The Roman Empire as a synthesis

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Have to say, I disagree; with the basic premise that Rome's legacy was a good thing. Patrician Rome won, that's the bottom line. Mommsen said many things about the Romans (from the perspective of a German Imperialist) which don't really match up with reality. Are there really any examples of Roman leaders who willingly put aside their own dignity, authority, power or wealth for the betterment of the state? Don't be daft. the whole political structure was based upon competition and exceeding their ancestor's glory.

Whatever the origins of the Christian church its value to Europe (to Europe's burgeoning post-Roman elite) was as the enabler of inherited royal authority.

I think George Bernard Shaw put it best in his prologue to Caesar and Cleopatra

" Then the old Rome, like the beggar on horseback, presumed on the favor of the gods, and said, "Lo! there is neither riches nor greatness in our littleness: the road to riches and greatness is through robbery of the poor and slaughter of the weak." So they robbed their own poor until they became great masters of that art, and knew by what laws it could be made to appear seemly and honest. And when they had squeezed their own poor dry, they robbed the poor of other lands, and added those lands to Rome until there came a new Rome, rich and huge. And I, Ra, laughed; for the minds of the Romans remained the same size whilst their dominion spread over the earth."

The banking system, swollen bureaucracies, inheritable privilege, military adventurism and Imperial apologists, slavery. None of them invented by, but all of them perfected by Rome.

[fallen851]

That is a very interesting perspective Gracchus. While I am inclined to agree with you, I wonder if those things you refer to in your last line are flaws not just of Rome, but of mankind itself.

If so, then it is a lot easier to overlook them and focus on the things Rome did that other civilizations weren't doing. As you said, the Romans didn't invent those things, and they were certainly happening in other places. But the Romans did a great many things to advance mankind that other civilizations did not do. Perhaps that is reason alone to celebrate the Romans.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Those are the legacies that Rome left to Europe, imo, either through the remnants of Roman administration or through the auspices of the Roman church. If there are other, better things then I'm interested to know what they were.

[Picenian]

well first of all thanks to Connacht for quoting one of my favorite books ever, read it like 6 times between childhood and nowadays!

Then, I personally agree with Montanelli's analysis, but only on an ideal point of view. And I think that is also what he had in mind. I think one can agree with those words only if he can think about the ideal Rome that was much different from the actual Rome (exactly like ideal democracy and actual democracy of our times). Montanelli is talkin about the system of values and ideals that forged the Empire, and was most represented by Rome's efforts during the first two Punic Wars and, in general, before Romans became too rich to care about the mos maiorum ;)

But honestly I don't think that Christianity was the prosecution of the Empire. Christianity USED the structure created by the Empire to propagate its morals and ideals that were quite opposite to those on which Rome was founded ("all men are created equal" versus "some men are better by birth"). Personally I think this apparently benign vision led to the mass slavery known as "feudalism". The average Roman citizen may not have been richer than the feudal farmer, but surely he was more free and probably more cultured. Plus, let's remember that Christians in their early days operated a HUGE "selection" of pagan culture (ie, the burning of Alexandria's library...) so I don't think the Church continued what Rome had begun, I just think they exploited it and had to come at some kind of deal with pagan culture (The cult of the saints is the most brilliant example). What I mean is: if Christianity was taught to illiterate savages in a remote corner of the world, it would have been much more brutal and oppressive but also less succesfull. But to me, at least on a cultural and social basis, it was just a massive pejoration of the previous state of things.

[Ca Putt]

I think you can neither free (european)Christianity or the Romans of the blame for the bad things the other did. In the same way Rome changed christianity Christianity changed rome. But I don't think we should discuss the quality of Christianity here, we can judge the romans, there all dead, we can't do the same with the Christians of which there are quite a lot, without provoking a flamewar.

Short of the time to write something comprehensive, I'll just toss in the Reichsidee in here. Or rather the necessity of Empires. Is it really neccessary that "we" subdue, massacrate, assimilate, defeat... other peoples and rule them from one central point? The (classical)Greeks and the Swiss lived/live pretty well without an empire.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

I think you can neither free (european)Christianity or the Romans of the blame for the bad things the other did. In the same way Rome changed christianity Christianity changed rome. But I don't think we should discuss the quality of Christianity here, we can judge the romans, there all dead, we can't do the same with the Christians of which there are quite a lot, without provoking a flamewar.

Short of the time to write something comprehensive, I'll just toss in the Reichsidee in here. Or rather the necessity of Empires. Is it really neccessary that "we" subdue, massacrate, assimilate, defeat... other peoples and rule them from one central point? The (classical)Greeks and the Swiss lived/live pretty well without an empire.

A very good question, and one of the legacies of Rome (the Imperial ideal - 'civilising' the savages in spite of themselves - Imperial apologia). I read a book, a while ago - and the name of it escapes me, sorry - which examined the effect of increasing power by Athens on local (Attica) rural and craft communities. It showed quite convincingly that these communities were progressively impoverished through expansion. We see the same thing happened with Rome, with the development of Latifundia and the decline of small-hold farmers. Empires drive massive wealth for an elite, always at the cost of many, many other human beings.

As for the Church. I'm not attacking Christianity or Christians but the political institution of the Roman church(the Roman church as a political power). The views held by that church were, I would argue, at great variance with the views of Christians today - in the same way that most Christians would be appalled by the likes of the Borgias et al - they were products of the church machinery, and a clue that all was not as Christian as it could have been.

I'm not sure how feudalism can be constructed on the basis of all men being equal; and that was certainly not a concept held dear by the early, expansionist machinery of the church. their job was to bolster kingly power (through the provision of 'genealogies' and spreading the idea of 'rightful' rule) - that institution had a very cosy relationship with the early royalty and nobility - in fact it was generally an extension of them. That institution used the church to proclaim hell and damnation on those not aligned with the 'natural order'. As I said, whatever the beginnings of Christianity (and I should add, whatever Christianity might be now) the early church was not reflective of that, but was an extension of Patrician Rome.

[fallen851]

I think you can neither free (european)Christianity or the Romans of the blame for the bad things the other did. In the same way Rome changed christianity Christianity changed rome. But I don't think we should discuss the quality of Christianity here, we can judge the romans, there all dead, we can't do the same with the Christians of which there are quite a lot, without provoking a flamewar.

Short of the time to write something comprehensive, I'll just toss in the Reichsidee in here. Or rather the necessity of Empires. Is it really neccessary that "we" subdue, massacrate, assimilate, defeat... other peoples and rule them from one central point? The (classical)Greeks and the Swiss lived/live pretty well without an empire.

The classical Greeks were at times one battle away from being assimilated into an empire. And when Rome came along, they were assimilated. In this sense, Empires are necessary. Independence and safety are only guaranteed in force supported by numbers.

Today, some small nations don't have a standing army. They know that any power that has the force and resources to mount an offensive and cross over their borders would defeat their army even if they had one. Their independence and safety are simply not guaranteed.

[Ca Putt]

As for the Church.

excuse my poor wording I meant offcource the roman catholic chruch as an institution.

The classical Greeks were at times one battle away from being assimilated into an empire. And when Rome came along, they were assimilated. In this sense, Empires are necessary. Independence and safety are only guaranteed in force supported by numbers.

That's not my point. It is clear that Militaristic Empires tend to conquer autonomous communities with loose ties, due to superior military and cohesion. But that does not make Empires Structurally necessary for humanity itself. There is no inherent Imperative that forces us to form empires. With the existance of empires however the Autonomy of those without the urge to conquer, enslave.... other people is severely endagered.
Also classical Greece was Conquered by the Macedonians(so an empire), who then, in turn were conquered by the romans.

This is not about safety this is about the possibility of living without an empire.

While European Feudalism was supported by Christianity and indeed had been "invented"(lots of salt here) as synthesis of Christianity and Germanic tradition. Many aspects are similar to Social orders in other parts of the world, which are thus often discribed as "Feudalism", While this is offcource incorrect, there are significant similarities that show that it's not all that bound to the Roman empire, or the Roman catholic church. A warrior elite(thus nobles) opressing a vast amount of Peasants is neither a very creative concept nor does it require a specific religion. The ancient world had this aswell, however in many instances the Geography and technology favored Spearmen over Riders which offcource leads to a larger part of the population being "eligable" warriors - aka able to opress the rest of the population. Thus many Greek cities were ruled semi-democratic. It seems tho I'm rambling off.

Praising rome has a very long history but I don't think we can continue it given our current morality. Medieval people worshipped rome as it had given them part of their justification, the Renaissance worshipped rome as all culture that had survived the middleages(and the church), was more or less roman, Imperialism(all sorts of) worshipped rome because ... well that's easy. Past Historians and the like admired Rome for it's power and virgilence in crushing people that don't even have the decency to write down their history, the shier Force of the state and boldness of Individual(depending on what they find admirable).
But today we always ask ourselves "was it good?", "Was it right?", "Was it just?", "Is that Genocide?", now to some these categories are petty and closeminded, but that IS the way we judge things today. And lets take a look at those motives:
Justification for a system we today consider bad, I'd call that a bad thing.
If you don't have anything else offcource that's what you like but today we a) have some other things, and b) know that the romans acitively disposed of these other cultures, or did you ever read a source from the libary of Carthage? Or look at those valiant men and women reconstructing the people of the La Tene culture*. That's(the motive) not all that swell aswell.
I don't know about you but I'm not an Imperialist. So -> bad
While crushing and enslaving ethnic groups of "lesser civilisatory standard" was still sort of a thing in the early modern, it has somewhat lost it's shine today and is rather frownd upon, again a rather bad thing.
What kind of state is that that always has to conquer others? Seriously, you don't see people praising the Assyrians at every occasion. And they are even said to have "made"** Abrahamaic Monotheism and brought lots of other ambiguous innovation. And as many people today consider Assyrians "evil" It's only fair to call the Romans "mean" or "bad".
Individualism is great(at least in my opinion) but a constant stream of Generals and Tribunes plotting, scheming and revolting in order to gain more power etc. Not what I would call a virtous*** society.

In short: our current mindset is incompatible with the admiration and love of the Roman Empire.
You may still appreciate the military prowess of ancient rome the same way you'd respect a spartan warrior but few people praise Sparta as a state that advanced Humanity iself or they would gladly live in.

*Keep up the good work! :)
**As in they beat up the Israelits until they only had one god left(A particulary enjoyable theory I once heard), It's a bit like calling the Dacians the inventors of sholder protection but compares nicely to roman influence on early christianity.
***Ironically a word of Latin orgin^^

PS: The "You"s in the most part of this post do not reffer to a specific person.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

The classical Greeks were at times one battle away from being assimilated into an empire. And when Rome came along, they were assimilated. In this sense, Empires are necessary. Independence and safety are only guaranteed in force supported by numbers.

Today, some small nations don't have a standing army. They know that any power that has the force and resources to mount an offensive and cross over their borders would defeat their army even if they had one. Their independence and safety are simply not guaranteed.

This is the Imperial apologia I was referring to. In what way were the Greeks better off having been 'assimilated' by Rome? Their battle against assimilation into the Persian Empire is seen as a victory over Imperial oppression; they retained their freedom. So, what - in terms of retaining freedom - was that freedom from? From taxation, from exploitation. Your argument seems a little self-contradictory; they were a battle away from assimilation by the Persians, but were 'saved' from having to face those battles again by the security of assimilation into Rome's Empire?

Were Rome, then, doing this as a favour to the Greeks? Of course not - they were exploited and taxed by the Romans, as they would have been under any other hegemony. The Romans - wily politicians that they were - worked on internal divisions between the various Greek 'states'; forming alliances. Once you have alliances then - whether your own borders are at risk or not; whether your own security is in danger or not, you can always justify your involvement as being for those allies.

Empires exist because there is an elite who benefit from that exploitation. They require a strictly hierarchical society, which requires people to accept a 'rightness' to that hierarchy. The 'rightness' of rule is bolstered by myth, and usually at the base of those myths one will find gods. Our own modern histories (those taught in our schools, those histories as understood by the great majority of people) are simply mythical creations ascribing some great pre-now period where truly kingly kings and lords were of great beneficence to their people; and where current regimes align themselves with that 'great history'. That, to me, is the value of true historical research; to get under the mythical 'truths' and understand the real patterns of human behaviour. How else can we learn from history if we don't truly understand it?

It seems an odd argument, in short, that says Empires must exist because otherwise you will be absorbed by an Empire.