Printable View
Why do you think Aeneas is pathetic? I think he had a pretty cool life:Of royal blood, favored by the gods, had it off with carthaginean babe Dido, gone to the underworld and comes back(comparible with jezus resurecting), winner of many battles and some duels and last but not least mythical founder of one of the greatest cities of antiquity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca Putt
aww common having a cool life is nowhere comparable to beeing a "hero" it's like everytime someone gets the idea to make his "odyssey" les comfortabe all (other) gods come by and intervenere while ulysses get constantly taunted by poseidon while zeus sits by an is like " lets see how he gets out of this one!*munches pop-corn*" and pallas merely tells his son to be patient. although favor of the gods is considered to be what makes a hero a hero, there is a differnece between getting some cool powers or just beeing smart and strong and having mount olympus as your bodyguard. and tbh If aphrodite would have as big a crush on me as she had on aeneas europe would be called CaPuttonnes(compare Peloponnes) if you know what I mean ;)
there is absolutely no tension in that "book" it's all propaganda on how chosen by the gods the romans are. you know that just before he actually gets in trouble all olympians(exept for Hera) will rush to his aid and lick his shoes clean.
and on beeing founder of "greatest city of antiquity": he didn't even manage that! he just came buy got a chick and then they waited some time (remember founding of rome is "dated" to 753 the Illias takes place around 1200) for some very copy catish things(worst myth creation ever, as my favorite auther said:" that wasn't Mars, that was the Gardener"). All of this did not happen because he was strong, charismatic, smart or good with money , no, It happend because the gods fould it a fair compensation for getting to taste greek revenge(a term i like to use when guys try to hit on my gal) for no falt of himself.
maybe I'm just too pragmatic but Imho things you acchieved yourself(maybe even against the gods) are much more impressive than things the gods threw at you.
Has Roman concrete already been mentioned? That was a genuine Roman invention.
~Fluvius
I'm just curious, but didn't the piramids have something that can be called concrete too?
No, that would have made building them much more simpler in Pharoah though.
Monte Pyphon - what have the romans done for us?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ
The Roman gods aren't exactly copies of the Greek ones. That's a reductionist view point that is a nice "soundbite", but ignores the complexities of how cultures interact with each other.
But to be particularly coy, I would have to say the United States. Love us or hate us, the founders took inspiration from the Roman Republic and the Aeneid in particular. Much of the exploration and colonization of the New World took place in a lens composed of the Aeneid. Even the early American poetry by religious leaders was composed in Latin in the same meter as Greek and Roman epics. Besides, how else does the Apotheosis of George Washington make any sense if not due to the inspiration of Rome.
Can you elaborate on this a little bit, or suggest some reading on the matter? Cultural interactions are a fascination of mine and this is an area I know little about.Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
(I know this was weeks ago, but it's still on the first page)
I think all will agree they have given us the the most dangerously addictive game "RTW" :laugh4:
I used to play it even before the finals in my uni days :laugh4:
other than joke, honestly they have given me the most beautiful city (for me of course) Istanbul, I still miss her.
As quoted by Italian writer, journalist and historian Indro Montanelli in his books "History of Rome" and "History of Italy" (sorry if I made mistakes in the translation):
Quote:
If we see things from above and give them a reason, we could say that Rome was born with a mission, that she accomplished it and with it ended.
That mission was to recollect the civilizations that came before her, the Greek one, the Eastern one, the Egyptian, Carthaginian, Celtic ones, to merge them and spread them in Europe and in the Mediterranean Basin.
Rome didn't invent so much in philosophy, art or science, but gave them roads for their circulation, armies for defending them, a formidable and complex system of law to guarantee their developement in order, and a language for making them universal.
Rome didn't invent even political forms: monarchy and republic, aristocracy and democracy, liberalism and dispotism, were already tested before. But she made them models, and in every one of them was brilliant for practical and organizative genius.
Abdicating with Constantine, Rome left her administrative structure to Constantinople, who survived for other 1000 years. And even the Christianity, in order to triumph in the world, had to became Roman. Saint Peter well understood that only by travelling in the Via Appia, Cassia, Aurelia and all the other highways built by Roman engineers, not the labile paths travelling the desert, the disciples of Jesus would have spred in the Earth.
His successors would have been called Pontefices Maximi just like those who managed religious questions in the pagan Urbs. And against the austerity of the Jewish rule, they introduced in the new liturgy many elements of the pagan one: the pomp and spectacularity of some ceremonies, Latin language, even a little vein of polytheism in the veneration of saints.
So, no more as the political centre of an empire, but as the mastermind of Christianity, Rome became again Caput Mundi, and remained so until the Protestant reformation.
Never a city in the world had a so wonderful adventure. Her history is so great that even the huge crimes scattered during her time seem tiny.
Maybe one of the troubles of Italy today is this: to have for capital a city that is disproportionate, for name and legacy, to the modesty of a people that, when shouts "go for it Rome!" is only referring to a football club.
that's really interesting. I never saw Rome as a synthesis of various modes of civilization. Isn't that also how their military was then? EB keeps telling me how willing Rome was to adapt to the tactics of their enemies if it worked. Scutarii/Pilum combo from the Iberians is the only one i know about it
I wonder. I do not think that a sizable part of the Ottoman population was purely Turkish. The official language of administration used to be Persian (under the Seljuqs and their tributary states in Anatolia), many words were Persian. The Seljuqs were largely Persianised, and after their destruction, the cultural Persian sphere of influence reached far into Anatolia. Maybe they were still ethnically Turkish (to some degree) and spoke some form of Turkish (with a lot of loanwords from Persian and Arabic), but their culture was largely Persian. This intrigues me.Quote:
Ottomans were most certainly not Romans, or anything of the sort. They were central asian nomads who swept across Persia and Mesopotamia, as well as much of the Caucasus, migrated to Anatolia, conquered it, and settled there. Originally the Seljuq Turks or Great Seljuqs were rulers over the Turkish empire, but after Mongol invasions there were many tiny little Turkish states all over Anatolia, and Osman was Beylik of his Beydom in Northwest Asia Minor, expanded his Beydom and eventually the Ottomans became a world power after conquering Byzantium and Hungary, all the Black Sea Coast, Egypt, and more.
Ottomans were an empire, there were a lot of ethnicities. The rulers spoke Turkish, now we called it Ottoman Turkish. Yes the culture was deeply effected by Persian culture and ıslam (arabic as well) on the other hand, they knew how to use all their people, they made clever people statesmen the others soldiers.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mad Arab
I have no proof for it but I can guess that Turks might have been majority in Asia Minor / Anatolia and in Crimeaia. They failed to conquer Persia although defeated them many times. Yes they had many similarities with Roman Empire (I still call them as Muslim Rome) and yes They claimed themselves as a successor to Roman empire. If I have any demografic map I can share it with you I should check census records. Modern Turkey does not record census on ethinicities because of homogenization policy of Turkey.
I am not a Turk but live in Turkey and to dare to talk this thing in public can easily make you on some black lists. I do not want to kill the topic more.
The problematic here is that there are no Turkish or Persian cultures, but rather a cacophony of variations and nuances that illustrate a wide range of differences, both among these two so-called cultures as well as within each of "them". Language itself has led us to internalize these hegemonic ideals of culture. See here:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mad Arab
Nation-states, especially imperialistic and militaristic ones, have been utilizing the many tools at their disposal to accomplish this goal of internalizing their ideals within the populace. The homogenization policy of modern Turkey is but one exemplar of this unfortunate truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atraphoenix
there was rebellions in greece all along the 400 years after the fall of constantinople,not big like in 1821 but they existed.turks always hated-distrusted the romans-romaioi and never the otomman army was even close to roman ofc.they were arabs nothing to do with greeks.to crush the greeks morale and subdue them to the empire they made the [paidomazoma] took by force children at birth and enlisted them in the army or killed them, but there was always slaves serving as slaves for the army not as primary force.about what romans gave is civilised life.and that's what ottomans hated the romans for i think since forever and the wealth.the savagery at monuments,churches,statues,things that were kept in constantinople since the foundation of rome,priceless in one word,was enormus.even the city name they changed,so much was they re menace,so that the world won't remember the romans.well unfortunetly for them,good for the rest of us history preserved romeQuote:
Originally Posted by Atraphoenix
:no: Ottomans weren't Arabs. They were Turks, from the Eastern steppe. As for the rest of your post, it reads like anti-Turkish propaganda. It's also off-topic, since we are talking about the original Roman empire, not the later Greek-Roman empire of Constantinople.Quote:
Originally Posted by panagos7
Let's get back to topic, please.
Not intending to derail my own topic, but how 'roman' were the late eastern roman empire?
I can easily write a book on this topic, 1000s of pages..... and I am too old to finish it :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Basileus_ton_Basileon
They used the same banner, In the imperial grave of Eastern Roman Empire you can see ">p<"
They used the same administrative system for a long time.
(We have still consules in the eastern empire)
-Both monarch claimed themselves as Emperor of Romans,
- Culture, metropolitan life, architecture, .... even effected Turks...
I think the turning point of the Hellenism, must be Sack of Rome then change of royal language in the Eastern Empire.
That quote is great.Quote:
Originally Posted by Connacht