What did the barbarians do for us?

[InsaneApache]

An interesting article in the Sunday Times by Terry Jones.


Decline and fall of the Roman myth
We were ‘barbarians’, but early British civilisation outshone the Roman version, says ex-Python Terry Jones. We just lost the propaganda war

Nobody ever called themselves barbarians. It’s not that sort of word. It’s a word used about other people. It was used by the ancient Greeks to describe non-Greek people whose language they could not understand and who therefore seemed to babble unintelligibly: “ba ba ba”. The Romans adopted the Greek word and used it to label (and usually libel) the peoples who surrounded their own world.

The Roman interpretation became the only one that counted, and the peoples whom they called Barbarians became for ever branded — be they Spaniards, Britons, Gauls, Germans, Scythians, Persians or Syrians. And, of course, “barbarian” has become a byword for the very opposite of everything that we consider civilised.

Link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2168328,00.html)

Seems that all I was taught in school was erroneous. So is he right about the Romans winning the propaganda war?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Yes, it's been revised several decades ago that indeed most "roman" inventions where in fact invented by "barbarians". The romans were conservative traditionalists and hardly invented anything. Most of their military and cultural achievements were just copies of what others had created (scutum and gladius from Iberians, cataphractarii from sarmatians and parthians, waggons and soap from celts etc.). The romans however had plenty of money and could do some of the things on a larger scale than others did.

[Kagemusha]

Thats right Romans didnt make huge amount of innovations themselves but insted of calling them traditionalist i would call the m very open to new ideas.When Romans conquered another Nation they throughoutly made use of the innovations of the coulture and were ready to change their own customs if they found the new ones more usefull.If Romans were something they were engineers.They knew how to use new innovations and knowledge to benefit their goals.

[The Wizard]

Above all, our supposedly "barbarian" ancestors gave us our values. Most of what they teach you at school is supposedly a bunch of "Romano-Greek" and "Judaeo-Christian" values; in fact, most of the everyday values that you (unwittingly or not) project upon your fellow man in interacting with him are Germanic (that is, if you are of Germanic stock, like myself).

Chivalry? Germanic warrior code. Insulted? Your Germanic feeling of honor calls for revenge. Loyalty to your best friends? There's that Germanic warrior code again.

But remember, cultural values are, above all, reference. Choices remain yours to make, and are subject to your discretion, mood, intelligence, wisdom, and so many more that is intrinsic to yourself and no other.

[Geoffrey S]

Many things such as roads, bath houses and the like would have been around long before the Romans became a major power; what the Romans did was standardize things to a large extent and make such things as paved roads the norm, not to mention provide one law system to govern the Imperial subjects. Although they may not have invented many of the things accredited to them, they did spread them throughout the continent.

[The Stranger]

and they improved most things. but the same things can be said about modern day civilisations. How much have we invented actually. most things were reinvented after they had been lost. or the picked up where old scientists left off.

[Avicenna]

Almost everything is picking up where old scientists left off by now. In Roman times they did do quite a bit, though, with some medical advances (though admittedly mainly Galen). The Romans also spread the technology, so it was a good thing.

Honour was present in most places, notably in Japan as well.

[BigTex]

The Guals gave us soap, have you used your soap today?

[Orda Khan]

The Romans were masters of taking somebody elses idea and using it for themselves. This could be seen as something very positive culturally. If somebody can see the wisdom of anothers ideas or ways and can see the benefit of following these ways, even if they belong to people who are considered 'lesser', then this has to be applauded. Take a look at any grand building and the columns, as seen in Roman buildings, are almost always a feature. It would seem Roman influence (even though they nicked it from the Greeks) is still present

......Orda

[Louis VI the Fat]

Okay, but besides roads, chariots, chivalry, soap, loyalty, wagons, scutum, gladius and cataphractarii, what did the barbarians ever do for us? :balloon2:

[Kommodus]

Yes, it's been revised several decades ago that indeed most "roman" inventions where in fact invented by "barbarians". The romans were conservative traditionalists and hardly invented anything. Most of their military and cultural achievements were just copies of what others had created (scutum and gladius from Iberians, cataphractarii from sarmatians and parthians, waggons and soap from celts etc.).

I wouldn't say that this reflects on a lack of innovation by the Romans. Nearly all "innovations" are actually someone's way of taking various pre-existing ideas and combining them in a new and unique way (occasionally adding a small bit of personal invention as well). It has always been this way (just as it is today), in every field of human endeavor - technology, science, art, music, etc.

The Romans were great at this, and were in fact extremely adaptable. Otherwise, how would they have been able to beat Carthage at sea, and many other enemies as well? The Romans had a knack for getting beaten, going home and working out another approach, and then coming back and winning round two. Then they'd borrow what they considered the best parts of the vanquished culture and incorporate them into their own. I'd bet that, even more than a standing army, that's what gave them success.

I'm really not sure what point the article's author is trying to make. Does he suppose we thought Celtic and Germanic cultures were primitive and had no merits? If so his time is wasted; all sufficiently old cultures are "advanced" in their own way, sometimes for the better, other times for the worse. Is he trying to deny that the barbarian (I use the term loosely) conquest plunged Europe into a dark age, in which much knowledge and culture were lost? I don't see him challenging that piece of history.



Chivalry? Germanic warrior code. Insulted? Your Germanic feeling of honor calls for revenge. Loyalty to your best friends? There's that Germanic warrior code again.


Has anyone ever claimed that these were Judeo-Christian values? On some points (particularly the honor/revenge idea) they seem to run diametrically opposite Christian values.

[Incongruous]

That list of values runs through nearly all cultures eg Feudal Japan.

[edyzmedieval]

Well, they gave us the soap, and that's important. :book:

[Rodion Romanovich]

I'm really not sure what point the article's author is trying to make. Does he suppose we thought Celtic and Germanic cultures were primitive and had no merits? If so his time is wasted; all sufficiently old cultures are "advanced" in their own way, sometimes for the better, other times for the worse. Is he trying to deny that the barbarian (I use the term loosely) conquest plunged Europe into a dark age, in which much knowledge and culture were lost? I don't see him challenging that piece of history.


I think he's trying to spread the message that the old generation still hasn't gotten - that the old picture of Rome taught at school when he was a kid is unhistorical. Stunningly enough, some schools teach that stuff even today and make the barbarians seem primitive and evil and Rome the light of the world and representative of "civilization".

Also, I don't think he's denying that those barbarians that finally managed to destroy Rome made many parts of science get lost. But he's trying to revise the picture of the romans being more clever and better at science than others. After all, with so many millions of people and vast resources of money it's strange that Rome had so few academies, and the scientific accomplishments of the romans in that light appear to be shockingly few and unimportant. It wasn't enlightened thought that made Rome convey Aristotle and others from ancient Greece to the Muslim khaliphates and then back to Europe, it was purely population size and luck that made the romans convey these writings.

Finally the praised roman law is also a myth that needs to be counter-proved. The roman law consisted of crucificions, throwing people to gladiators and lions, and enslaving them. Prisons were horrible, torture in hiding or public common, and "justice" was half arbitrary, with many innocents being sentences, and many dangerous being free. Slaves and provincial population people were oppressed and had almost no rights, especially not if hurt by a roman with citizenship. The laws were inconsistent and a mess. Not until in the 6th century when Justinian ordered people to put together a register of all roman law was there ever anything resembling a centralized, consistent law, and then it appeared that the long list of previously existing roman laws were often contradictionary, incomplete, and needed so many pages to be summarized that it was impossible to handle it in practise. The only real thing that roman law did well was to define central concepts such as guilt and so on, and make some very general statements, but the laws were horrible even in theory, and even worse in reality.


I wouldn't say that this reflects on a lack of innovation by the Romans. Nearly all "innovations" are actually someone's way of taking various pre-existing ideas and combining them in a new and unique way (occasionally adding a small bit of personal invention as well). It has always been this way (just as it is today), in every field of human endeavor - technology, science, art, music, etc.

The Romans were great at this, and were in fact extremely adaptable. Otherwise, how would they have been able to beat Carthage at sea, and many other enemies as well? The Romans had a knack for getting beaten, going home and working out another approach, and then coming back and winning round two. Then they'd borrow what they considered the best parts of the vanquished culture and incorporate them into their own. I'd bet that, even more than a standing army, that's what gave them success.


Think of all inventions Rome didn't adopt from the vanquished, and then you'll realize that several million people in several centuries managing to invent almost nothing and incorporate a dozen major inventions in that time, then they seem indeed like very backwards and primitive beings compared to most of the "barbarians". The romans had good organization, and in the early days were mostly attacked first rather than the first to attack, which meant that when they won their defensive wars by conquering the aggressor, the aggressors eventually calmed down and accepted roman rule, because they weren't in a moral position to claim independence. This applied for a few centuries up to around 250 BC, and created a solid power and economy base for the romans. When they later gradually turned into oppressive conquerors, who could conquer someone merely for things such as "that land is a better defensive border" or "we've conquered to hostile tribes but there's a bit of land between them that would be good to have too for trade routes" or "they have gold mines so we should conquer them" or "they are growing more powerful and might, perhaps, get dangerous in the future so let's attack them" and similar, they gradually consumed the power and economy base that the quite clever founding fathers of the roman republic had collected for them. Rome passed the point of going to "the dark side" around 250 BC, but it wasn't a definitive changeover - Mithradates and others did indeed attack Rome first, etc. At the time of Caesar and Octavian, the changeover into oppressive conquerors was complete enough that their fall began, with the Empire, the intolerance, the overexpansion, the attempt to create secure borders without taking into account the political consequences of attacking innocents to get borders at natural defensive positions rather than drawing borders at a defeated hostile tribe, and similar things. Indeed, most inventions that Rome adopted from others were adopted before Caesar and Augustus - the quincunx from the Samnites, the gladius and scutum from the Iberians, Soap from celts, irrigation and farming technology from various others (although much advanced farming technology was never adopted by the romans from the celts because among the romans it was economically easier to stick to slavery and oppression) and so on. Rome didn't make many inventions after about the time of Caesar and Augustus, and didn't adopt many after that either. In fact, I don't think I can think of a single invention of any importance that they made or adopted after that...

In conclusion - early Rome was fairly ethically correct, very clever, and tolerant. Late Rome was evil, foolish, and intolerant, and simply lived on the solid economical, military and power base created by the early romans. The late romans caused the fall of Rome, and with the general foolishness and intolerance Rome showed in the late phase, Rome would have fallen in less than a year if they hadn't had that solid power, economy, military and loyalty basis created by the early romans. So when we/I/you speak of all these things such as innovativeness or not among romans, the answer depends on which time of Rome we're talking about. Interestingly enough, it's often the corrupt, intolerant, backwards and primitive late Rome that in the traditional view is praised most, while the early Rome, and the barbarians, are seen as the most primitive and evil. In reality, it was early Rome and the barbarians that were the most cultivated.

Anyway the conclusion is that the concept of a huge empire like Rome was doomed to fail because people like the early romans would eventually lose power due to the sheer size and power of the empire meant that it became a prime target to intolerant power-abusing maniacs, civil war, coups, who would eventually claim power. And when they claimed power, building on the solid power base they could make some in the short term very profitable military campaigns, and the empire can still survive quite long under their unprofessional even when ruled by such idiots due to the so solid power base. That way it doesn't become apparent that their strategy is bringing the empire into destruction, so it's impossible to reverse the development until it's too late.

The loss of science etc. when rome fell wasn't just due to the barbarians - the late romans didn't do much to save the scientific texts either, and it's pretty common for science and art to get destroyed by war. One can hardly blame the late barbarians more than the late romans for the destruction of much of science. Also the dark age might have been dark, but at least it was better the sooner Rome fell, because once the late romans took the step towards intolerance and oppression they were doomed to destruction and the longer it took it would only cause more casualties on both sides. Maybe it's impossible to create a powerful empire in the ways the clever and pretty just early romans did, without making the madmen take over power and live on and consume the power and economy basis (by oppression, intolerance and arbitrary aggression/war-mongering) that the clever founding fathers once created? Maybe it's impossible for an empire to be large enough without being taken over by fools who think greatness is measured in geographical size rather than economy and loyalty (within and from the outside), and look with pride at what they conquer, thinking it was them who created the military strength that made that possible, while in fact they were just consuming the emergency buffer of strength that their predecessors had created?

[Rodion Romanovich]

@honor etc. debate: most of these things are pretty close to values that are common to human values in general. Take honor and insults for instance. Insults and dishonoring of a person can often be about indirectly saying to someone: "you're weak and worthless, and I can hurt you as much as I like and you can't do a thing about it". Such a thing is intolerable to most people, and if the person truly is stronger or has power that he can use to become stronger, and at the same time has the intention to abuse that power/strength, it can often be necessary to respond to it, even by violence and death. There's also the dishonoring of a person of the sexual rank form: "you can't compete with me for the ladies", to which it's not necessary, but preferable, if you can respond. Usually this latter form exists almost always and because any real conflict about life or death in immensely dangerous it's necessary that the competition for women follows and honor code with ability to surrender and be shown mercy, forbidding backstabbing, and so on. In reality with guns or swords it's easy to backstab someone to get a girl but still all these warrior codes of chivalry have stuck to duels with clear rules etc., because it's basically natural for a human being to have an honor code and fair fight in the competition for a woman. This of course becomes less natural when the duels about sexual rank status (in other words fights for a woman) are suddenly fought to the death in some cultures, including some of the germanic cultures, during the chivalry era...

But most cultures are very similar to the general basic human ideas, but with small confusions of the natural concepts. Just like the duels to the death are an unnatural version of a natural idea, the seppuku and warrior code of Japan are unnatural developments of the two honor concepts mentioned above - you need to show you have the strength to counter problems directed at your group, and as war becomes one of the main threats, a code of bravery among warriors becomes culture, then if it appears that fighting to the death when needed is the best way of being valuable to the group, then the idea of fighting to the death easily becomes the culture. Often such things remain even into times when it's no longer the best idea. But it's easy to see how all these cultural ideas are derived from rather common, natural concepts.

In fact also the Judeo-Christian culture contains the honor concepts, but here instead of pointing out that revenge can be necessary, Jesus points out that revenge can be unnecessary and even harmful in some cases, as some attempts at dishonoring or provoking are just empty threats, and it can be more benefitial to not respond to them in some of the cases. In later Christian tradition it has been interpreted as "revenge is always forbidden", but it's easy to see how it originates in the basic honor concept - revenge isn't always necessary but might be in some cases. This method is often better than the honor code to use in a civilized society with laws, as it can often be more effective to compete with people by provoking them so they beat you, then they get a jail sentence and you get no sentence even if you started the conflict - similarly (and this was probably more often something the regular people suffered from under roman law) you need to ignore provoking people even if they make you feel really bad, or you'll get crucified, killed or similar even if that other person started the conflict, as provoking people by indirectly saying "you're so weak I can do what I want against you and you can't do a thing about it" isn't considered a criminal form of threat, neither in modern society nor in roman society afaik.

[The Wizard]

What the "barbarians" did for us, that is to say the members of the modern nations, was lay the foundation for the world we live in today. While they surround themselves with Romano-Greek trappings, the principles of the tribal societies as they emerged from the final collapse of the Roman Empire remain intact. It must be said, however, that an extremely important element that the "civilized" Romans left us was their practices in law.

[Roman Catholic] Christianity played an important role in this, the way it kept adopting local feasts and practices, moving itself away from its Jewish roots and becoming much more "barbaric" in nature. Yes, it preserved the Roman state device. Yes, it preserved several key Jewish elements such as monotheism and general ambivalence the [violent] cards dealt to you (e.g. turning the other cheek, although Christians do it out of another motivation than Jews). But eventually it took on many values straight out of the tribal societies that dominated the Europe of the early Middle Ages, so much so that it adopted the tribal warrior code (chivalry) and dropped its commitment to peace in favor of military action against those it saw as unbelievers, heretics and heathens.

[Rodion Romanovich]

What the "barbarians" did for us, that is to say the members of the modern nations, was lay the foundation for the world we live in today. While they surround themselves with Romano-Greek trappings, the principles of the tribal societies as they emerged from the final collapse of the Roman Empire remain intact. It must be said, however, that an extremely important element that the "civilized" Romans left us was their practices in law.

[Roman Catholic] Christianity played an important role in this, the way it kept adopting local feasts and practices, moving itself away from its Jewish roots and becoming much more "barbaric" in nature. Yes, it preserved the Roman state device. Yes, it preserved several key Jewish elements such as monotheism and general ambivalence the [violent] cards dealt to you (e.g. turning the other cheek, although Christians do it out of another motivation than Jews). But eventually it took on many values straight out of the tribal societies that dominated the Europe of the early Middle Ages, so much so that it adopted the tribal warrior code (chivalry) and dropped its commitment to peace in favor of military action against those it saw as unbelievers, heretics and heathens.

Actually the germanic and celtic tribal warfare was mostly pushing games with very few casualties. The idea of fighting to the death to defend honor if necessary (although it was seldom necessary) existed in germanic and celtic warrior code. But the idea that war had to be fought to the surrender or death of the opponent and to achieve a major diplomatic/political difference afterwards, was a roman idea - but the early romans on the other hand rarely even resolved to violence in the first place, so both cultures were about equally violent but had different policies of how/when to use violence. However the combination of these roman and barbarian cultural values resulted in a really horrible culture - resolve to violence often, and when resolving to violence, always be prepared to fight to the death, and fight until the death or surrender of the enemy! :oops: I think it's important to note that these Medieval ideals can neither be blamed on romans nor on germanic tribal culture, but rather seems to be the consequence of a really unlucky marriage of the worst parts of both cultures.

[Kagemusha]

I think he's trying to spread the message that the old generation still hasn't gotten - that the old picture of Rome taught at school when he was a kid is unhistorical. Stunningly enough, some schools teach that stuff even today and make the barbarians seem primitive and evil and Rome the light of the world and representative of "civilization".

Also, I don't think he's denying that those barbarians that finally managed to destroy Rome made many parts of science get lost. But he's trying to revise the picture of the romans being more clever and better at science than others. After all, with so many millions of people and vast resources of money it's strange that Rome had so few academies, and the scientific accomplishments of the romans in that light appear to be shockingly few and unimportant. It wasn't enlightened thought that made Rome convey Aristotle and others from ancient Greece to the Muslim khaliphates and then back to Europe, it was purely population size and luck that made the romans convey these writings.

Sorry Legio m8,but now you are guilty of samekind of mistake like the earlier historians but only other way around.Rome produced lots of books about History,Geography,laws and also popular literacy like poems.The Creek filosofist´s and scientist were highly appreciated in Rome and most Patrician families had Creek teachers to tutor their children.Can you name any Celtic,Germanian or Numidian author of that time?



Finally the praised roman law is also a myth that needs to be counter-proved. The roman law consisted of crucificions, throwing people to gladiators and lions, and enslaving them. Prisons were horrible, torture in hiding or public common, and "justice" was half arbitrary, with many innocents being sentences, and many dangerous being free. Slaves and provincial population people were oppressed and had almost no rights, especially not if hurt by a roman with citizenship. The laws were inconsistent and a mess. Not until in the 6th century when Justinian ordered people to put together a register of all roman law was there ever anything resembling a centralized, consistent law, and then it appeared that the long list of previously existing roman laws were often contradictionary, incomplete, and needed so many pages to be summarized that it was impossible to handle it in practise. The only real thing that roman law did well was to define central concepts such as guilt and so on, and make some very general statements, but the laws were horrible even in theory, and even worse in reality.


While Roman law was not perfect in any sense it was product of its time.And now you are talking more about punishments then the law itself.You have to remember that the laws for province people and citizens were very different.When the term "Roman law" is used it usually means the laws that considered the Roman citizens.And we have to remember that majority of people inside Roman Empire wasnt granted Citicenship.But were more like under the harsh military laws.When we compare for example the Roman law to lets say the laws of Athens.It was lot more equal.In Athens it was the mob of Citizens who judged and that resulted for loosing many of the greatest men of their time becouse some agitator had heated up the Citizen council.




Think of all inventions Rome didn't adopt from the vanquished, and then you'll realize that several million people in several centuries managing to invent almost nothing and incorporate a dozen major inventions in that time, then they seem indeed like very backwards and primitive beings compared to most of the "barbarians". The romans had good organization, and in the early days were mostly attacked first rather than the first to attack, which meant that when they won their defensive wars by conquering the aggressor, the aggressors eventually calmed down and accepted roman rule, because they weren't in a moral position to claim independence. This applied for a few centuries up to around 250 BC, and created a solid power and economy base for the romans. When they later gradually turned into oppressive conquerors, who could conquer someone merely for things such as "that land is a better defensive border" or "we've conquered to hostile tribes but there's a bit of land between them that would be good to have too for trade routes" or "they have gold mines so we should conquer them" or "they are growing more powerful and might, perhaps, get dangerous in the future so let's attack them" and similar, they gradually consumed the power and economy base that the quite clever founding fathers of the roman republic had collected for them. Rome passed the point of going to "the dark side" around 250 BC, but it wasn't a definitive changeover - Mithradates and others did indeed attack Rome first, etc. At the time of Caesar and Octavian, the changeover into oppressive conquerors was complete enough that their fall began, with the Empire, the intolerance, the overexpansion, the attempt to create secure borders without taking into account the political consequences of attacking innocents to get borders at natural defensive positions rather than drawing borders at a defeated hostile tribe, and similar things. Indeed, most inventions that Rome adopted from others were adopted before Caesar and Augustus - the quincunx from the Samnites, the gladius and scutum from the Iberians, Soap from celts, irrigation and farming technology from various others (although much advanced farming technology was never adopted by the romans from the celts because among the romans it was economically easier to stick to slavery and oppression) and so on. Rome didn't make many inventions after about the time of Caesar and Augustus, and didn't adopt many after that either. In fact, I don't think I can think of a single invention of any importance that they made or adopted after that...

Are Countries or Empires good or evil?What Romans build was infrastructure.Do you know how many main roads of todays Europe are on the same spot then Roman roads? Many of todays greatest cities were first build with city planning by Romans.They build plumbing and aqueducts and water reservours and food reservours around the Empire.Do you know how much time went after for example there was Water closet in Europe after Romans.Can you point to an source about the better irrigation technique that Celts developed?



In conclusion - early Rome was fairly ethically correct, very clever, and tolerant. Late Rome was evil, foolish, and intolerant, and simply lived on the solid economical, military and power base created by the early romans. The late romans caused the fall of Rome, and with the general foolishness and intolerance Rome showed in the late phase, Rome would have fallen in less than a year if they hadn't had that solid power, economy, military and loyalty basis created by the early romans. So when we/I/you speak of all these things such as innovativeness or not among romans, the answer depends on which time of Rome we're talking about. Interestingly enough, it's often the corrupt, intolerant, backwards and primitive late Rome that in the traditional view is praised most, while the early Rome, and the barbarians, are seen as the most primitive and evil. In reality, it was early Rome and the barbarians that were the most cultivated.


Same question again are Countries good or Evil?What Nations and Empires do is that they act for their self intrest. If you read Tacitus you can easily see how much he admired the ways of the Germans example.



Anyway the conclusion is that the concept of a huge empire like Rome was doomed to fail even if people like the early romans had continued to rule Rome in the late period too, because the sheer size and power meant that it became a prime target to intolerant power-abusing maniacs, civil war, coups, and could survive so long even when ruled by idiots due to the so solid power base, that it wasn't apparent to the late romans themselves that they were causing their own destruction so that they couldn't stop it until it was too late. The loss of science etc. when rome fell wasn't just due to the barbarians - the late romans didn't do much to save the scientific texts either, and it's pretty common for science and art to get destroyed by war. One can hardly blame the late barbarians more than the late romans for the destruction of much of science. Also the dark age might have been dark, but at least it was better the sooner Rome fell, because once the late romans took the step towards intolerance and oppression they were doomed to destruction and the longer it took it would only cause more casualties on both sides. Maybe it's impossible to create a powerful empire in the ways the clever and pretty just early romans did, without making the madmen take over power and live on and consume the power and economy basis (by oppression, intolerance and arbitrary aggression/war-mongering) that the clever founding fathers once created? Maybe it's impossible for an empire to be large enough without being taken over by fools who think greatness is measured in geographical size rather than economy and loyalty (within and from the outside), and look with pride at what they conquer, thinking it was them who created the military strength that made that possible, while in fact they were just consuming the emergency buffer of strength that their predecessors had created?

I agree that Rome corrupted.But i would say the reason was that Romans never adopted the Provinces like they should have.I would more blame the remnants of Republican Roman ideals that tought that Rome was for Romans and Romans only.The rich Roman Patricians were competing how much they could pillage as a governor of provinces. If instead the Romans could have understood that it was essential to unite provinces and they would have created the Senate from representavises of Provinces the turn out would have been very different.
Last the Historians are pretty much in agreement that when Rome fell and the Germanic nations started moving on its area the Tribes didnt first move in the Roman area to pillage,but they wanted to be part of Rome.and its wealth.While the changes in climates and the attacks of the Steppe people resulted to large immigrations becouse the areas Germans lived couldnt provide enough food for the populations those populations like Visigoths moved towards Rome to have shelter from Nomads and to be part of Rome that they thought as kind of Shang ri La. Only after mistakes from corrupted Roman officials the Germanic people realized that they could be the masters of the area.
We always have to remember that when we are looking to ancient Civilizations we shouldnt watch them through our modern ideals.:bow:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Sorry Legio m8,but now you are guilty of samekind of mistake like the earlier historians but only other way around

No, what I'm saying is that they were equal to others, and not superior to them. I'm sorry but maybe you're having so high thoughts of them that in comparison to them my post looks like derogatory about romans, but in fact it's saying that they were about equally skilled as others. ~:)



While Roman law was not perfect in any sense it was product of its time.And now you are talking more about punishments then the law itself.
Yes, but law is ultimately about how it's used in practise and about the actual punishments. Judging the abilities to be just of the roman leaders by judging the legal theory they've made doesn't make sense. However you can perhaps be impressed by some of the legal "researchers" of the time for their legal theory. But that's a very important difference, and doesn't make the roman culture and people enlightened and just people, because a few of their representatives did a good thing, while the majority were pretty unjust and inconsistent. The very idea that roman law practise was fair and civilized in a myth, and that's what I'm trying to show.



Are Countries or Empires good or evil?


No, but leadership and cultures that directly give rise to certain actions can be.



What Romans build was infrastructure.Do you know how many main roads of todays Europe are on the same spot then Roman roads? Many of todays greatest cities were first build with city planning by Romans.They build plumbing and aqueducts and water reservours and food reservours around the Empire.Do you know how much time went after for example there was Water closet in Europe after Romans.Can you point to an source about the better irrigation technique that Celts developed?

When did I mention irrigation (I referred to other farming technology such as tools etc.)? In any case every modern secondary source I've read on the subject mentions that the roman agricultural technique was archaic in comparison to what others had developed, and that roman agriculture preferred slaves over improved farming technology. I can't answer which primary source it originally came from.

As for infrastructure, it was mostly for military purposes that they built roads - to open supply routes and be able to transport legions. Remember when Trajan forced-marched a legion from Iberia to Rhine in 1 week? That's what the roads were for. Trade was a bonus. Also, many "barbarians" had similar roads, good infrastructure, and often even wider and better roads. The barbarian roads covered the areas that were significant to them, while the major roman roads usually created larger "highways" between the individual road nets of different barbarians. I don't dare say it with certainty, but I'm fairly sure a quite significant amount of the internal road networks withing each local region were made by barbarians. The romans made the larger interconnecting roads. No barbarian had ever controlled such a large area before and thus hadn't been in need of them before, so it's not very strange that the romans were the first ones who ended up building them. But local infrastructure and roads covering the areas relevant to barbarians already had pretty good road networks already before roman occupation.

As for roman city planning, I fail to see the significance of that to modern man. Cities were hardly something unique to romans and many roman cities were built on the city planning of barbarians. Again, barbarians didn't as often need city planning of the roman type due to their smaller and more spread out populations, and it's very likely that barbarians too would have realized the importance of city planning if they'd ever started to need cities for larger and denser populations. Also, if you look at roman city planning you'll notice that these cities often have very narrow alleys and are very impractical, and there were often congestion, overpopulation and misery in many parts of the roman cities, which shows that their city planning wasn't that refined, or very wide-spread either for that matter. In fact there were only sporadic attempts for city planning, for example when Nero burnt down part of Rome for his villa, and when Trajan planned an entire "forum". The things that are amazing in roman architecture were rather things such as their advanced concrete technology, which they admittedly developed pretty well and I can't recall any barbarians having concrete of comparable quality. They carried out some magnificent architectural things in the eastern parts of the empire during the early empire period. But most cities were poorly planned and, maybe even more so than modern cities, congested, overpopulated, noisy and often dangerous with falling stuff, being run or ridden over in alleys etc.



I agree that Rome corrupted.But i would say the reason was that Romans never adopted the Provinces like they should have.I would more blame the remnants of Republican Roman ideals that tought that Rome was for Romans and Romans only.The rich Roman Patricians were competing how much they could pillage as a governor of provinces. If instead the Romans could have understood that it was essential to unite provinces and they would have created the Senate from representavises of Provinces the turn out would have been very different.


I never really contradicted this. Early Rome wasn't perfect, and the fascistical ideals of early Rome I dislike. However they were born by romans having to endure attacks from many others. Indeed, early Rome was in many ways morally superior to and more cultivated than others as they seldom attacked others unprovokedly. But it was in late Rome that that thought of superiority really grew strong - during a period when Rome was one of the the most primitive cultures on earth.



Last the Historians are pretty much in agreement that when Rome fell and the Germanic nations started moving on its area the Tribes didnt first move in the Roman area to pillage,but they wanted to be part of Rome.and its wealth.While the changes in climates and the attacks of the Steppe people resulted to large immigrations becouse the areas Germans lived couldnt provide enough food for the populations those populations like Visigoths moved towards Rome to have shelter from Nomads and to be part of Rome that they thought as kind of Shang ri La. Only after mistakes from corrupted Roman officials the Germanic people realized that they could be the masters of the area.


I don't think that's the accepted view. Even since Gibbon in the 19th century it has been commonly realized that a multitude of factors caused the fall of Rome - everything from corruption, unsound diplomacy, economical decline, declining loyalty, intolerance, new barbarians attacking from the outside, old barbarians attacking in response to roman attacks, provincial people revolting, Rome expanding too far, and Rome expanding until their borders were next to only to cultures whose warfare Rome were very bad at fighting against because they conquered all easy grabs, the attempt to make provincial forces fight for the roman wealth when legions were kept back and auxilia had to do most of the dirty job, denial of citizenship to many who lived in Rome - even people that Rome had unprovokedly attacked and that didn't want to be part of Rome and peoples that had been part of the empire for a long time, the obsession with defensible borders instead of taking into account local politics when drawing borders, overconfidence, feeling of having won everything that could be won already and thus losing motivation, tiredness of all warfare, and some of the barbarians from provinces that Rome had attacked unprovokedly ending up with power positions while still not being loyal to Rome because they still hated Rome and therefore didn't act in the interest of the empire. I think most historians agree that all of these reasons played a very important role in causing the fall of Rome. However, most of these reasons orginally come from the roman pretty fascistical ideals gradually adopted in approximately the period 250 BC to 0 AD, when they consumed the strong power, economy and military basis that the early romans had created by being evil and oppressive in different forms.



We always have to remember that when we are looking to ancient Civilizations we shouldnt watch them through our modern ideals.:bow:


Yes, and that's what the old view of Rome, that is sometimes persistent even today, did. They thought of Rome as the light and symbol of civilization, and the barbarians as representatives of evilness and primitive animal-like life. The truth is that early Rome and early barbarians were both highly cultivated while the late romans and late barbarians were both quite horrible and uncivilized in comparison.

[Kagemusha]

When i have some time i will dig you some info about the city planning of Romans.I also have to state that i personally doesnt believe Romans were light of the Civilization,but one of the competing factions that could build up an Empire becouse of their adaptavity and determination.About the slaves.Every culture had slaves at the time. What Romans did in their agriculture was they used irrigation and fertilizing.While most Germanic people used slash and burn.Basicly that is done by plowing ditches around area and then cutting the trees and burning them in order to fertilize the land.Which is a very good way of to make fertile fields.But it demands that you move your fields pretty often.I agree that the Roman roads were first build for military but im against the idea that Romans didnt appreciate trade.Ofcourse the decay of Roman Empire was a result of many reasons but i wouldnt sign that the Germanic tribes hated Romans becouse of their politics.Romans traded with them and hired huge amount of their warriors to serve in her Legions. I think that main reason behind the degeneration of Roman Empire was their inability to lean on the provinces.But the fact remains that on the high peek of the Roman Empire 0-200AD A average Roman Citizen was living on higher standards.Then anyone since before more modern days. He had free food grain provided by government,pensions for retired soldiers.And officials.More free National holidays then in any modern country.The literature percent was higher then in medieval times.Public Sanitation for Cities,hospitals and Bath houses.And so on.But of course these benefits were only for Citizens.And i think that was the main problem that finally caused the destruction of the Rome.If the Citicenship would have been for all the provinces then Rome wouldnt have lost its power to live and prosper.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I agree, the citizenship (or rather lack thereof) was one of the things I was mainly referring to :2thumbsup:

Edit: btw I disagree to calling the time of largest geographical extent the peak of Rome. That was the peak of consuming money and power, with temporary architectural beauty and temporary large expansions became the result, but the peak of the empire in power, economy, potential and ability to resist any problems that could threaten it, was some time 200 BC or earlier IMO.

[conon394]

LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

I have to disagree strongly with your characterizing Rome as technologically stagnant.


After all, with so many millions of people and vast resources of money it's strange that Rome had so few academies, and the scientific accomplishments of the romans in that light appear to be shockingly few and unimportant. It wasn't enlightened thought that made Rome convey Aristotle and others from ancient Greece to the Muslim khaliphates and then back to Europe, it was purely population size and luck that made the romans convey these writings.

No not really the very real rise in general literacy, meant the Roman world produced relatively large amounts of books and distributed them fairly broadly. Literacy fell off significantly in the west after the fall of the Empire – you don’t make lots of books for people who don’t read. All the major Hellenist era Academies/Universities and Libraries (Cos, Rhodes, Alexandria, Athens, etc) continued to flourish under the Empire and received patronage and support from the Empire. Which contemporary polity supported more?


and then you'll realize that several million people in several centuries managing to invent almost nothing and incorporate a dozen major inventions in that time, then they seem indeed like very backwards and primitive beings compared to most of the "barbarians"


the quincunx from the Samnites, the gladius and scutum from the Iberians, Soap from celts, irrigation and farming technology from various others (although much advanced farming technology was never adopted by the romans from the celts because among the romans it was economically easier to stick to slavery and oppression) and so on. Rome didn't make many inventions after about the time of Caesar and Augustus, and didn't adopt many after that either. In fact, I don't think I can think of a single invention of any importance that they made or adopted after that...


That a ratheris a tendentious view of Roman agriculture. Yes the Romans did have large slave using farm/estates in some places; however those estates were also some of the same places the Romans deployed large amounts of technology: water mills, sophisticated oil presses etc.
Other areas of the Empire however used different styles of agriculture, in Gaul or say Egypt. In Egypt the Romans advanced and improved the irrigation systems. The vallus referred to in the original article seems to me a Roman invention as it occurred in Roman Gaul not pre-Roman Celtic Gaul. The real problem with the whole slaves did everything is it can’t explain why the Romans did not use slave farming everywhere – if it was so cheap and easy.

Not to mention the discredited position that Romans lacked good harness for their animals, they not only had effective harness but improved them over the course of the Empire.

A few odds and ends to counter no Roman inventions…
The Romans would seem to have introduced large scale Hydraulic mining (hushing and ground slucing). In diffusing and improving upon the Water mills introduced in Hellenist Egypt – The Romans should also receive credit for introducing mill powered saws and hammers and oar crushing devices). I think you also have the credit the Romans with large scale production of cheap consumer goods like blown glass and pottery (red-slip ware for example). They surly did not invent either technique, but it was the Empire that refined the production process and expanded on a grand scale. How about the introduction of the sprit and lateen sailing rigs or the significant improvement in the size of oxen during the Roman period? The Romans also introduced significant advances to artillery (metal frames and a more portable device).

More generally it relatively silly to say the Romans invented nothing just because they adopted say a sword style from Iberia – was it unchanged for 1000 years after. From the few studies I’m aware of Roman metallurgy/iron/steel was often significantly better than la Tene Celtic work. The style of the Roman army and its weapons evolved and changed considerably over the period of the Late Republic and Empire – did Rome adopt weapon concepts from others (be it a style of short sword or the use of spear butt-spikes) or even troop types (armored cavalry) sure. That does not detract from the point that unlike Carthage, Parthia or the Succesors Rome adopted, invented and combined fighting techniques and applied them across more time and space than any of those rivals, that hardly seems static and un-imaginative to me

On the Scutum I’m not sure about the issue, I believe there evidence to suggest an Italian origin for the shield style, not Iberian or Celtic.

Kagemusha



But were more like under the harsh military laws.When we compare for example the Roman law to lets say the laws of Athens.It was lot more equal.In Athens it was the mob of Citizens who judged and that resulted for loosing many of the greatest men of their time becouse some agitator had heated up the Citizen council.

Although it is off topic, are you suggesting Roman law was more fare than Athenian law.
When did Athens loose many of her ‘Greatest Men’ do to Mobs?

[Rodion Romanovich]

I have to disagree strongly with your characterizing Rome as technologically stagnant.

Those are interesting examples you give, and I'm aware of most of them, but what I'm saying is the following: the romans were NOT more inventive than any other cultures. I'm not accusing them of being less inventive, just that they weren't more inventive.

Taking into account the time and population size it's not more amazing than what any other culture achieved, even if you would be able to make a longer list of their inventions than the list of inventions you could make for each barbarian culture. Many of the inventions were also made by people in the provinces, who were indeed "barbarians", although I can imagine it common and easily possible for romans to steal the honor for the inventions considering how badly the average provincial person without citizenship was protected by roman law. Also, the irrigation technology for agriculture and water supply to cities wasn't unique, in fact it was invented hundreds of years earlier and widely employed in Persia, India, Egypt, and other Middle Eastern cultures. The massive irrigation system that supplied Rome was an impressive large-scale project, as was the massive implementations of irrigation in parts of North Africa. But the actual technology wasn't roman. And from all roman inventions and adopted inventions mentioned in this thread, most adoptions and inventions were made before the Caesar-Augustus era.

[Kagemusha]

Kagemusha



Although it is off topic, are you suggesting Roman law was more fare than Athenian law.
When did Athens loose many of her ‘Greatest Men’ do to Mobs?

I should make some backround work to remember them all.But first that comes in my mind Socrates.I will give you more names later.~;)

[Kralizec]

There's also the practice of ostracism, in wich the "mob" would vote on wether or not to banish a particular person for a period of 10 years. Initially it was almost certainly meant to expulse (potential) tyrants, but it ended up being abused by demagogues to disable their political oponents. A lot of other practices and institutions were abused similarily, for politiccal goals. Democracy in general is very susceptible to demagoguery and deception, and Athens was no exception. Olichargy, while morally inferior (in my opinion), was generally a more stable way of handling things throughout history.

[conon394]

I should make some backround work to remember them all.But first that comes in my mind Socrates.I will give you more names later.

I suspected you might bring up Socrates. But I don’t see any real issue.

First I think there is a bit (ok rather a lot) of elitist bias that has been interjected into the record here. Sure the Athenian democracy killed Socrates (or substitute the trial of the generals at the Arginusae) but really who did any better: The US interred Japanese Americans during WW2, Alexander killed Clitus and Callisthenes and Parmenio, The Roman aristocrats killed the Gracchi via extra judicial means, and The Tudors had their Star Chamber… Really it seems a little unfair to attack the Athenians while Monarchies, Aristocratic Republics and Oligarchies get off with only a wink and a nod.

To be more direct the Athenians put up with Socrates for over 60 years, and when on trial they very nearly acquitted him even given his aggressive and uncompromising defense. Had Socrates offered up a real alternative to death during the second part of his trial (say exile) he almost certainly would not have been executed. By his own admission Socrates had no desire to live anywhere else nor could expect the freedom he had enjoyed at Athens anywhere else (the clear implication of Crito). It is simply not fair to castigate the Athenian system for executing Socrates without also acknowledge that he could exist nowhere else, no other polis offered the freedom for such an individual to flourish (aside from the fact that Socrates was mostly prosecuted as a proxy for the members of the pro-Spartan quisling 30 tyrants who were protected by an amnesty many of whom were his former pupils/friends). It interesting to note that for all his dislike for the democracy, Plato found his attempt to setup shop in Dionysius’ Tyranny a no go and ended up back at Athens. People often mention Aristotle and the fact he left Athens during the war between Athens and Antipater as an adjunct to Socrates' trial (supposedly to avoid Athens committing another ‘crime against philosophy’ – nice PR Aristotle) nobody ever argues Alexander committed a crime against History and or Philosophy when he off’ed Callisthenes because he would not bow like some Persian lackey? Funny thing too, Aristotle never went along with Alex to Persia, apparently the democracy for all it’s failing was a bit safer than a drunken megalomaniac’s court (last time I check no buzzed Athenian politician ever ran a spear through his friend - who had saved his life.)…

The Carthaginian Oligarchy sent thousands of soldiers, dozens of ships and piles of silver everywhere and anywhere but to the succor of it most famous and accomplished general while he was on the cusp of crushing Rome, no matter how much he pleaded (or insert their equally short sighted policies in the first Punic war or their handling of their mercenaries afterward) – Yet nobody suggests Oligarchies wasted their best men (take Kralizec’s post or the easy acceptance of the biased term ‘the mob’ how come nobody uses the Athenian (democratic ‘mob’/partisan) term for Oligarchs and Aristocrats as readily - ‘the bloated ones’?

[Aenlic]

... how come nobody uses the Athenian (democratic ‘mob’/partisan) term for Oligarchs and Aristocrats as readily - ‘the bloated ones’?).

Because most people have been taught to think of the bloated ones as their duly elected representatives who have peoples' best interests at heart. It's easy refer to others as oligarchs and aristos and plutocrats; it's much more difficult to recognize such within one's own government, when such a government advertises itself as a "democracy" instead. Breaking beyond the mental barriers established by years of brainwashing imposed by supposed republican democracies is more than most people can accomplish.

[Cronos Impera]

Errr....... the European civilization model is a hybrid one. Mostly Europe was influienced by Rome ( the inventors of today's political system and administration - The Republic- as the true Democracy died out with Athens), Greece ( philosophy, science, technologies) and Dacia ( religion, monarchy, medicine and alphabet "The Gothic Alphabet").
In the last years of the Roman Empire, the emperours relied ever more on auxilla. Fewer and fewer citizens ware ethnic romans. More and more ware gallic, dacian and eastern. The empire had lost the core of his power ( the hardcore discipline of the roman legion).
Instead the emperours relied ever more on the dacians/sarmatians for their armies. The roman system became dependent on the subject nations, Regallianus, pretender to the roman throne, was the grandson of Decebalus.
After 106 AD, Rome was no longer roman.