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.

[Skullheadhq]

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-to/content/greek-tidbits-in-medical-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. :bow:

[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 :beam:), 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 :beam:).


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 :beam:


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:beam:)), 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.

:bow:

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.

:bow:

[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.

:laugh4:

[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 :laugh4:.

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 :beam:

:bow:

[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?

[Vladimir]

I think we're talking about 2010. It is now 2012.

[Myth]

I was asking about the comparison between Rome and Greece :laugh4:

I like the Greek City-States before Alexander's changes on how warfare is wrought in the ancient world. Reading Plato, or about the life in Athens for example, is so inspiring to me that I am amazed such a huge time separates us from them.

Rome is interesting to me as a military machine, a single city-state that tenaciously overcame all enemies it came across and established an empire that marked the world forever afterwards. Though they took a lot from Greece and the east, the Roman ideals and way of life (at least, during the Republic's era) are inspirational to me.

[InsaneApache]

Romans didn't do kebabs.

Anyone that does kebabs wins IMO.

[Kralizec]

In this case, you mean gyros right?

[Tsar Alexsandr]

I'm a huge fan of ancient Greece. And the entire region of Greece. Macedon, Epirus, Thessaly, and Thrace included. Hellenic era history is interesting as well since a lot of stuff was going on at that particular time. Too much maybe. Lots of wars between the Diadochi.

Rome has been something I have had to slowly warm up to, so I think it's fair to say I like it less. But there are good moments in the Empire's history. The republic had some novel ideas. And of course the five Good Emperors of Rome were a pretty awesome lot. Marcus Aurelius remains one of my favorite people from antiquity. But that is along with names like Alexander, Pyrrhus of Epirus, Hannibal Barca, Socrates, Aristotle, Themistocles, Plutarch, Xenophon, Archimedes, and Heron of Alexandria.

[xxrulerofswedenxx]

:ave::knight: VS :viking: :charge: the knight said the viking :welcome:s him they start:duel:ing :smg::hmg: the battle is harsh then the knight send's out a ~:pimp:
the viking goes to :hide: and :surrender: :medievalcheers: what means is that i like rome beacause greece people invented math xD now :applause: big time thank you for you aide !

[The Lurker Below]

my favorite stories come from Greek events, though the best of that lot was the fight over Syracuse, so...Sicily?

[Zarakas]

Syracuse was a Greek city state. Established 500bc or there about. If I remember correctly, established by Corinth (i think).

On the matter of Rome or Greece. Rome was established by Trojan refugees after the destruction of Troy. The refugees were led by Aeneas (a prince of Troy). Julius Ceaser and Augustus claimed they were descedants of Aeneas.

Troy was of Thracian origin situated around same area as Constantinople. Therefore the question is, did Rome return to its origins (Thrace) by establishing the Byzantium Empire? Another question is, were Thracian's Greeks? Also, why did Roman culture etc so closely resemble Greek culture etc?

Zarakas

[CountArach]

Syracuse was a Greek city state. Established 500bc or there about. If I remember correctly, established by Corinth (i think).

On the matter of Rome or Greece. Rome was established by Trojan refugees after the destruction of Troy. The refugees were led by Aeneas (a prince of Troy). Julius Ceaser and Augustus claimed they were descedants of Aeneas.

Troy was of Thracian origin situated around same area as Constantinople. Therefore the question is, did Rome return to its origins (Thrace) by establishing the Byzantium Empire? Another question is, were Thracian's Greeks? Also, why did Roman culture etc so closely resemble Greek culture etc?

Zarakas
The problem with this theory is that it puts too much faith in the Roman's own aetiological story. Almost every Greek city state attempted to trace their origins to the Homeric poems and it wasn't until the Romans started to have real and constant diplomatica and political contact with the Greeks that they showed the same concern (best exemplified in the very title of Cato's Origines). As such, we should not put stock in the Roman's own self-representation as presenting 'real history'. Instead we should be looking at these stories and ask ourself - why are they saying these things about themselves? What is at stake here and what does it tell us about their own self-perception?

[Catiline]

I'm not sure there's anything to particularly link Troy to a Thracian origin either is there, barring a Trojan ally in the Iliad. What links there are in Troy VII suggest Luwian IIRC

[Zarakas]

Etruscan civilization and language. The Etruscan language is related to the Lemnian Language which came from Asia Minor. Is not the Etruscan language part of the origin of Latin language? Did not the Etruscans conquer the peoples of Rome region. Extract from text "Further -- which has been only briefly mentioned here with Luvian maua -- there exist enough similarities between the Etruscan and Lemnian languages and the so-called Anatolian languages (in Asia Minor) to show that the roots of the Etruscans in Italy must be sought in the northwest part of Asia Minor -- approximately in the region of Troy. And this might well form the historical core of that myth of Trojan origin, which the Romans have borrowed from their neighbouring nation, in order to claim it for themselves."

[CountArach]

Etruscan civilization and language. The Etruscan language is related to the Lemnian Language which came from Asia Minor. Is not the Etruscan language part of the origin of Latin language? Did not the Etruscans conquer the peoples of Rome region. Extract from text "Further -- which has been only briefly mentioned here with Luvian maua -- there exist enough similarities between the Etruscan and Lemnian languages and the so-called Anatolian languages (in Asia Minor) to show that the roots of the Etruscans in Italy must be sought in the northwest part of Asia Minor -- approximately in the region of Troy. And this might well form the historical core of that myth of Trojan origin, which the Romans have borrowed from their neighbouring nation, in order to claim it for themselves."
All Indo-European languages are related and have a strong similarity.

Besides, I doubt that Troy (as imagined in the Iliad and Odyssey) existed in any recognisable form.

EDIT: Also, what was your source for that quote?

[Arjos]

Afaik the Etruscan language is very different from Latin and quite difficult to decipher...
Aeneas' epic could very well be an embelished folk story borrowed from the Etruscans, but there's no indication that the Latins emigrated from Anatolia...

As for a thracian Troy, all I know is that carvings and objects of ram and solar worships, typical of thrace, have been found there and they have been linked to the Otomani-Wietenberg expansion in the late Bronze Age. But these material finds represent a minimal part and it's highly unlikely that the majority of the population, or the rulers, were of thracian origins...

[Kralizec]

Hmm, I thought that the Etruscan language was not Indo-European and still largely undecyphered.

Latin was certainly influenced by Etruscan (the name "Rome" is Etruscan, nobody has any idea where it came from). What we know of Rome is that it was originally a bunch of poverty-stricken villages spread across several hills that grew to become a single city under Etruscan rule. As for the claim that the latins have Trojan ancestry, there's no evidence against it but that's about all that can be said in favour of the theory.

[Arjos]

Well, there's no latin in Anatolia for a start and if they came from there, they abandoned their language to invent a new one (switching to an indo-european one too lol), with a new alphabet, on site the very day they disembarked XD
While the Etruscans, who did come from there, sticked to their non-IE one and co-existed together...

Frankly it just doesn't make sense, while an etruscan immigration, carrying superior metallurgy from Anatolia and quickly gaining power in the peninsula, somehow fits everything :D

[Zarakas]

This article may be of interest,

Extract: "Genetic research made public at the weekend appears to put the matter beyond doubt, however. It shows the Etruscans came from the area which is now Turkey - and that the nearest genetic relatives of many of today's Tuscans and Umbrians are to be found, not in Italy, but around Izmir." Izmir = Smyrna.

Link below

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/18/italy.johnhooper

[SoFarSoGood]

On the matter of Rome or Greece. Rome was established by Trojan refugees after the destruction of Troy. The refugees were led by Aeneas (a prince of Troy). Julius Ceaser and Augustus claimed they were descedants of Aeneas.

And for my next myth?

[The Wizard]

This article may be of interest,

Extract: "Genetic research made public at the weekend appears to put the matter beyond doubt, however. It shows the Etruscans came from the area which is now Turkey - and that the nearest genetic relatives of many of today's Tuscans and Umbrians are to be found, not in Italy, but around Izmir." Izmir = Smyrna.

Link below

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/18/italy.johnhooper

You realize most of these genetic markers refer to Stone Age populations, right? And so to Stone Age migrations, as opposed to Bronze Age ones?

Not to mention the fact that the belief that genetic research puts old historical questions "beyond doubt" is a modern conceit akin to the early 20th century belief in social Darwinism, phrenology, and other blends of actual science and popular ideologies.

A better indication that there is some link between the Etruscans and the Aegean is the fact that the ancient indigenous Lemnian language of the island of Lemnos appears to be closely related to Etruscan. However, the same is true of the Rhaetian language, once spoken in the eastern Alps. Also, the fact that ancient Pelasgians (non-Greeks present in locations of Greek colonization in the pre-classical era) on Lemnos spoke a language akin to Etruscan may indicate Etruscan colonization rather than the reverse. So, the mystery essentially remains unsolved.

[Fisherking]

As to the myth that Rome came from Troy; is there any evidence at all to back it?

Early Saturday morning I am not going into research mode so only working from memory, so…
But when the Romans first made contact with those they called Celts or Gauls they reported that their language was intelligible without a translator.

This opens a lot more questions and may be a red herring but nothing similar is reported about Greek, and southern Italy already had a lot of Greeks.

If Rome had a Greek origin you might think it would have been visible in language or customs from a very early time. I don’t recall any evidence of that being presented.

So far as I know they were much the same as other Latins to the south of them and had more in common with other Italic tribes than anyone else.

Various Celtic tribes and peoples also claim Trojan origins. While definitive proof is lacking it is more likely they would have come into contact with Celts before they made it to Rome.

If anyone has anything to cite I would be glad to see it, but 18th and 19th century works would still be highly suspect.

[ShadesWolf]

If you look at 'the Aenid' by Virgil

'Inspired by Homer, and the inspiration for Dante and Milton, Virgil's The Aeneid is an immortal epic poem of the ancient world that lies at the heart of Western life and culture, translated from the Latin with an introduction by David West in Penguin Classics.

After a century of civil strife in Rome and Italy, Virgil wrote The Aeneid to honour the emperor Augustus by praising Aeneas - Augustus' legendary ancestor. As a patriotic epic imitating Homer, The Aeneid also set out to provide rome with a literature equal to that of ancient Greece. It tells of Aeneas, survivor of the sack of Troy, and of his seven-year journey - to Carthage, where he tragically fell in love with Queen Dido; then to the underworld, in the company of the Sybil of Cumae; and finally to Italy, where he founded Rome. It is a story of defeat and exile, of love and war, hailed by Tennyson as 'the stateliest measure ever moulded by the lips of man'.'

from penguin classics book

[Madae]

Influence on what?

I'm late to the show, but I'm still wondering this question. This is a really broad term - that I guess opened up a little debate, so it's probably the perfect way to have worded this to at least kickstart a good argument.

If we're just talking in "general terms", I think Rome probably had more influence on history. If we were to get more specific, Greece definitely did influence Rome, which Rome, in turn, influenced everyone else, so it would be easy for me to say in that regard that Greece had more influence. At the same time, there is a LOT of stuff that Ancient Greece has influenced (literature, for example), so I really think it depends on how you break up the topics on who influenced more in what. Rome did, however, become a melting pot of different peoples, and that is admirable - a civilization that could get past labels, where the people have common ideals and consider themselves part of the whole of what made Rome, Rome, regardless of where they came from. Greece practiced it to some extent (with Alexander) by allowing conquered nations to stay themselves, but I think that was mostly due to the fact that Greece would have never been able to enforce that they become Greek. Rome, on the other hand, had a presence in everything they conquered. In a way, it's kinda like America and how everyone here is "American", regardless of where they come from.

I dunno. There's a lot here - good topic for debate - but it's kind of an unwinnable argument. There is no wrong answer.

[Zarakas]

Some other points to add to debate.

True or False?

The Roman elite educated their children in Athens. True or False?

The Roman elite spoke Ancient Greek?

Many Greeks in Greece referred to themselves as Roman?

The first copy of the Bible was written in Greek? If true, was it written in Greek because it was the most common language spoken at the time?

If Greek was the most common language spoken at the time, then can you make comparison with English at the present time?

If the answer to the above is true, then i would argue that Greece had the most influence.

[SoFarSoGood]

Greek was spoken in Judea, as it was in Ptolemaic Egypt, that's why the earlier Christian manuscripts were in Greek - there was no 'Bible' or approved canonical list of texts for some centuries after the birth of Christianity.

[Arjos]

Yeah, iirc the story goes that Philadelphos (or maybe another?) wanted to understand the Judaism or add it to the library, so asked for a translation. That became the septuagint.
As for the other questions: yes Romani studied in Hellas, afaik Rhodos was the favourite location for rethoric and they did speak in Greek among the èlite.
That Hellenikoi considered themselves roman or latin I've never heard of it, rather the SPQR granted special statuses to Sparte and other poleis, in recognition of their past. From then the local nobles started adopting roman names and was common for them to compete in the construction of public buildings. By the time of Constantinus of course they all called themselves Rhomaioi and kept on doing so in the middle ages.

And yes, Greek was the lingua franca in the hellenistic period, most cultures communicated thanks to it in the west, while in the east it was Aramaic.

[Kralizec]

It tells of Aeneas, survivor of the sack of Troy, and of his seven-year journey - to Carthage, where he tragically fell in love with Queen Dido; then to the underworld, in the company of the Sybil of Cumae; and finally to Italy, where he founded Rome. It is a story of defeat and exile, of love and war, hailed by Tennyson as 'the stateliest measure ever moulded by the lips of man'.'[/I]

from penguin classics book

That's not entirely true; AFAIK Aeneas and his people supposedly settled in Italy and formed the Latin people. Several generations later, Romulus and Remus founded Rome.

According to Roman mythology, that is.

[CountArach]

That's not entirely true; AFAIK Aeneas and his people supposedly settled in Italy and formed the Latin people. Several generations later, Romulus and Remus founded Rome.

According to Roman mythology, that is.
Indeed. Aeneas is said to have founded Lavinium.

[Jo the Greek]

The amazing thing about Ancient Greeks like Romans is their ability to mass armies from their citizens in Classical era if that was true still in like hellenestic years Rome would had a lot of problems conquering Greece

[Zarakas]

I dont think Rome conquered the Greek City States. Mu understanding is that most Greek City States went about their business and accepted the new Mediterranean power and paid their taxes. I think Corinth revolted due to the new tax regime placed on it by Rome and Rome leveled the city and sold its population into slavery.

Did Rome have garrisons in the Greek City States?

[Conradus]

The amazing thing about Ancient Greeks like Romans is their ability to mass armies from their citizens in Classical era if that was true still in like hellenestic years Rome would had a lot of problems conquering Greece

I think you're overestimating the population of the Ancient Greek cities. Even at Plateae modern estimates only put the number of soldiers at 40.000. And about half the Greek states were represented there. Rome lost more men in Cannae and still went on to field armies that were almost as large a year later. Classical Athens for exemple had quite a large population (before it was wrecked by war and plague), but their army never got that large. If you focus on heavy infantry who have to pay their own equipment you get that kind of situations. When Rome no longer made that requirement, her armies grew even larger.

[Jo the Greek]

I dont think Rome conquered the Greek City States. Mu understanding is that most Greek City States went about their business and accepted the new Mediterranean power and paid their taxes. I think Corinth revolted due to the new tax regime placed on it by Rome and Rome leveled the city and sold its population into slavery.

Did Rome have garrisons in the Greek City States?
South Greece is nt big as Italy analogical i believe that the GReec cities had big armies in the classical age you can realise that in comparison in hellenistic years


I know that Corinthus sent troops to support Roman vs Gauls

and that much later vs the Parthians one Roman Emperor recruited Spartans in a try to Mimic Persian wars

[Zarakas]

Thanks for that information Jo, very interesting.

I think the Greek city states would have been depleted of troops following the Macedonian conquest of the East and then the period of the rise of Rome!! Do you have any information on this period?

I do know that following Peloponesian War both Athens and Sparta became militarily weak. However, this period was way before the rise of Rome.

[Conradus]

Compared to Rome at the beginning of its rise to power (2nd Punic War for exemple), the Greek city states never fielded large armies. Of course, at the height of Greece's power, they were more powerful than Rome that just managed to oust the Etruscan kings.

[Zarakas]

So basically, while the Greeks spent their strength in the East, and occupying territory conquered by the expansion of Alexander, the Romans expanded their empire in the Mediterranean. In addition, securing control of all trade routes after diminishing Carthage's control on trade routes. Thus securing that their coffers remained full to enable them to support military build up and further expansion.

Why did the Greeks allow this to happen in their neighborhood? Did they not realize the importance of control on trade? Or, were they to weak militarily and politically? Or, were they in support of Rome expansion?

I believe Alexander should have looked to the west for expansion as well as the east (way before the rise of Rome). Missed opportunity and poor long term planning!!

[Kralizec]

So basically, while the Greeks spent their strength in the East, and occupying territory conquered by the expansion of Alexander, the Romans expanded their empire in the Mediterranean. In addition, securing control of all trade routes after diminishing Carthage's control on trade routes. Thus securing that their coffers remained full to enable them to support military build up and further expansion.

Why did the Greeks allow this to happen in their neighborhood? Did they not realize the importance of control on trade? Or, were they to weak militarily and politically? Or, were they in support of Rome expansion?

I believe Alexander should have looked to the west for expansion as well as the east (way before the rise of Rome). Missed opportunity and poor long term planning!!

No reason why he should have. Persia was the preeminent world power back then in terms of wealth and power. Rome was a remote backwater and a mere local power. Carthage was the most important player in the western mediteranean; I've read somewhere on this forum that Alexander intended to embark on a campaign to conquer them before he died but I can't vouch for that claim myself.

I'm also not that sure about the notion that the Greeks were a spent force. The Ptolemaic kingdom had chronic manpower shortages at that point because they couldn't attract enough Greek settlers to fill their needs. Admittedly, the factions in the Greek homeland may have suffered because of the emigration of able-bodied men to the east and because Greece is less fertile (and presumably, less populous) than Italy. My impression is however that Greece was conquered by a limited number of decisive battles; whereas Rome resisted Hannibal's rampage across Italy for 15 years and losing a sizeable chunk of its male population through attrition.
As for the Seleucids: they were at the zenith of their power when their paths crossed with Rome. Antiochus III was decisively beaten in battle; after which his empire began its long decline.

"The Greeks" were a myriad of factions and that undeniably contributed to their defeat. Some Greek cities and smaller kingdoms did, indeed, submit to Rome's rule vountarily. As for the rest: if they had the same ability as Rome to mobilise new armies from scratch they might have stood their ground, but obviously that was not the case. People who say that the Greek phalanx is inferior because it lost against the Roman legions are drawing simplistic conclusions IMO; if the Greeks could have massed new armies time and time again they would have learned to adapt - just like the Romans did against Epirus and Carthage.

[Conradus]

No reason why he should have. Persia was the preeminent world power back then in terms of wealth and power. Rome was a remote backwater and a mere local power. Carthage was the most important player in the western mediteranean; I've read somewhere on this forum that Alexander intended to embark on a campaign to conquer them before he died but I can't vouch for that claim myself.


I've always heard/read that Alexander was planning to conquer Arabia before he died. After Arabia he intended to go west, he was constructing a large warfleet in the Mediterrannean (or had intentions to do so) AFAIK.

The point is mainly that the Greeks weren't a coherent force but rather a whole lot of different states/cities/kingdoms ... After Alex his empire split and some powerful and some less powerful empires arose. The Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms were great powers, but never in a position to go west. They were bogged down in their own wars, against themselves and against their neighbours (Parthians, Bactrians, some Greek citystates, the remnants of Macedonia ...)
Before Alexander the Greeks did go west when building some colonies, but they were a divided bunch. Every city founded a colony but they were all at war with each other. Some colonies became great regional powers (Syracuse for instance), but they remained citystates. Rome was a citystate at one point, but it managed to subdue and hold onto most of Italy. By then its manpower had grown far beyond what the Greek cities could muster.

[Kralizec]

The point is mainly that the Greeks weren't a coherent force but rather a whole lot of different states/cities/kingdoms ... After Alex his empire split and some powerful and some less powerful empires arose. The Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms were great powers, but never in a position to go west. They were bogged down in their own wars, against themselves and against their neighbours (Parthians, Bactrians, some Greek citystates, the remnants of Macedonia ...)

I agree that the city states had no chance of ever resisting Rome on their own. Even if they defeated them in a large engagement, Rome could afford to send more armies - the Greeks never had the same ability to raise new armies of consistent quality from scratch.

With the Seleucids, it's a different story. Antiochus III intended to "liberate" the Greek homeland, and might well have succeeded in restoring most of Alexander's empire if it weren't for those pesky Romans. The Parthians and Bactrians had already been eliminated, at least temporarily, as threats by then.
Even later, when it was still comparatively strong, it could easily have annexed Ptolemaic Egypt. Doing so would risk another war with the Romans, and they didn't dare.
I don't think that manpower was ever a serious issue for the Seleucids, though - certainly not as much as it was for the Ptolemies.

[Conradus]

Interesting. It seems I've got some reading up to do on the Seleucid Empire. Do you have any recommendations on the subject?

[rickinator9]

I haven't read it yet, but I ordered it: http://www.amazon.com/TWILIGHT-HELLENISTIC-WORLD-Mike-Roberts/dp/1848841361
Seems to be pretty relevant to the subject.

[Kralizec]

Interesting. It seems I've got some reading up to do on the Seleucid Empire. Do you have any recommendations on the subject?

I've read no books specificly about the Seleucid empire. One book I read dealt with it briefly; but it didn't contain much more than what I wrote already as it was about European and near-eastern antiquity in general. I forgot the author's name; it was on the literature list for the history studies at my university though so it can't be crap (I didn't study history, for the record)

And of course Europa Barbarorum.

[SoFarSoGood]

Rome gave us Christianity.

[Jo the Greek]

Well if you are up to compare Greece and Rome do it in equal comparisons

I am sure that Classical Greece could be compared with like Republican Rome the end of Classical Greece is Great Alexander that for only one and last time united Greeks apart Sparta and was able to maintain a big army and leave garissons in Greece and in his rout through India

So yes A United Classical Greece could Compete in numbers with Rome of Carthage wars .



I believe and i have heard that in Hellenistic Greece was a society crises most propably the numbers of non Citizens had rised and Citizens that were militairy active had greatly reduced.

The most classical example is Sparta in Classical could provide an army formed by Spartan and allied citizens but in the later years of early Roman conquest they would depent on mercenairies and non citizens and in few true Spartans. In Even worse situation was the Achean league and Athens
An other example was the City Taranta in South Italy that was rich cause of trade but the Childern of Spartan settlers could provide soldiers for the army of their Champion against the Romans Pyhrus and had to be forced
to do so Militairy education had died for them .

On the Roman danger

Many had realised the thread of Romans for example i think like Antiochus or others tried to react when it was too later example Gauls or the Macedonians wars or the Achean league wars or Pontic wars

they had an element of resistance
But all didnt saw Rome as threat Rome was nt the Barbarian and Arrogant Xerxes that camed to Burn and loot (joking) they honored Greek Gods and knew Greeks and Alliance with Rome seemed profitable when you had to deal with Tyranic state as Macedonia

In simple words Greeks acted as modern European in todays Crises they all looked their cities interest and didnt realised the threats like modern European cared only for their Country and didnt Dangers to come lol

As for Carthage before rome a major threat for Greek Italians was Carthage that managed to repell in the same era of Persian wars

[komnenos]

You should know that Rome established its empire by the civilization of Greece.

[Zarakas]

Agreed.

[ShadesWolf]

Interesting to see my thread is still active and getting feed back, well done people, keep it up.

[fenir]

Rome for me by a huge margin.

The Differences.
The Hellenes to me always sounds like a greek tragic. Going somewhere simply to be remembered.
The Major in the Arts, and Humanties. They to large amount allowed base desires to drive instinct. And when they didn't they went extreme in the opposite direction.
Greece, in the concept of the word, or the notion of a people or state. Is not what anyone knows today.
Greece in it's day before the Romans BC 133, the Slavs AD 600. Greek, or hellenic people stretched from modern macedonia to their orginal homelands in modern turkey, Caria, Lycia, Lydia.
Fractured by infighting, betrayal, and disloyalty.

Whereas to me the Romans started their own, as a distinct ethnic group, and then worked to ally with the other latin tribes, Alba where the Iulii came from et cetera...
And what formed was Rome. Each time a latin tribe was brought into Rome the top people were enrolled on the census.
Those that met the requiresments of the law became citizens. Hellenes never allowed this.
From it's earlest concept, rome was that to which the Latin tribes, over the Samintes, Ercustions, and the Italian tribes were excluded.
And only with the advent of Gaius Julius Caesar did that change. Abit small. And only with Otavianius did it change in the long term.

Pompey was a picentine. Not a latin roman. But like many, Rome, & Roman stoped being about an ethnic group, and more about the culture that people became apart of. Which of course caused the down fall. Factious.

But Rome unlike Hellenes built many things for many people, and expanded to include. The Greeks never built aquadutes. Circus Maximus. Collesuem. Roads. A huge military machine. Apart from sparta, but even they were tiny. A universal money system. Standised measurements.
Never had a register of ager, Land. Register of Citizens, and rights and duties owed. And in truth never really a democratic government.
Rome may have been slack in the Arts, and spent more time with building and organising. But practice vs Conceptual? I take practical.

The hellenes sort to guard their own universal system within themselves, the Romans sort to take to the world and make it better. Closed Hellenes of a liberal belief, or a conservative Roman with a liberal outlook.

To a large degree, Rome saved the Hellenes from themselves, and in the end jealously destoryed them all by fractioning their socitity.

65% of English language is Latin. Our laws are Roman & English. German (common) law was very roman until late 1800's.
English Common law is Roman and English 50-50.
USA Law is English common law and Roman.

Rome lasted from BC753 to AD415 in the West, and The hellenes inherited East Rome AD415 to AD1453. Emporer Dolcitian AD285 moved capital to Nicaea, Constantine 50 km north to Constantinople, or more corretly as it was known, Nova Roma.

Byzantine, Byzantium was quoted by a Frenchman in the 1600's to legitimise Charles the Great, (Charlemange) as the true Roman Emporer.
No one would ever have the balls to say it to their face though, and they were never known as Byzantine/Byzantium.

Now days Byzatine refers to a period of the Roman Empire. From the End of Justinius (Flavius Iustinus Iunior Augustus)Dynasty AD 602 or the end of the Dynasty of Isaurian dynasty, until AD1453. (Flavius Iustinus Iunior Augustus)


Anyway bored, going to make a coffee.


Sincerely


fenir

[fenir]

By jo
I am sure that Classical Greece could be compared with like Republican Rome the end of Classical Greece is Great Alexander that for only one and last time united Greeks apart Sparta and was able to maintain a big army and leave garissons in Greece and in his rout through India

So yes A United Classical Greece could Compete in numbers with Rome of Carthage wars .

We can't compare Alexanders' Hellenic empire to Rome in the Republic.
For one, Greece would never unite.
For one, alexanders concept of army to the rep Rome are chalk and cheese. When the foremost General of greece in BC280 was King Pyrrhus of Epirus. His was the biggest Hellenic Army, between 30-35,000 men, and the first war elephants the Romans had seen.
The first battle was as we know, "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined". King Pyrrhus, Hence the Pyrrhic Victory.


King Pyrrhus borrowed money and troops from Macedonia, 50 war elephants from Egypt, and 9,000 men. Horseman from Thessaly, recruited from Athens for heavy infantry, Archers from Rhodes. Troops from Lucani, Bruttii, Messapians, Samintes, Salentinians, and Italian greek cities.

Now the at this time Rome had been at war with the Gauls, Samintes, Salentinians, Lucani, Bruttii, Messapians for nearly non stop since BC333.

Yet King Pyrrhus invaded to help Terentina with 30 to 35,000 Men 4,000 Horse, and 20-50 War elephants. That was a huge army for the Hellenes.
The Romans were able to raise 8 Legions with auxiliaries. A total of 80,000 Men.
They divided this into 4 armies.

1. Army went to keep Samnite and Salentinian from joining with Pyrrhus Under command of Proconsul Lucius Aemilius Barbula.
2. Army stayed to Guard Rome.
3. Army Marched against Pyrrhus under Procunsulor Publius Valerius Laevinus.
4. Army Marched against the Etruscans under Proconsul Tiberius Coruncanius to keep them away from Joining with their alliance to pyrrhus.

The Victory was to King Pyrrhus at a huge cost. His elephants saved the day. 15,000 Dead Romans, 13,000 Dead to Pyrrhus.
He then marched on rome, and was stopped two days from Rome by another Roman Army. Under Proconsul Tiberius Coruncanius.
King Pyrrhus also knew that Procunsulor Publius Valerius Laevinus & Proconsul Lucius Aemilius Barbula where both bringing their armies to bear behind Coruncanius.
And he exclaimed: "I do not have enough men". He retreated.

AD279 Battle of Asculum. Consul Publius Decius Mus, Faced King Pyrrhus, both sides having 40,000 men. And this time the Romans made elephant killing machines.
King Pyrrhus had used the year between battles to get troops from Macedonian infantry and cavalry,Greek mercenary infantry, allied Italian Greeks, twenty war elephants, Samnite infantry and cavalry.
Again Elephants where the deciding factor.

King Pyrrhus Left Southern Italy and invaded Sciliy for easier pickings. Hence Carthage allied with Rome. And Rome Called more men up.

That left the Romans to smash the Samnites and Italian greek cities.

The last battle was Battle of Beneventum (275 BC), when Pyrrhus was forced out of siciliy he returned to Italy.
18,000 Romans, 23,000 Greeks & Allies.
9,000 Dead, 11,000 Dead, Inconclusive result. Pyrrhus went home never to return, exclaiming, "What a wrestling ground we are leaving, my friends, for the Carthaginians and the Romans".

It took the Romans another 3 years of constant warfare to destory Magna Graecia in italy inculding the Samintes, Salentinians, Lucani, Bruttii, Messapians . Rome now controlled all of Southern Italy. And still fought another war with the Gauls who sued for peace. And ended the Conquest of Grarcia Magnus. BC 272.

Yet Macedonia and Epirus, were militarily exhusted.

Yet Roma, BC 264 8 years later was in the biggest war the world had ever seen to this point, the First punic war.

So from a military / resource point a view, Rome was nothing like the Hellenes. It's sheer ability to train and field armies, it's massive draw of manpower.
It's ability to delegate command among many and fight on two fronts, not to mention it's military tactics were totally different to the hellenes. Hence the Elephants to counter the tactical ability of the Roman Legions.

Anyway, from many the Hellenes and the Romans were Chalk and cheese until about BC100-BC50.


Sincerely

fenir