What have the Romans ever (actually) done for us?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oRzIHxZKnA

:clown:Here's the humour.:clown: Inspired by the song, it gave me the idea nonetheless: what -have- they -actually- done for us?:smash:

Things I can name of:
Aqueduct :clown:
Roman Law - A lot of it is still used (or taken reference to) today. Not just Britain (and her colonies) and Europe, even the yanks, bits of africa and even asia.
Romance Languages - All are forms of localized vulgar latin. Even english uses part french in it's lexicon.
Latin - We use it as the diplomatic tongue?

Anymore?

I googled the question and this was one of the first results: they taught the world the very fashionable habbit of wearing socks and sandals: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...d-2062193.html

All the roads and bridges built in Spain before the 20th century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileus_ton_Basileon

Roman Law - A lot of it is still used (or taken reference to) today. Not just Britain (and her colonies) and Europe, even the yanks, bits of africa and even asia.

---

No it isn't, Britain, much of the Commonwealth and the US have common law systems. Those are based on precedent of past cases, rather than reference to a central legal code, as civil law systems like Scotland and much of Continental Europe (courtesy of Napoleon) are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

No it isn't, Britain, much of the Commonwealth and the US have common law systems. Those are based on precedent of past cases, rather than reference to a central legal code, as civil law systems like Scotland and much of Continental Europe (courtesy of Napoleon) are.

---

It's true the common law system is based on past cases. But there's a trickle of these Roman Laws survived through Anglo-Saxon Law, whose rules served the early base of common law cases. In continental europe, the civil code used Roman Law as reference and it's basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileus_ton_Basileon

It's true the common law system is based on past cases. But there's a trickle of these Roman Laws survived through Anglo-Saxon Law, whose rules served the early base of common law cases. In continental europe, the civil code used Roman Law as reference and it's basis.

---

Again, that's not really accurate. Much of the law in Continental Europe used to be based on Roman law (up to the late 18th century), but it was absorbed and superceded by the Code Napoleon. Roman law is still in there in part, but it isn't the driving influence it once was.

NOTHING! Romans did nothing because They stole weaponry from celts and civilisation from greeks. so we owe much to THEM rather than to the Romans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duguntz

NOTHING! Romans did nothing because They stole weaponry from celts and civilisation from greeks. so we owe much to THEM rather than to the Romans

---

But, as far as Britain and Western Europe is concerned, the Romans made better use of those weapons and civilisation than did the Greeks or Celts. The Greeks only established enclaves on the coast from which they traded to the locals, and the various Celtic tribes never stopped fighting each other long enough to build a stable, peaceful, prosperous empire.

That's why we have more traces of Roman language and civilisation than we do Celtic or Greek.

Before anyone suggests them NOT ROADS! large wooden trackways had been in existence in northern Europe since the Bronze Age and in several places substantial wooden roads were already in use by the Celts before the Romans arrived. In addition to this the "Roman Road" as we know it is an Etruscan development which the Romans adopted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duguntz

NOTHING! Romans did nothing because They stole weaponry from celts and civilisation from greeks. so we owe much to THEM rather than to the Romans

---

romans also made contributions to culture like in architecture or the art of making portraits

What I find interesting is that almost all the "roman culture" was done by non-roman people ^^

I think that the Roman's ability to learn from other cultures and absorb and build upon good ideas is what made them powerful and able to bring such large amounts of territory under their control for a long period. However, how they treated some of these same peoples is a different story entirely. That said the Romans were master imitators and were able to take a good idea and make it better.

Don't let this thread get into wrong directions.

Civilized and academic discussion is ok, but as soon as it comes to simple bashing...

in fact not the first but the concept of standing armies had effected many nations after her.
Think about janissaries.... until europe started to use their own standing armies they had no match for them.....
BTW for me ottomans were muslim romans... and nearly half of the janissaries were greek before their system became corrupted...

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.

Romans made roads better, yes there were dirt tracks and cobblestone roads in a few places even, but nothing to compare with the roman highways that still survive and are used 2000 years later. They may have adopted much religion and culture from the Greeks, but they still retained purely Roman religion and culture as well, and were around a lot longer than the Hellenes. Byzantine Rome could be said to be more Greek than Roman in flavor, at least after 500 A.D., but they were not Hellenic Greeks in the same fashion as Aristotle and Pyrrhus, and still claimed to be Rome's Successor until 1453. The Romans did not build the first aqueducts, but they built the best and most effective aqueducts, and I believe they were the first to use aqueducts for individual household water usage. The Romans adopted certain battlefield equipment from Celts and Iberians, but this really does not matter too much. Celtic Helmets and shields were not groundbreaking enough that the Romans would have had trouble without using them, and Iberian weaponry was only adopted by the Romans because it was already similar to Roman equipment, and the Romans were doing just fine without the Iberian Gladius, since they had their own design. Yeah, new helmets and swords helped, but they didn't effect the Romans enough for it to be an issue, and besides, adaptability is a strength, not a weakness.

The Roman Empire adopted much from other countries, but in doing that, they passed Greek things over to "Barbarians" and "Barbarian" things to the Greeks. So especially culture and "civilized life" and such got spread through the whole Roman Empire. Maybe without the Roman Empire there would be even more difference between the specific cultures and countries?

THey had absoloutely no impact as far as Im concerned. HECK YEAH ROMANS GO TO HELL WE INVENTED THE ZERO :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karel de Stoute

romans also made contributions to culture like in architecture or the art of making portraits

---

Absolutly not. sorry to contradict you, but mosaic, portrait, art, even their gods, were all (but two from etruscan orijins) was took from greeks!

I can't remember where I first saw it said that a lot of the time in the ancient world the Greeks invented, then the Romans applied. There were all sorts of interesting Greek inventions* which were mere novelties with no thought as to what to actually do with the principles they represented or demonstrated. Then what followed were some very grounded and practical Roman thinking on making an everyday use out of the thing, thus underfloor heating, plumbing and so on.

*Such as the device that's two or three steps away from steam engines.

:idea2: The Baths!

Their bathes were probably the first sauna/spa/jacuzzi! And not bad too, for only 2-3 denarii. :)

(how much stuff can the average pleb get for 10 denarii?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atraphoenix

in fact not the first but the concept of standing armies had effected many nations after her.
Think about janissaries.... until europe started to use their own standing armies they had no match for them.....
BTW for me ottomans were muslim romans... and nearly half of the janissaries were greek before their system became corrupted...

---

well, the Janissaries had a different origin than that-nothing to do with standing armies of Rome. in fact, they were basically enslaved Christians (yes, usually greek) who were made into Muslims, and given a certain level of freedom at the price of serving in the army..they were of course as a reslt professionalized, as they had no other ties but to the Sultan himself (as opposed to the semi-feudal ties of other soldiers). of course, they ended up like the Praetorian guard.

muslims Romans? in terms of political effects and social ones within the empire, definitely. technology and culture itself? no. not totally. it's why Arabs still speak Arabic (ok, it's very different to say that in the 7th century, but you get the idea).

@ chasmummy: he was I suspect aware of all that: I think he was trying to compare the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileus_ton_Basileon

Roman Law - A lot of it is still used (or taken reference to) today. Not just Britain (and her colonies) and Europe, even the yanks, bits of africa and even asia.

---

No it isn't, Britain, much of the Commonwealth and the US have common law systems. Those are based on precedent of past cases, rather than reference to a central legal code, as civil law systems like Scotland and much of Continental Europe (courtesy of Napoleon) are.

---

That´s not entirely true. Both Civil Law and Common Law systems have a common denominator, meaning that both are at least in their origins heavily based on Roman Law. It does not mean that we still apply it, but when someone studies the Praetor´s Edicts one can find strong simmilarities with the fundamental principle of the precedent system of the Common Law, and when one studies the Codification process of the Corpus Iuris Civilis one can find immediate simmilarities with the Code Civil.

That´s just a draft, one could write books (as many already have) about the influence of roman law in both systems, and the reason why institutions like the "actio de in rem verso" can still be found in both systems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Praetor-

That´s not entirely true. Both Civil Law and Common Law systems have a common denominator, meaning that both are at least in their origins heavily based on Roman Law. It does not mean that we still apply it, but when someone studies the Praetor´s Edicts one can find strong simmilarities with the fundamental principle of the precedent system of the Common Law, and when one studies the Codification process of the Corpus Iuris Civilis one can find immediate simmilarities with the Code Civil.

That´s just a draft, one could write books (as many already have) about the influence of roman law in both systems, and the reason why institutions like the "actio de in rem verso" can still be found in both systems.

---

It's much more true to say the civil law has its roots in Roman law than the common law, which is not only a further step removed, but looks to a different place for its authority.

That they share common principles is as much because they were developed in parallel and attempting to achieve the same ends.

The greatest gift which the Romans have given us is the lesson about the human frailty based upon their history of empire.

Their civic virtue made them manage to aquire an empire, but its power and luxury made them stagnant.

Thay may have had much intelliegence in regard to technology but they neglected humanity as a fundamental issue for social reforms.

The reason why the Western culture has surpassed the Roman culture is because they did not cherish humanity after some other transient issues.

I hope we will not fall prey to the same neglegience.

I suspect the greatest contribution of the Roman empire was given to us twice over. It was the idea of a greater state, over and above all the petty local divisions.

This vision of power (not original to Rome, see the Persians for the original copy) has gone through the ages and the minds of generations of warlords, kings and politicians and truly shaped our world.

On a second run, the Christian church used the same idea of an overarching power, via the papacy to unite disparate powers. This idea has led to scientific peer review and the united nations. And organised religion I suppose, but I'm not inclined to like that much myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

The greatest gift which the Romans have given us is the lesson about the human frailty based upon their history of empire.

Their civic virtue made them manage to aquire an empire, but its power and luxury made them stagnant.

Thay may have had much intelliegence in regard to technology but they neglected humanity as a fundamental issue for social reforms.

The reason why the Western culture has surpassed the Roman culture is because they did not cherish humanity after some other transient issues.

I hope we will not fall prey to the same neglegience.

---

I would agree with this; one might say that Rome gave us Capitalism. I mean Capitalism with a big C, not what is often passed off as being capitalism - trade. There was an elite in Rome whose wealth burgeoned with the expansion of the Republic's holdings, usually at the expense of the plebs. That eventually lead to the loyalty of armies to their paymasters, and so to the Principate. The Principate also lead to the linking of religious and secular authority, whereas previously there had been some distance between the two.

The elite saw, and used, the law as and when it suited them, and did not feel necessarily beholden to it - see the encroachment of public land, which the Gracchi (and others) attempted to address with land reform legislation. The pursuit of personal glory and wealth outstripped any notion of 'patriotism', and in pursuit of this the plebs were disenfranchised also.

Their expansion was based upon the enrichment of local elites, in whose interest it then was to uphold Roman authority. This is probably one of the reasons that the Germanic tribes were never really subdued, because there was an innate mistrust of too much influence falling into the hands of individuals within their cultures and societies. The same could be said of the Celts, but the assimilation of the noble class of the Aedui, and also of the powerful Arverni, into the trading interests of Rome weakened the Celtic/Gallic heartland.

We see such activities as high interest loans enforced upon provinces by wealthy factions within Rome's elite, tax-farming etc. Rome was all about utility, about everything being a factor of wealth; as you say here, it was about transient issues and paid little interest to humanity.

To "have done something for us" does not necessarily have to mean, that they invented things on their own (like Roads, weapons etc.) It can also mean, that they brought it to all of the known world by the growth of their empire, or that they evolved inventions of other peoples, or just: That they used other peoples inventions with success, while the other peoples didn't.

The romans undoubtedly hat a great influence on human history in Europe and even beyond. This can't be argued away even by those, wo do not like the romans.

I've been reading <The Hellenistic Age> By Peter Green. He argues that the diadochoi all have incredible technological and interlectual capabilities. However, these are all undermined by exhaustive wars, disfranchaising of substistance farming, piracy, and the ever burgeoning slave trade. Why use steam engines when you can use poor people and slaves?

In fact, Green suggests that it was within the interests of the Diadochoi to NOT implement these innovations (at least those that doesn't concern with sieges and war) into daily lives: replacing manual labour = more angry people = rebels. They already have their hands full dealing with each other, rebelleous natives/machimoi/greek poleis-krate. In fact, it's the fact they're too busy infighting that the keltoi invasions would be allowed to wreak so much havoc; that they would ignore the rising of the 'Barbaroi' in italia- The Romans.

What was originally perceived as Romans attempting to join the trading sphere of the Hellenes...by the time of Pydna,it was too late.

Yes, it's difficult to find something unique to Romans, because it had been invented by cultures before them, but they were able to expand it and they contributed to many aspects of life - politics, law, architecture, medicine, military... (they somewhat lacked in philosophy or mathematics, but I would say that they just liked practical things that could have been used immediately). Yes, Greeks had that, Celts had that, Etruscans had that, but Romans had all of it and better!

And by joining many nations and cultures under their rule and taking their best, they formed predecessor of common western culture. Something that Alexander and Diadochi wanted, but did not manage. That's why todays high school students learn about Alexander and Diadochi at one lecture and about Rome for months (at least I did).

But I still like Greeks and Celts more and I am a member of Romaioktonoi group. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duguntz

Absolutly not. sorry to contradict you, but mosaic, portrait, art, even their gods, were all (but two from etruscan orijins) was took from greeks!

---

Duguntz is right. Roman Gods were literally copies of Greek gods. not like they made it out.
but
Romans(Aeneas) were from Troy, that was fairly Greek.

Oh yeah, and I almost forgot:
Romans made early types of Pizza that they took from the Etruscans (and Romans were Etruscans Themselves)
I like Pizza

right about the gods but:
the Aeneid is a myth that was mainly written to have an own great epic tale(btw Aeneas is probably the most pathetic classical hero that has been written about)
the trojans were not greeks, they were Hittites or at least were a vasal state of anatolian orgin, luwians or the like.
the early romans were mainly latins and sabines I've heard someone say that they were chalcidians but I doubt that one.
they actually got all their "civilisation" from the etruscans, as they picked out everything usefull that they were not able to come up with thereselves and left out those poisones by-producs that an advanced society comes up with eventually, exept for toilets, don't know why they left out on that. so while not explicitly beeing etruscans they were ruled by etruscans culturally and politically

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ca Putt

right about the gods but:
the Aeneid is a myth that was mainly written to have an own great epic tale(btw Aeneas is probably the most pathetic classical hero that has been written about)

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

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.

---

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.

(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

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.

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by The Mad Arab

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.

---

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.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Mad Arab

[...] but their culture was largely Persian. This intrigues me.

---

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 Atraphoenix

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.

---

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

in fact not the first but the concept of standing armies had effected many nations after her.
Think about janissaries.... until europe started to use their own standing armies they had no match for them.....
BTW for me ottomans were muslim romans... and nearly half of the janissaries were greek before their system became corrupted...

---

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 rome

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by panagos7

they were arabs nothing to do with greeks.

---

: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.

Let's get back to topic, please.

Not intending to derail my own topic, but how 'roman' were the late eastern roman empire?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileus_ton_Basileon

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Connacht

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):

---

That quote is great.