally found it hard to ally with each other, never even mind ally with foreigners! It normally took a serious threat before they would stop fighting amongst each other - or a megalomaniac barbarian from Macedon with a Napoleon complex to join them together!
In seriousness, do you see any benefits from the relative peace that Rome brought to the Hellenistic world? For example, I've been reading a couple of early Greek novels recently (Heliodorus and Longus - good stuff!) and can see that the Pax Romana may have given the authors - and their world - a stability that helped assist this advance in literature.
Cheers,
RF -
Message 43
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 8th February 2007
Instead of accusing me of pro-hellenic views you should judge first yourselves on your pro-western views that hinder you from realising what were exactly the Romans (if they were anytime a specific nation or a multinational entity right from the begginning) and the fact that in general the Romans in 500 years of their western-eastern empire produced less than the 1/3rd of innovation that each of the Hellenistic kingdoms produced (equivalent to parts of the Roman Empire) and that again was overwhelmingly thanx to you know who (feel free to accuse me once again, eheheh). The Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire although christian (a negative effect) though a fragment of the Empire and always at wars with enemies of armies 3 and 4 times more numerous and dangerous than what the Romans faced managed to produce more per 100 years - it is just that the effect of earthquakes/various invaders/crusaders/ottomans (in their times most were recycled for the needs of contemporary whataver small scale construction) managed to erase most of it so that you have only Roman bridges (amazing though but then it was Byzantines that had laws forbidding buildings having more than 9 storeys, more than 50% literacy isn't it?).
And to see how I am thick-skinned I ask:
If Roman civilisation was so great and so influential why western Europe remained pathetically behind (cos that was the reality!) for the next 1000 years???
Ahem! -
Message 44
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 8th February 2007
If Roman civilisation was so great and so influential why western Europe remained pathetically behind (cos that was the reality!) for the next 1000 years???
Ìý
It relocated to Greece? -
Message 45
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 8th February 2007
I redress the discussion from the above point to the following (better comment on these):
Roman culture (whatever its origins and influences) was not particularly successful in civilising others as western Europe remained completely uncivilised (based on the average notion on civilisation around the world!) for another nice 1000 years. Hence, it was by no means Rome that civilised western Europe but the Eastern Roman Empire and the Arabs (already greatly influenced by the Eastern Romans).
Roman army was not any bright example of a successful army as it counted for every great victory a pathetic loss. It was good but just not anything exceptional. Romans won usually because of their excellent diplomacy that earned them allies and treacheries among their enemies as well as an endless number of soldiers (even in 200 B.C. they counted half a million, an unheard number for a european army). What they had done repeatedly is keep losing battles and whole armies and winning the whole war since enemies had no other ressources to continue!
Roman science simply did not exist, it was all Greek (Hellenistic if you like) science. Excellent prove, in the Empire you could find science only where you cuold hear Greek, elsewhere technology remained up to the level of a good farming tool and a nice sword.
Roman law was simply Eastern Roman law!
what else remains?
Eeeee, their diplomacy and their politics. That is all I am saying! They progressed really on that field and that is what enabled them to keep their Empire for so long continuously transforming it to the point of becoming directly another entity (Eastern Roman Empire) and continuouing for another 1000 years (double the years of the western eastern empire).
Is there anyone that disagrees with the above points? -
Message 46
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 8th February 2007
anyway the answer was given by Romans themselves: they simply chose to concentrate on the east (and that started before Constantine, e.g. Diocletian).
-
Message 47
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 8th February 2007
Is there anyone that disagrees with the above points?
Ìý
What points?
And what exactly WAS the 'western eastern empire'?
E_Nik, even at the back of the class you can be heard. Samuelson, lend the Greek boy - you ARE Greek, are you not E_Nik? - fine! - lend him your day pass. What? He doesn't understand? Ok, SELL it to him then!
Arkwright, open the door for him. Thanks. What's that? Where? Oh Coventry is nice this time of year, son. Yes, the one named after the Greek Kuventris, during the height of the Roman Empire achieved through diplomacy and outnumbering the natives. Exactly! Have fun!
Ok class, where were we. Ah yes, page 27 of Ovid...
"The Greeks are a load of very dodgy geezers who fancy poetry and talking a lot. Several great generals have subdued them mercilessly in battle but they keep coming back into the fold because let's face it, they're funny (but don't tell them that). One wiseacre has even suggested that we may even move the capital there some day if the supply of males to play our female leads on stage runs out. Could be soon now, what with all this world conquering we've signed up to. Left them at a bit of a loose end that when we started it, by conquering them actually - they said 'not really in the humour for it anymore, and anyway conquering is SOOOOO unphilosophical', reminded us that some Macedonian once did it for them anyway so they've been there, done that, got the Indian tee-shirt (where IS India by the way?), and then went back to practising falsetto." -
Message 48
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 8th February 2007
whatever,
why don't you get back to my points? Perhaps inability to reply to them?
Why do you bother so much about the influence of Greeks in ancient and medieval times? This is known by everyone you did not have to wait for me to tell you such. Here we talk about Romans. One here mentioned the question "where they the best?". I replied and said instantly in most fields no. But in diplomacy they were the best of their times, surpassed only by their successors the Eastern Romans (practically the continuation and dramatic evolution of the same administration) who were in turn overpassed by the English diplomacy.
What is so bad in saying that the best of Romans was their diplomacy? I think this is a great compliment to their civilisation. This is what makes and maintains Empires. One that does not realises that he can maintain his irrelavant points about Roman culture influencing the west (with a 1000 years interval) and about the pure raw military capacity of the Roman army (that was of course particularly good in winning by losing battles). -
Message 49
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 8th February 2007
...the Roman army (that was of course particularly good in winning by losing battles)...
Ìý
I'm not sure your time away has been much help to you E_Nik. If what you claim is true then I must commend you of course on finding out the secret of Rome's efficacy, and a secret moreover that has escaped the scrutiny of historians, archaeologists, military tacticians, Moulin Rouge Can Can girls (just threw them in to liven the bunch up), and well, of course, Romans! Even they thought they were winning the darned things!
I'm not saying it's not a tactic others might have tried - Saddam Hussein springs to mind - but the Romans? The Romans??????
Oh no, now you have me taking you seriously! I told you - Coventry awaits! Enjoy its carnal pleasures! Relax there! Sow the old seeds! Arkwright. Have you superglue in that satchel of yours? Thank god! -
Message 50
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 9th February 2007
I think E_Nik may possibly be referring to the Romans suffering Pyrrhic victories - coincidentally, named after that great militiary tactician from... ummm...
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.