Printable View
I'm not trying to be snide, and this may sound like a stupid question that has probably been answered at least 1768 times, but I'm relatively new here so I'll ask it anyway. Doesn't Europa Barbarorum mean "Europe of the Barbarians" or something along those lines?
Yes, and the subtitle reads as, "Everyone is a barbarian to someone."
I can diagram it for you if I want, but that is because I'm a nerd.
EB was originally made to accurately represent the barbarians of Europe, but expanded from that.
It is somewhat explained by the team on the main page of the website:
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/
I was trying to get it straight in my head, Europa Barbarorum as opposed to Barbari Europae.
Well, the difference is that europa barbarorum means 'Europe of the Barbarians', whereas barbari europae could mean either 'the barbarian's Europes' (not very likely, that one!) or 'the barbarians of Europe'.
I know the Latin. I know what they mean literally. The "Barbarian's Europes?" That would be an odd construct. I was thinking more along the lines of the contrast between "Europe of the Barbarians" and the "Barbarians of Europe."
Thanks.
If you know the Latin then you know that barbarian was the term used to describe a forigner, particularly the Germanic kind due to the way the speek and how it is simular to a sheep noise. Once you put all that in there it should make some good sence, kind of.
Kind of. Its actually derived from an adverb (barbarus, -a, -um) in Latin.
The ber ber noise thing you're talking about is older than Latin and the Romans. The Greeks used the word barbaros to refer to the people they encountered that could not speak Greek.
And thus the true(original) meaning of barbarian is non-greek.
non-Greek, meaning a person that does not speak Greek.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
However it's wrong to say that it didn't have negative overtones. It may have meant 'foreigner' rather than simply 'barbarian', but it still implies inferiority. In a positive or neutral sense, the word for 'foreigner' would be 'xenos'. 'Barbaros' does imply that the person isn't as good as a Greek, and often this does mean that their culture is inferior too.
It certainly does. They probably said it with an air condescending disgust.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenith Darksea
Of cource it did, why wouldn't it? Both the Romans and the Greeks thought they were the "superior people" so not being them ment you were less than them in every way.
Not just the Romans and Greeks though. What well-developed ancient culture did not think themselves much "better" than their neighbors or outsiders? Or at least all not like them as worse.
"The Greeks, a people brave in words rather than deeds." ~;p
And I'll be damned if the sentiment wasn't returned in some form.
Who was it that said/wrote that? Just curious...Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Don't remember, some Roman. Or at least the name under that loading-screen citation seemed pretty Latin to me anyway.
I`ll bet my mother-in-law that was a roman.
EDIT: arg, you beat me :shout:
Hey! I didn't know we could do that. :idea2:Quote:
Originally Posted by k_raso
Not that many people would accept that kind of bet...
errrrrr... well, it depends... :uhoh2:
...like, ahm, the kind of mother in law....
...and...
...like... its daughther... :dozey:
It`s pretty subjective, but rest assured that with mine you`re like 20:1...
...so whether or not you're planning on winning or losing the bet?
The Persians? (Cyrus)Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
The Persians definatly thought they were better than just about everyone else (except maybe the Medes, who they were culturally similiar too). Of course they did conquer pretty much the known world in a couple of generations, that seems to give most peoples a big head.
But at the same time they didn't go around imposing their own culture on the citizens of their empire. In fact a lot of the persian culture was influenced by the cultures who had been made subject to the empire. Their conquests seem to be mostly pragmatic in nature rather than ideological - except for their hatred of the hellenes of course, those wars were a big mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX
I have badge that says:
"I'm Persian-Friendly"
Foot
I don't think they even had an "Ideological" hatred of the Greeks, not until the Greeks conquered them, anyway. The Greeks seem to go the same way, they were fine with the near East until it tried to go West.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
Although, as I understand it, the Sassanids were more totalitarian.
Yeh, I probably should have mentioned - its all about the achaemenids, baby!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Foot
Did not the word "barbaros" derive from the persians shouting "go go!"?
"bar bar bar!"
Something like that.. and then the words stuck to the Greek literary memory.
I can not confirm this, but I did read it somewhere. It sounds plausible..
Is the Farsi for "go" bar?
I thought it was because they bleated like sheep.
I'm not certain, but didn't the whole Persian/Greeks thing start when Athens came to the aid of the Ionians, sacking Sardis, after their revolt was crushed by the Persians?
I'm sure other factors didn't help either:
-The elimination of Lydia as a buffer state.
-Darius' being constantly reminded by Hippias, the ousted Athenian tyrant, that the Athenians wronged him.
But yeah, I don't think there was any ideological hatred of Greeks on the part of the Persians. Just a little mud in the eye.
More or less correct. Although it's maybe good to know that officially the Spartans had been at war with Persia for ages... (Sparte had been an ally of the Lydian king, and had agreed to help him in his war with Persia.)
About ideology: why do you think there's something called Europe? It's after all a Greek invention, to distinguish the free Greek/Western world from the Eastern and Southern world which was ruled by tyrants (the kings of Persia)...
Barabaros is a word to indicate anything that is not Greek, and from the Persian wars onwards it's main use is to name the Persians. It's said that this word is derived from the Greek idea that other peoples like the Persians or the Thracians didn't have a proper language - just a mix of indicipherable sounds. In Dutch, the word 'Gebrabbel' is a very good description of the Greek view on those sounds.
If I remember correctly Athens had requested help from Persia against Sparta just after becoming a democracy, but the help wasn't needed in the end; nonetheless Persia from that point saw Athens as some kind of allied entity and were rather offended when Athens assisted the Ionians.
Correct, the Persians also sided with Athens in the Peleponesian War, and tried to turn them before Platea. It's also worth noting that the negative image of tyranny is largely and invention of Plato, Aristotle and those who came after.
I don't think that tyrant is the right word here. In the Greek sense, a King could never be a tyrant and a tyrant could not be a king. Becoming one, by definition of the word, would cease one's status as the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Another thing to keep in mind is that the Athenians loved their democracy. The Persians did not. the situation in Anatolia, I think, directly reflects this.
This is true. There were both good and bad tyrants. The word does not mean the same thing now as it did then.
Yeh, loved it so much that they forced it on the cities they conquered - "Be free, for we command it!" :whip:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Condormanius
Foot
Sounds familiar: "Freedom is on the march."
Why would the Greeks identify with "Western" world like that? What was there such about the Germanic peoples, for example, that would make them look less alien in Greek eyes than Persians or Middle-Easterners? I've thought that they more or less viewed themselves as people in the "center" of the world, with "barbarians" to be found in all directions from them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Though if the Persians had successfully captured Greece, it is likely that they would have left the democracy in place to rule Athens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Condormanius
I don't think they would have had much choice. However, if the Persians had conquered the Greeks, Athens probably would not have much use for democracy, since it was so influenced by military needs. That is, its development was influenced by military needs rather than just because they thought it was a good idea. Look what happened after the Athenian defeat at Aegospotami. Once there was no more Athenian navy, the rowers that Pericles used to help gain political power no longer had any leverage. Hence, the Revolution of 404 and the period of the 30 tyrants.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
I think that today people like to idealize the Athenians because of their democracy (a term that has become so loaded, especially as of late), viewing it as some noble excercise in human freedom. The truth is democracy developed out of necessity rather than choice.
Condorminius, I disagree with both your points. A Tyrant was exactly like a Persian King. Tyrants were usurpers, usually of Oligarchies but ocasionally of actual Royal dynasties. Cyrus was also a usurper of the Medes. The Persian monarchy conformed exactly to the model of Greek tyranny.
As to the Athenian democray, the 30 tyrants were oligarchs with Sparan backing and they lasted less than a year. Democracy was essential to Athenian government because mass-rule was the only way they had to prevent tyranny.
Hmmm, tough one, IMO it would have been determinant the character of the conqueror, maybe a Darious would have behaved differently from a Xerxes, let alone compared to a Cambyses... :rolleyes:Quote:
Though if the Persians had successfully captured Greece, it is likely that they would have left the democracy in place to rule Athens.
Why does that not surprise me?
Exactly? No. One of the defining characteristics of Greek Tyranny was that the Tyrant had no official office. A man behind the scenes, so to speak. The Persian King, as I recall, was a king.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Yeah, it was about 6-months. The first thing they did was get rid of the democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Again, this is a little bit off. The beginning of Greek democracy stems from the "hoplite revolution" sometime in the 8th century. The development of hoplite warfare, the need for greater numbers, made it necessary to enfranchise more people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
On a similar note, Pericles pointed out to the rowers of the navy that they controlled the navy an thus the military. True Democracy in Athens at he time could only exist as long as the navy kept its importance. Hence, 404.
I'd like to return to the first theme of this thread about 'Barbarians'- one of the earliest literary sources for its use in a pejorative and ideological sense is Herodotus. viii 142-144
Barbaroisi esti oute piston oute alethes ouden
Barbarians have nothing trustworthy or true
That's the Spartans to the Athenians in 480 bc, urging an alliance to resist the Persians. In reply, the Athenians referred to 'Hellenikon', or 'Greekness' for their reason in refusing to ally with the Persian empire, at that time greatly superior in wealth, military might and political influence. It does not seem that Herodotus coined the phrase 'Barbarian' but merely reported its use, although he does compare the Ethiopian language to the screeching of bats. There is one use of a similar term in Homer to describe the Carians, but the non-Greek Trojans were never called barbarians.
Clearly by the 5th century Barbarian was used mainly to describe the Persians, and the Greeks were very aware of the antiquity of Persian and Median civilization, so that it seems to me that while 'Barbarian' meant 'lying nasty foreigner who doesn't talk like me' it didn't necessarily mean less advanced, backward, stupid or materially inferior, although these are clearly meanings that came to be attached to the word later on. This is an important distinction- the Persians were morally inferior to the Greeks (so the Greeks thought), even though they were richer, stronger, and had a longer history. From the perspective of the Persians, the Greeks were backward squabbling half-civilized tribes on the very edge of the known world. The Persians called the Greeks the 'Yauna' from their encounters with the Ionians, which is at least merely descriptive and not name-calling.
It wasn't like 'we are', it was rather 'we are not'. Not 'we are from the West', but 'we are not from the east'. And 'west' being the opposite of the 'east'... Also you've got to keep in mind that Greeks had settled all over the Med: they lived even as far west as the Eastern shores of Spain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conqueror
Also it wasn't like 'we are free', but rather 'we are not ruled by tyrants' - the opposite of being ruled by some tyrant was, in their eyes, freedom.
So 'the east' came to be a word refering to 'all what is ruled by tyrants', whereas 'the west' became to be 'all that is not ruled by tyrants, but rules itself instead'. It's of course a totum pro parte, as they also knew about all sorts of tribes they clearly didn't value all that much. But when the meaning of 'Barbaros' shifted from 'uncivilised' to 'Persian', the meanings of 'the east' and 'the west' also changed.
'The Persians were stronger'
I love the moment in Xenophon where a Spartan general displays Persians naked to his men to show how utterly puny and white (don't get naked to exercise enough) the Persians are.
[quote=Lord Condormanius]Why does that not surprise me?[/qutoe]
Because you think I don't like you.
Gelon? Periander? Pittacus?Quote:
Exactly? No. One of the defining characteristics of Greek Tyranny was that the Tyrant had no official office. A man behind the scenes, so to speak. The Persian King, as I recall, was a king.
All had fairly constant and clear authoriety.
Yes, because they were an oligarchy. What happened when they were deposed? Monarchy? No, Democracy was restored.Quote:
Yeah, it was about 6-months. The first thing they did was get rid of the democracy.
The Hoplite revolution has been largely debunked as an event. This has been accepted for at least a decade. It now appears that it was a gradual process and it hadn't led to any measure of democracy in Athens by the sixth century in any case.Quote:
Again, this is a little bit off. The beginning of Greek democracy stems from the "hoplite revolution" sometime in the 8th century. The development of hoplite warfare, the need for greater numbers, made it necessary to enfranchise more people.
That should be prefixed by "Thucydides says" Thucydides has more of an Axe to grind than most Greek historians and he's actually one of the more suspect, since he provides almost no sources we can check, and there are few contempory accounts to check him against.Quote:
On a similar note, Pericles pointed out to the rowers of the navy that they controlled the navy an thus the military. True Democracy in Athens at he time could only exist as long as the navy kept its importance. Hence, 404.