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.
Re: The Roman Empire as a synthesis
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.
Re: The Roman Empire as a synthesis
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.
--- No friend ever served me, and no enemy ever wronged me, whom I have not repaid in full ---
Re: The Roman Empire as a synthesis
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.
"Who fights can lose, who doesn't fight has already lost."
- Pyrrhus of Epirus
"Durch diese hohle Gasse muss er kommen..."
- Leonidas of Sparta
"People called Romanes they go the House"
- Alaric the Visigoth
Re: The Roman Empire as a synthesis
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.Originally Posted by Ca Putt
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.
Last edited by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus; 07-09-2013 at 18:36.
Re: The Roman Empire as a synthesis
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.
Last edited by fallen851; 07-09-2013 at 21:53.
"It's true that when it's looked at isolated, Rome II is a good game... but every time I sit down to play it, every battle, through every turn, I see how Rome I was better. Not unanimously, but ultimately." - Dr. Sane
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6eaBtzqqFA#t=1h15m33s
Re: The Roman Empire as a synthesis
excuse my poor wording I meant offcource the roman catholic chruch as an institution.As for the Church.
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.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.
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.
"Who fights can lose, who doesn't fight has already lost."
- Pyrrhus of Epirus
"Durch diese hohle Gasse muss er kommen..."
- Leonidas of Sparta
"People called Romanes they go the House"
- Alaric the Visigoth
Re: The Roman Empire as a synthesis
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.
Re: The Roman Empire as a synthesis
I think the Imperial phase is simply the natural prosecution of a "winning" culture. An Empire forged by sheer military power will collapse instantly, but a lasting Empire must have some culture behind. For example, the Islamic Empire spread from Morocco to India and had a lasting legacy cause it had a well-formed culture behind it. The same can be said about Alexander's empire. Rome was different (and in my opinion better) cause its culture grew and grew with every conquest. Romans were intelligent conquerors, they knew how to exploit both the riches and the knowledge of the people they vanquished.
And, well, one can be anti-imperialistic as much as he wants, but (and I'm only giving what I consider the finest example) if it wasn't for Romans who conquered Greece we would probably not have heard of ancient Greek culture at all :) Sadly, the lasting of a culture requires military power and political stability, that's almost a universal fact in history
--- No friend ever served me, and no enemy ever wronged me, whom I have not repaid in full ---
Re: The Roman Empire as a synthesis
Why is it 'natural'? That's the question that Ca Putt asked, and the idea of it being 'natural' appears to be seen as an axiomatic truth. If you look at the history of Empires , much as we're given to believe that they sustained themselves they are actually more nuanced than that. They are plagued by social upheavels and in-fighting. Was there really a Muslim Empire that lasted? Was there a Macedonian Empire that lasted?
In Rome there was the on-going conflict of the orders, civil wars, political violence, rebellions. The Principate is very different in original form from the Dominate, which were themselves different from the Republic (which went through many substantial alterations through its existence). In both Rome and Athens we see the subversion and then destruction of democratic institutions - accompanied by violence against their own people. Empires require a great deal of military expenditure - that makes certain people wealthy (by means - in both the Roman and modern Western models - of money leant to the state at interest). All Empires require forms of slavery; that slavery is based upon the notion that such is 'natural', is the way things 'are meant to be', which is where religious institutions come into play as a part of the machinery of state.
Did the Carthaginians, then, not have 'culture'? Did the Aedui not have 'culture'? Did the Samnites not have 'culture'? I don't know what you mean by saying that Empires succeed because they have 'culture'? Did pre-Islamic Arabia, or Egypt, or India etc. not have 'cultures'?
As for the Romans being responsible for us knowing anything about Ancient Greek culture??! The early church destroyed (at worst) and discarded (at best) 'heathen' material. It is throughthe various Islamic Empires that most of the Greek writings survived. We are told the Gauls (a very vague and wide ranging concept) were illiterate, yet we have Gaulsih inscriptions dating from the 4th Century BC; we know that the Aedui had a complex Senatorial system and elections, magistrates; they auctioned the rights to taxation. How do you implement such administration without writing? We know from Caesar that the Helvetti kept written records of everyone on their migration. Everything was destroyed. Every sign and symbol of their culture has been buried by the Romans, just as they did with Carthage.
Empires (and the Imperialists behind them) do not care for history as truth, they care for a history that defines their power as reasonable, rightful - here and now.
Re: The Roman Empire as a synthesis
You're adding a lot of presumptions in here and twisting what I said. I was not arguing that the Greeks were "saved" by the Romans at all. Nor were they necessarily better off being assimilated into the Roman Empire than if they were assimilated into the Persian Empire. I was not arguing that.
What is remarkable is that the Greeks were not conquered earlier by the Persians and assimilated into their Empire. It is exceptional that small states like that were able to exist for longer periods of time in that area. And Greeks were the exception! At least until the Romans came along...
So my point is that if a nation in the region doesn't tend toward being an Empire, then it is likely you're going to be swallowed up by another Empire. Being swallowed up by an Empire is a certainly a bad thing, and Empires in general as your rightly pointed out impoverish many. However, if your cultural seeks some permanence and control of its own destiny, it is wise to conquer other cultures and create an Empire in order to ensure survival. Otherwise, you risk being sucked in someone else's Empire, and then your people are exploited. In other words, it is better to do the exploiting, then be exploited. Obviously, we'd all prefer a world where people didn't exploit one another, but that isn't feasible given human nature.
That is the defense of Empires.
Last edited by fallen851; 07-12-2013 at 07:34.
"It's true that when it's looked at isolated, Rome II is a good game... but every time I sit down to play it, every battle, through every turn, I see how Rome I was better. Not unanimously, but ultimately." - Dr. Sane
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6eaBtzqqFA#t=1h15m33s
Re: The Roman Empire as a synthesis
You are right, my apologies. I read back over what you had written and I had misunderstood, initially, what you were saying.
Were the Greeks the exception? What about the Illyrian tribes, for example? The Persians took on the Greeks without addressing the idea that separate, independent polities might unite under an ideal of 'sameness' (Hellenism) - even then it took remarkable fortitude, and not a little cost, to retain their independence.
You are right in one way, though. Imperial ideas are the response to Imperialism. Athens became, essentially, a Greek Empire, and others came to despise them for it. Now the Persians were ready to interfere again - this time they operated from within the Hellenic world (variously backing pro-Athenian, then pro-Spartan entities) and looked to pick up the pieces. The independent Greeks were weakened by infighting, cajoled into that by outside (Persian) influence. The Makedonians were able to pick off these polities relatively easily, weakened as they were by their internal wars.
We use terms like 'Greeks' etc. too readily, I think, and don't appreciate the distinctions in their political structures. The Aitoliean League, for example, is markedly different from the contemporary Achaean League. For the latter we have recorded many names, for the former...not so many. Personalities were more important in the Acheaen League because it was an Imperial conception. Empires require Imperialists. This is important.
In order to defend Empires you have to conjugate the idea of 'culture/state/polity' with the leaders of that polity (so that the two become seen as one); it requires that the leaders of those polities (the personalities we have derived to us from history) are those entities. Their own Empire will impoverish their own people; it is nothing to do with protecting their own 'peoples', it is to do with personal power and glory - and gets tied up with the inherit-ability of such.
The question really is, do the majority of people desire power over others? Do the majority of people covet what others have? Empires couldn't work if they did - in fact, the defence you offer for Empires can also be used to defend organised crime, mafias; they are responses to power by the desire for power.
So, the question Ca Putt asked has the answer, as far as I can see; no. We don't need to subjugate, massacre, control, defeat other peoples. What we need is for a balance between individual and state/polity where neither becomes comprehensively subject to the other. A difficult balancing act, but not beyond contemplation.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks