Rome or Greece

[ShadesWolf]

So what do you think had more influence?

and which do you prefer?

[CountArach]

Influence on what?

I am studying both at Uni but I personally find Rome to be much more interesting, though only the Republican period.

[Weebeast]

It's like a domino thing. Rome piece might have knocked over more pieces but Rome was knocked over by Greece hard.

Prefer what? The scenery? The women? The language? The mythology/lore? The last one I prefer Greece cus she got Athena and Artemis. Roman goddesses were barely even half-cool compared to my own mother.

[Prince Cobra]

I would rather go for Rome. Whilst Romans were great imitators, they managed to adopt much of the Greek culture and to spread it in the West (Alexander the Great did that in the East few centuries before that). Rome converted to Christianity and the Barbarian chiefs (some of which will put the foundations of the oldest European states) followed... The last but not the least, the Byzantine Empire (which is by the way a complicated mixture of Christian, Roman/Greek and Persian/Eastern traditions), the Eastern part of the Roman Empire, survived about 1 000 years after the fall of Rome and managed to spread the Christianity amongst Bulgarians, Serbs and Russians. The Byzantines were shields against the expansion of the Chaliphs in 8th century (preserving the identity of Europe) and even after the fall of the Empire in 1453 the Byzantine traditions influenced the Ottoman and the Russian Empires.

The Greek (in cultural terms) ideals were called back in the Renaissance but it was the Roman copies that allowed the Westerners to know them. In political terms the Greek heritage was revived somewhere in the XIX century but this was more of a consequence than a cause of the idea of democracy.

[Weebeast]

Rome converted to Christianity and the Barbarian chiefs (some of which will put the foundations of the oldest European states) followed... The last but not the least, the Byzantine Empire, the Eastern part of the Roman Empire, survived about 1 000 years after the fall of Rome and managed to spread the Christianity amongst Bulgarians, Serbs and Russians. The Byzantines were shields against the expansion of the Chaliphs in 8th century and even after the fall of the Empire in 1453 the Byzantine traditions influenced the Ottoman and the Russian Empires.

Byzantine was pretty much Greek hence the distinct name coined by the west. Also, Western Roman Empire never fell. It was called Kingdom of France, then Great Britain and nowadays United States. US was the shield against pagan Nazis and godless commies!!1

[Prince Cobra]

Byzantine was pretty much Greek hence the distinct name coined by the west. Also, Western Roman Empire never fell. It was called Kingdom of France, then Great Britain and nowadays United States. US was the shield against pagan Nazis and godless commies!!1

Surely the Persian ceremonial, the eunuchs, the absolute power of the monarch, the Roman conscience (for the Byzantines considered them to be Romans... this belief was combined with Greek conscience only from XIIIth century on, though the Roman identity was never forgotten).

After the mid of fifth century the Western Roman Empire was dead even for the Barbarian Kings. One of them even sent the crown of Rome to Constantinople which signalled that the only remaining part of the Empire was the Eastern part. There were others, like Charlemagne, the Germans and others that later borrowed symbols and prestige from Rome but this was something different. A point of view.

[Weebeast]

The Byzantines were shields against the expansion of the Chaliphs in 8th century (preserving the identity of Europe)

What is the identity of Europe by the way? I never quite understood this nationalism mumbo-jumbo.

After the mid of fifth century the Western Roman Empire was dead even for the Barbarian Kings. One of them even sent the crown of Rome to Constantinople which signalled that the direct and only heir of the Caesars were the Byzantines. There were others, like Charlemagne, the Germans and others that later borrowed symbols and prestige from Rome but this was something different. These were different Empires, I think. At least this is my point of view.

I don't care much about the crown. They all spoke like Romans. They're Romans to me. I like to think they bathed less and smelled funny but nonetheless living the Roman way. One minute you said about a whole Europe having an identity and the next minute calling some of them not Roman. I'm confused here.

[Jolt]

Also, Western Roman Empire never fell. It was called Kingdom of France, then Great Britain and nowadays United States.

That is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard (From an historical prespective.)

One can claim that China never fell. The Roman Empire on the other hand, is dead for so long it might already be oil.

[CountArach]

It's like a domino thing. Rome piece might have knocked over more pieces but Rome was knocked over by Greece hard.

Errr... what?

[Samurai Waki]

The answer is Greece, arguably the Greeks influenced so much about Roman Culture that the world would be a very, very different place without them in the picture. Rome may have never even grown out of it's village beginnings.

[Beefy187]

That is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard (From an historical prespective.)

One can claim that China never fell. The Roman Empire on the other hand, is dead for so long it might already be oil.

Depends on how you define it I guess.
The people of Rome still calls them self "SPQR"...

[ShadesWolf]

Good, glad we have a nice thread going after just 24hrs. Ten posts already.

Ive just moved onto Rome in my classics course, part of my history degree.
Greece was interesting, but we only touched on it, looking at Homers Greece (Mycenaean) and then the 5th century.

Now we look at Rome at the end of the Republic initially.

what got me to ask the question was a conversation we had with my classics lecturer yesterday, where basically we discussed at the end of 133bc (approx) Rome had finished its major conquest stage.

It now looked at Literature, architecture etc.... which it borrowed strongly from Greek.
Prior to this its advancements had been as a result of military requirements, ie roads to allow the army to get from A-B etc.,

[Fragony]

what got me to ask the question was a conversation we had with my classics lecturer yesterday, where basically we discussed at the end of 133bc (approx) Rome had finished its major conquest stage.

que?

[CountArach]

que?

Yeah that kind of ignores Gaul/the Successor States Pompey fought/Egypt/Northern Iberia/Parts of the Balkans...

[gollum]

In a way they are opposite poles and in another way two sides of the same coin.

Rome is the practical/concrete element: engineers, politicians, legislators, strongly united, contemporary and adapting.

Greece is the theoretical/abstract element: architects, philosophers, artists, bitterly divided, eternal and unchanging.

Of course both sides had some of the other too, and certainly they were not foreign to each other, in the way germanic culture was to them.

An interesting combination of the two took place in the eastern/byzantine roman empire.

As political entities, "Greece" was never a united whole in the same way Rome was - the Romans in fact were lucky enough to fight Greek kingdoms/states at the peak of their infighting, meaning that they faced them peacemeal and even used some against the others frequently.

[Skullhead]

Greece is the theoretical element

And what would you call Alexander?

[gollum]

Originally quoted by Alexander of Macedon
Στον πατερα μου οφειλω το ζειν, στον δασκαλο μου το ευ ζειν.
(=To my father i owe living, to my teacher living properly/well)

Greek states throughout the ages were always characterized by infighting, division and disunity. Its not that Greeks are not good politicians or strategists. Its just that they are too smart for their own good. It would have helped them tremendously in practical terms had they been a little less smart and used their heads instead.

The greek psyche highly regards freedom, as much infact as it disregards the means and institutions by which it is achieved.

Solely Byzantium, ie a (predominantly) greek state that was built on the solid political, organisational and hierarchical foundations of roman tradition, proved long lived and adaptable.

Greeks, perhaps more than all other peoples, should be aware of the one-hand clapping.

[TinCow]

Rome, without a shadow of a doubt. Anyone saying Byzantium counts as Greek is ignoring the fact that it was created by Romans, ruled by Romans, and used Roman laws and traditions. Greece created incredible and highly influential culture and science. However, Rome was the beginning of all of modern European history and it is the main reason why Christianity became the dominant religion in Europe. Remove Greece from history, and our culture and knowledge becomes far less rich. Remove Rome from history, and all of European history will become totally unrecognizable.

[gollum]

Originall posted by TinCow
Anyone saying Byzantium counts as Greek is ignoring the fact that it was created by Romans...

Romans did not "create" much; they took over and transfigured/reshaped what was already there. And in the process got as much changed as they changed others.

...ruled by Romans...

Not even Rome was ruled by "Romans" after a certain point, since many cultures and peoples were given citizenship and Emperors were from various provinces and even social backgrounds. By the 1st century AD, "Romans" were comprising of Italians (other than Romans), Phoenicians, Celts, Germans, Celtiberians, Libyans, Illyrians, Jews, Syrians, Persians, Armenians and of course Greeks.

"Roman" had become an umbrella term, and it continued to be so for centuries on, to this day in fact; "the Holy Roman Empire", "The Holy Roman Catholic Church" and various other kingdoms and intsitutions that had even less to do with it than the aformentioned two, claimed the title and descend or association.

The fact is that the cultural dimension of the term was far more significant than the ethnic dimension. Which is the same thing that happened with the term "Greek", but through a different way.

...and used Roman laws...

Yes, very true, as much of the rest of Europe at the time.

...and traditions.

Quite false. Even Rome itself adopted certain Greek traditions and customs in the west. In the hellenised east, roman culture was perhaps more hellenised than greek culture romanised.

However, Rome was the beginning of all of modern European history...

If there is an ethnicity and culture that you can associate with the "beginning of modern european history" its the Greeks alright: the very acts of state were given Greek names, not because they sounded better, but because other languages had barely any terms (that we know of) to precisely describe them ie Greeks were aware and conscious of the acts of architecture, politics and strategy, and this is why we, like the Romans, use these same words today.

Ironically, the very name "Europe" is of greek origin, i'm afraid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_%28mythology%29

It was the Greeks that stopped the expansion of the Persian Empire in the west, and the Greeks that colonised much of the mediterranean world bringing with them, trade, agriculture, technical know how, practical scientific knowledge and administration long before the Romans ever thought of existing. Not to mention Alexander and his empire that gave a semblance of cultural cohesion to the near east and paved the way for a superstate there too.

The Romans were the great unifiers of the mediterranean world among many candidates, not because they proved to be the best, but because they proved to be the luckiest and most resilient.

By all accounts, the mediterranean world itself had reached a state of prosperity that unifying was actually possible; all that was left to see was who would be able to do it. (A discussion can be made as to who's credit it is the most that made the mediterranean world reach that stage, but i won't enter into it; however i would expect the Greeks to be again strong candidates).

Rome's adapting and axpanding policies were the ones that fitted best the creation of a super-state, and at the same time the ones that created the demise of it, because no vast and diverse political entity can maintain cohesion for too long. Rome collapsed from without as much as it imploded from within.

...and it is the main reason why Christianity became the dominant religion in Europe.

Well there were other reasons too, including that Rome needed Christianity more than Christianity needed Rome at the time, but yes from the point of view you seem to make the statement, i agree.

Remove Greece from history, and our culture and knowledge becomes far less rich. Remove Rome from history, and all of European history will become totally unrecognizable.

This is just a plautitude i'm afraid (excuse the pun). None has the slightest clue how history would be if any piece of it was "removed" or did not happen as it did. Perhaps as i mentioned earlier we would all be speaking Persian or using the Celtic calendar now, instead of the Roman one (that was devised by Greeks;).

Is best to assess "Rome" and "Greece" as cultures, attitudes and mentalities and not in the basis of achievements of state/political entities that bore those names - because, apart from all else, their histories are so interwined and interrelated that you may find that its impossible to talk about the one without the other.

[TinCow]

Romans did not "create" much; they took over and transfigured/reshaped what was already there. And in the process got as much changed as they changed others.

I very strongly disagree with this. The Romans were easily the greatest builders of the ancient world. They created basic infrastructure across all of Europe and the Med, much of which lasted long after their fall. Yes, they did absorb a great deal from other cultures, particularly the Greeks, but the Romans were the ones who spread this culture across the globe. There is a reason that Latin is the basis for Spanish, French, and Italian, medical terminology, scientific terminology, and legal terminology. Greek is not the language of the learned, Latin is.

Not even Rome was ruled by "Romans" after a certain point, since many cultures and peoples were given citizenship and Emperors were from various provinces and even social backgrounds. By the 1st century AD, "Romans" were comprising of Italians (other than Romans), Phoenicians, Celts, Germans, Celtiberians, Libyans, Illyrians, Jews, Syrians, Persians, Armenians and of course Greeks.

"Roman" had become an umbrella term, and it continued to be so for centuries on, to this day in fact; "the Holy Roman Empire", "The Holy Roman Catholic Church" and various other kingdoms and intsitutions that had even less to do with it than the aformentioned two, claimed the title and descend or association.

The term Roman in this context does not mean Roman in the same manner as it did prior to the Social Wars. I am referring to Roman as it was known in the age of Constantine and beyond: a citizen of the Roman empire. One of the strengths of Rome was to embrace foreign cultures and to integrate them into itself. Rome is the aggregate of all of its parts, it is not just the city itself.

Quite false. Even Rome itself adopted certain Greek traditions and customs in the west. In the hellenised east, roman culture was perhaps more hellenised than greek culture romanised.

I agree, but I believe that one of the reasons Greek culture is so highly regarded is because of its absorption by the Romans. Had the Romans adopted, say, Gaulish culture instead of Greek, Greek influence on history would be far less than it is today.

If there is an ethnicity and culture that you can associate with the "beginning of modern european history" its the Greeks alright: the very acts of state were given Greek names, not because they sounded better, but because other languages had barely any terms (that we know of) to precisely describe them ie Greeks were aware and conscious of the acts of architecture, politics and strategy, and this is why we, like the Romans, use these same words today.

Ok, I'll agree with that. I do very much believe that the Romans created the basis for modern Europe, but the Greeks certainly did create the basis for Rome itself. In that sense, that would certainly put the Greeks at the foundation of modern european history, though in a different manner than I was thinking. It's worth noting that according to the Romans' own history of themselves, they actually were Greeks.

It was the Greeks that stopped the expansion of the Persian Empire in the west, and the Greeks that colonised much of the mediterranean world bringing with them, trade, agriculture, technical know how, practical scientific knowledge and administration long before the Romans ever thought of existing. Not to mention Alexander and his empire that gave a semblance of cultural cohesion to the near east and paved the way for a superstate there too.

The Romans were the great unifiers of the mediterranean world among many candidates, not because they proved to be the best, but because they proved to be the luckiest and most resilient.

By all accounts, the mediterranean world itself had reached a state of prosperity that unifying was actually possible; all that was left to see was who would be able to do it. (A discussion can be made as to who's credit it is the most that made the mediterranean world reach that stage, but i won't enter into it; however i would expect the Greeks to be again strong candidates).

Rome's adapting and axpanding policies were the ones that fitted best the creation of a super-state, and at the same time the ones that created the demise of it, because no vast and diverse political entity can maintain cohesion for too long. Rome collapsed from without as much as it imploded from within.

I agree that the Greeks are responsible for uniting the Mediterranean world into a single region that had never previously thought of itself as such. However, that was largely through fringe colonies established on the coast where Greeks established trading posts and cities that then communicated with the native peoples. Rome went much further, and integrated those peoples' into itself in a way that the Greeks never did. Rome's ability to penetrate deep into Africa, Iberia, Gaul, Britain, Germany, etc. was largely because they absorbed the peoples they came across. This integration is a very large part of what allowed them to make such a large mark on history.

The Greeks ruled their conquests by putting Greeks or Greek-style leaders in charge of the peoples. When those leaders eventually fell from power, their basic political structures may have continued, but little else of Greek influence did. By comparison, the Romans absorbed their conquests on a cultural level that made those peoples Roman. It was this grass-roots change that allowed places like Britain to continue on with Roman society long after actual Roman leadership had long since declined.

[gollum]

Originally posted by Tin Cow
The Romans were easily the greatest builders of the ancient world. They created basic infrastructure across all of Europe and the Med, much of which lasted long after their fall.

Yes, but not the greatest architects - there is a basic difference between the two - the engineer designs in terms of strength and durability; the architect in terms of space. Big does not equal great necessarily from all points of view.

It is no accident that the Romans "imported" Greek architecture - that's because they were terrible and unimaginative at it themselves.

And by the way the (vast) majority of Roman infrastructure did not survive for the simple reason that it consisted of wooden structures that, although quick to erect, do not have the durability of masonry structures.

Yes, they did absorb a great deal from other cultures, particularly the Greeks, but the Romans were the ones who spread this culture across the globe.

Which basically means that they had a need for a culture to import, that is they had little of their own to begin with.

And the "globe"? You mean the then known core of the world...

The fact that Latin became now global and the basis of the "modern european history" you are reffering to is more due to the germanic peoples that overrun and supplanted the Roman Empire and gave rise to what is known as western europe today. Its true of course that as the supplanters they considered theselves Roman too, kept Roman titles and organisational structures, adapted Latin as their language and went happily on to the age of feudalism before moving to the rennaissance, the age of exploration and finally the industrial revolution and colonisation which in fact made Latin "global".

There is a reason that Latin is the basis for Spanish, French, and Italian, medical terminology, scientific terminology, and legal terminology. Greek is not the language of the learned, Latin is.

You mean like for example in the fields of history (ιστορια), biology (βιολογια), mathematics (μαθηματικα), architecture (αρχιτεκτονικη), politics (πολιτικη), dentistry (οδοντιατρικη), physics (φυσικη), geometry (γεωμετρια) chemistry (χημεια), astronomy (αστρονομια), philosophy (φιλοσοφια), theology (θεολογια), geology (γεωλογια), mechanics (μηχανικη), psychology (ψυχολογια), psychiatry (ψυχιατρικη), philology (φιλολογια), poetry (ποιηση), anthropology (ανθρωπολογια), graphics (γραφικη), anatomy (ανατομια), meteorology (μετεωρολογια), cosmology (κοσμολογια), geography (γεωγραφια), geotechnics (γεωτεχνικη), economics (οικονομικα), strategy & tactics (στρατηγικη & τακτικη), optics (οπτικη), thermodynamics/dynamics (θερμοδυναμικη/δυναμικη), statics (στατικη), anaesthesiology (αναισθησιολογια), acoustics (ακουστικη), aesthetics (αισθητικη), physiology (φυσιολογια), morphology (of all kinds :) (μορφολογια), athletics (αθλητικη/α), gymnastics (γυμναστικη), biotechnology (βιοτεχνολογια), nanotechnology (νανοτεχνολογια), logic (λογικη), electronics (ηλεκτρονικη), electrics (ηλεκτρικη), topology (τοπολογια), topography (τοπογραφια), archeology (αρχαιολογια)?

The majority of medical terms in particular are of greek origin, just ask any doctor what they have to go through to learn them, although there are of course many latin terms too:
http://eu.dummies.com/WileyCDA/how-t...cal-terms.html

Legal terminology on the other hand is indeed more heavily based on Latin (no surpises there).

Greek terms also abound in physics, chemistry and mathematics and in many other sciences like geology and biology, despite the fact that many of them in their modern form were developed long after greek was confined to greece. This is because their roots lay in classical greek culture iteslf, andit was these roots that the rennaissance picked up again in order to find say a concept of the basic blocks of matter, a block so small that it wouldn't be possible to cut it smaller ie an atom (=ατομο, α(not/cannot)+τεμνω(cut/to cut)).

Spanish, French and Italian (as well as Latin itself to a certain extent) also "borrow" heavily from greek, in many scientific areas in particular as well as in many everyday words that have etymological roots in greek, as any linguist will tell you, despite their common latin root.

Interestingly, Latin itself is derived from Greek in alphabet, and it is related to it in its grammatical and syntactical structures too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumae_alphabet

I am referring to Roman as it was known in the age of Constantine and beyond: a citizen of the Roman empire. One of the strengths of Rome was to embrace foreign cultures and to integrate them into itself. Rome is the aggregate of all of its parts, it is not just the city itself.

Precisely, which basically means that the whole thing was an umbrella term, and its reality did not reflect an ethnic character, but a cultural character. And a large part of that cultural character sprang from greek culture, science, art and religion that the Romans adopted wholesale, and for good reasons.

They knew well that if you must steal, steal from the best.

Funnily enough, the language chosen to translate the New Testament in the Roman Empire, was actually Greek and not Latin. It can mean one and only thing: that greek was the lingua franka (as you'll have it :)

I agree, but I believe that one of the reasons Greek culture is so highly regarded is because of its absorption by the Romans. Had the Romans adopted, say, Gaulish culture instead of Greek, Greek influence on history would be far less than it is today.

I never saw someone practical (and the Romans were nothing else if not practical) adopting something without a reason. The Romans adopted Greek culture, science and religion because they judged that they had many things to give them and they were in fact right.

It is well known that Caesar wept at the age of 32 in front of a statue of Alexander as was serving in Spain, because he felt worthless of what he had achieved by that age. Now the question we maybe asking the most is not why Caesar admired Alexander, but what a statue of him was doing in Roman cities in Spain...

It's worth noting that according to the Romans' own history of themselves, they actually were Greeks.

You mean the legend of Aeneas? I dont know if they actually were, but they certainly felt an affinity and appreciation for everything greek. As i said, the two cultures are very close and yet have a different twist.

Rome went much further, and integrated those peoples' into itself in a way that the Greeks never did. Rome's ability to penetrate deep into Africa, Iberia, Gaul, Britain, Germany, etc. was largely because they absorbed the peoples they came across. This integration is a very large part of what allowed them to make such a large mark on history.

Precisely.

The Greeks ruled their conquests by putting Greeks or Greek-style leaders in charge of the peoples. When those leaders eventually fell from power, their basic political structures may have continued, but little else of Greek influence did. By comparison, the Romans absorbed their conquests on a cultural level that made those peoples Roman. It was this grass-roots change that allowed places like Britain to continue on with Roman society long after actual Roman leadership had long since declined.

Perhaps - there are however instances that the opposite happened: that Greeks were better at promoting cultural elements, and in fact often when their political structures were taken away, the culture remained, at least in the near east, while the Romans were able to absorb in many instances because they left indigenous cultures as they were and the integration was long and slow in many cases (despite the necessary acts of violence to give out the message while at war) and so possible.

[TinCow]

Yes, but not the greatest architects - there is a basic difference between the two - the engineer designs in terms of strength and durability; the architect in terms of space. Big does not equal great necessarily from all points of view.

It is no accident that the Romans "imported" Greek architecture - that's because they were terrible and unimaginative at it themselves.

And by the way the (vast) majority of Roman infrastructure did not survive for the simple reason that it consisted of wooden structures that, although quick to erect, do not have the durability of masonry structures.

I'm not going to debate aesthetics. That's a point of personal preference; it's not well suited to historical analysis.

Which basically means that they had a need for a culture to import, that is they had little of their own to begin with.

I would never deny this; indeed the Romans themselves never denied it. For much the Republican period, Greek was the language of education even for the Romans. It wasn't until the end of the Republic that Rome became sufficiently cultured in its own right for Latin to gain credibility as a 'high' language.

The fact that Latin became now global and the basis of the "modern european history" you are reffering to is more due to the germanic peoples that overrun and supplanted the Roman Empire and gave rise to what is known as western europe today. Its true of course that as the supplanters they considered theselves Roman too, kept Roman titles and organisational structures, adapted Latin as their language and went happily on to the age of feudalism before moving to the rennaissance, the age of exploration and finally the industrial revolution and colonisation which in fact made Latin "global".

Well, personally I'd say it was more due to Latin becoming the language of Christianity, but I think our perceptions on this point are sufficiently inter-related to say we essentially agree.

You mean like for example in the fields of history (ιστορια), biology (βιολογια), mathematics (μαθηματικα), architecture (αρχιτεκτονικη), politics (πολιτικη), dentistry (οδοντιατρικη), physics (φυσικη), geometry (γεωμετρια) chemistry (χημεια), astronomy (αστρονομια), philosophy (φιλοσοφια), theology (θεολογια), geology (γεωλογια), mechanics (μηχανικη), psychology (ψυχολογια), psychiatry (ψυχιατρικη), philology (φιλολογια), poetry (ποιηση), anthropology (ανθρωπολογια), graphics (γραφικη), anatomy (ανατομια), meteorology (μετεωρολογια), cosmology (κοσμολογια), geography (γεωγραφια), geotechnics (γεωτεχνικη), economics (οικονομικα), strategy & tactics (στρατηγικη & τακτικη), optics (οπτικη), thermodynamics/dynamics (θερμοδυναμικη/δυναμικη), statics (στατικη), anaesthesiology (αναισθησιολογια), acoustics (ακουστικη), aesthetics (αισθητικη), physiology (φυσιολογια), morphology (of all kinds :) (μορφολογια), athletics (αθλητικη/α), gymnastics (γυμναστικη), biotechnology (βιοτεχνολογια), nanotechnology (νανοτεχνολογια), logic (λογικη), electronics (ηλεκτρονικη), electrics (ηλεκτρικη), topology (τοπολογια), topography (τοπογραφια)?

The etymology may be Greek, but the modern system used is directly Latin. Since Latin adopted much of their terms directly from Greek, it is not surprising that a large number of words have their derivation from that source. It doesn't change the fact that the words used are still Latin, not Greek.

Spanish, French and Italian (as well as Latin itself to a certain extent) also "borrow" heavily from greek, in many scientific areas in particular as well as in many everyday words that have etymological roots in greek, as any linguist will tell you, despite their common latin root.

Interestingly, Latin itself is derived from Greek in alphabet, and it is related to it in its grammatical and syntactical structures too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumae_alphabet

You're not seriously arguing that the Romance languages are more heavily based in Greek than Latin, are you?

Precisely, which basically means that the whole thing was an umbrella term, and its reality did not reflect an ethnic character, but a cultural character. And a large part of that cultural character sprang from greek culture, science, art and religion that the Romans adopted wholesale, and for good reasons.

This type of argument seems to intentionally ignore what made the Roman Empire great. By the same analogy, there would be no American culture, because it is a conglomerate of a large number of foreign cultures overlaid on top of English culture. Yet, that is clearly false, as there is certainly a distinctive American culture of its own, despite its origins. The same is true of Roman culture: it is greater than the sum of its parts.

I never saw someone practical (and the Romans were nothing else if not practical) adopting something without a reason. The Romans adopted Greek culture, science and religion because they judged that they had many things to give them and they were in fact right.

It is well known that Caesar wept at the age of 32 in front of a statue of Alexander as was serving in Spain, because he felt worthless of what he had achieved by that age. Now the question we maybe asking the most is not why Caesar admired Alexander, but what a statue of him was doing in Roman cities in Spain...

It is also worth noting that when Caesar lived, the Romans were only just beginning to have their strongest impact on Europe, Africa, and Asia. It was under the Empire that Roman culture and influence established the long-term impact that we still see today, not the Republic.

...

I think one of the problems with Greek influence is that Greek dominance was so short-lived. The Greeks never had much influence outside of their own colonies, with the notable exception of Alexander (who was ironically not considered to be Greek in his own time). Alexander's empire didn't even last a single generation, and the successor states collapsed relatively quickly, most without imparting much more than a superficial cultural impact on their lands. Perhaps if the Greeks had ruled their conquests longer, things would have been different. As it stands, the Romans made a far more lasting stamp on history by their sheer size and longevity.

I suspect we'll not reach agreement on this though.

[Zim]

I'll leave the bulk of the discussion to people better suited for it, but if deriving an alphabet from a then more cultured (well, at least more literate) people is a mark against Rome, wouldn't Greece also be affected, given they took their alphabet from the Pheonicians?

Interestingly, Latin itself is derived from Greek in alphabet, and it is related to it in its grammatical and syntactical structures too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumae_alphabet

[gollum]

Originally posted by Tin Cow
I'm not going to debate aesthetics.

You don't have to, because i wasn't talking about aesthetics, but about architectural design versus engineering design. Great builders is not the same as great architects and in fact this was exactly the case of the Romans. They excelled in roads, bridging aqueducts and other such engineering feats, but their architecture, was copycat, lacked proportion and elegance. Its just wasn't their thing.

That's a point of personal preference; it's not well suited to historical analysis.

So architectural design is a point of preference and not well suited to historical anaysis?

Right - just say that you are not familiar with it as well as its differences from engineering design if you are not, please. I tell you this, because i worked in the building industry for a living and i know that many people have no idea what the architects actually do, and what architecture actually is (most famously engineers ), which, with all due respect, seems to be your case.

The etymology may be Greek, but the modern system used is directly Latin. Since Latin adopted much of their terms directly from Greek, it is not surprising that a large number of words have their derivation from that source. It doesn't change the fact that the words used are still Latin, not Greek.

You mean the etymology and spelling and pronounciation are wholesome from Greek, but they are... Latin words... Riiight, and i am the Pope (of Rome ).

You're not seriously arguing that the Romance languages are more heavily based in Greek than Latin, are you?

Not at all, but having lived for some years in Italy, France and Spain, i can tell you responsibly that heavy direct and indirect traces of Greek exist in those languages. Learn these languages, as well as Greek, and see for yourself: and i'm sure you'll find out that... its all... Latin

By the same analogy, there would be no American culture, because it is a conglomerate of a large number of foreign cultures overlaid on top of English culture. Yet, that is clearly false, as there is certainly a distinctive American culture of its own, despite its origins. The same is true of Roman culture: it is greater than the sum of its parts.

It was actually clearly true at the beginning. Time is actually needed for elements to merge and interpenetrate. You are right that a resulting culture is different (and not necessarily greater or lesser) than the sum of its parts, but that doesn't dettach it from its parts either. In a way it cannot be thought of without its roots, and roots are what they are and not something else.

There is, perhaps, a middle ground between what i argued and what you argued, and i think the truth in this may be somewhere there.

I suspect we'll not reach agreement on this though.

That's because of the way you count influence "points". For you, influence seems to be a large, long lasting empire. Not that the Greeks did not have such, but they had them (much) prior to 270BC, beyond which date you either know little or are interested little or consider little.

The greatest Greek assets over the ages however proved to be state adminisration and political systems (including that most American one of Democracy (δημοκρατια from δημος=community&κρατος=state, another... Latin word)), culture and science. Roman culture for all intents and purposes merged itself in it, in its example, in its memory, in its aura and through this adoptation and eventual fusion came the world of classical antiquity.

I do not deny the achievemts of the Romans - however in terms of influence i am not sure that the question is easy to answer "beyond any shadow of a doubt".

It is in that, that we reach little agreement.



PS The greatest Roman assets over the ages also proved to be cultural and political elements that far outlived the existence of their state.

[gollum]

Originally posted by Zim
I'll leave the bulk of the discussion to people better suited for it, but if deriving an alphabet from a then more cultured (well, at least more literate) people is a mark against Rome, wouldn't Greece also be affected, given they took their alphabet from the Pheonicians?

No doubt, there must have been a time that Greek culture was also "affected", as you say - all cultures have a cycle of forming, maturing, flowing and ebbing fading away.

"Borrowing" is a natural part of that cycle - it should not be overplayed as you rightly say, but neither can it be underplayed. Particularly in the case of the Eastern Roman Empire that gravitated most naturally within a few centuries back to its Greek origins.

I doubt that this would have happened, had Byzantium been "created" and "ruled" by Romans and was following "roman traditions", while Greeks were an abstract memory of the distant past.

This was (meant to be) my point.

[Fisherking]

To me this just seems like a bunch of “My Dog is Better than Your Dog”.

Rome developed on many Greek ideas and ideals. If there had been no high Greek civilization there would have been no Rome as we know it today.

Without the wheel you can’t build a cart.

Just think of the fact that they sought out Greek slaves as tutors for their children, that is until they could have Gauls...I am not sure what the later means but the former is obvious.

It is a matter of human development.

[gollum]

Thank you for just setting aside as an exercise in vanity all the good argumentative efforts and proofs me and Tin Cow sweat to bring forth here Fisherking .

I appreciate your anti-climactic tendencies, but please spare us the shelving with the vanities; if nothing else respect the effort - after all each and everyone of us truelly loves his dog

[Fragony]

Can track it back as far as you want, but if you look at the influence on today's society Rome wins hands down. Rome is more then the age kings, republic and emperors, there is also the age of christianity.

[Marienus]

i think the greece people had more influence

[Myth]

Which year or at least, which century are we talking about here?