Org Mobile Site
Not at all am I a qualified historian, but I bet there are some people here who know history stuff quite well. I'm just wondering if you can explain something to me about Rome and today.
Why is it that most people I have a serious conversation with and somehow it ends up being about ancient Rome like Rome? Some people admire Rome and its civilisation, some admire the so-called "greatness" in their conquests, etc.
The way I see it, Rome was a bloody dirty imperialist. A society with a military machine capable of destroying entire cultures, and it did so with great enthusiasm. I see no beauty in that. I only see what's very common to see if it's about so-called civilisations, nations, countries, kingdoms, and you name it. I see power-hungry men who think they're gods or who perform such acts to please gods whose existence isn't even sure.
And still I see there are people who admire their civilisation. When I and a person talk about the Nazi empire it's quickly obvious they are disgusted by it, but for some reason they aren't disgusted by the Romans whose expansionist purpose was more or less the same, as many others throughout history. Power.
[/rant]
Why is it that most people I have a serious conversation with and somehow it ends up being about ancient Rome like Rome? Some people admire Rome and its civilisation, some admire the so-called "greatness" in their conquests, etc.
The way I see it, Rome was a bloody dirty imperialist. A society with a military machine capable of destroying entire cultures, and it did so with great enthusiasm. I see no beauty in that. I only see what's very common to see if it's about so-called civilisations, nations, countries, kingdoms, and you name it. I see power-hungry men who think they're gods or who perform such acts to please gods whose existence isn't even sure.
And still I see there are people who admire their civilisation. When I and a person talk about the Nazi empire it's quickly obvious they are disgusted by it, but for some reason they aren't disgusted by the Romans whose expansionist purpose was more or less the same, as many others throughout history. Power.
[/rant]
First of all you're talking about a completely different time period, with a completely different set of values and ideals to today. Now, I agree that they often greedy, brutal, expansionist, yadda yadda yadda. And many Romans at the time thought that as well.
But it was a much more brutal period of human history, Empires rose and fell, nations came and went, people enslaved or were enslaved themselves.
But for all their greed, brutality etc etc they were a truly great civilisation. The impact the Romans had on the world is still being felt today. Their advances in architecture, maths, engineering etc were so great that after the empire fell it took western Europe over 1000 years to get back to a comparable standard of living. Latin was still taught in all schools when my father was a child.
But it was a much more brutal period of human history, Empires rose and fell, nations came and went, people enslaved or were enslaved themselves.
But for all their greed, brutality etc etc they were a truly great civilisation. The impact the Romans had on the world is still being felt today. Their advances in architecture, maths, engineering etc were so great that after the empire fell it took western Europe over 1000 years to get back to a comparable standard of living. Latin was still taught in all schools when my father was a child.
If we like something we overlook the bad things. We like Rome, so we don't look at the fact that they had a "holocaust" against Christians (Nero). We like Napoleon, so we don't look at the fact that he drove thousands of men into the dead (wanting 200,000 Dutch soldiers, even tho the entire populace was only 2 million) .
We don't like Hitler, so we don't look at the fact that he turned Germany into a worldpower again.
People will react to this, oh yeah
We don't like Hitler, so we don't look at the fact that he turned Germany into a worldpower again.
People will react to this, oh yeah
Originally Posted by Stig:
If we like something we overlook the bad things. We like Rome, so we don't look at the fact that they had a "holocaust" against Christians (Nero). We like Napoleon, so we don't look at the fact that he drove thousands of men into the dead (wanting 200,000 Dutch soldiers, even tho the entire populace was only 2 million) .
We don't like Hitler, so we don't look at the fact that he turned Germany into a worldpower again.
People will react to this, oh yeah
Your missing the point, we take things in context.If we like something we overlook the bad things. We like Rome, so we don't look at the fact that they had a "holocaust" against Christians (Nero). We like Napoleon, so we don't look at the fact that he drove thousands of men into the dead (wanting 200,000 Dutch soldiers, even tho the entire populace was only 2 million) .
We don't like Hitler, so we don't look at the fact that he turned Germany into a worldpower again.
People will react to this, oh yeah
i guess you dont subscribe to the philosophy that might is right? (!)
Why are they thought of favourably?
Obvioulsy there were unsavoury aspects of roman history. There were elements of extreme brutality in roman culture, seen both on a regular every day basis (with things like gladiators) and in individual episodes like the harsh supression of the jews following the judean revolt.
However they really are not in the same league as the german atrocites, and to make that comparison is quite rediculous.
I wouldnt say that the romans were exceptionally brutal by the standardsof the time.
what is ther to admire about them?
I dont think you have to be a fascist to admire their miliary achievements. they created a large, reasonably stable and long lasting empire. that was a "great" acheivement whether or not you approve of it or not.
as others have mentioned the cultural achievements of that empire were considerable - architecture, literature, art etc and by virtue of having such a large and long lasting empire these achievements went on to have long lasting influence particularly in europe.
Why are they thought of favourably?
Obvioulsy there were unsavoury aspects of roman history. There were elements of extreme brutality in roman culture, seen both on a regular every day basis (with things like gladiators) and in individual episodes like the harsh supression of the jews following the judean revolt.
However they really are not in the same league as the german atrocites, and to make that comparison is quite rediculous.
I wouldnt say that the romans were exceptionally brutal by the standardsof the time.
what is ther to admire about them?
I dont think you have to be a fascist to admire their miliary achievements. they created a large, reasonably stable and long lasting empire. that was a "great" acheivement whether or not you approve of it or not.
as others have mentioned the cultural achievements of that empire were considerable - architecture, literature, art etc and by virtue of having such a large and long lasting empire these achievements went on to have long lasting influence particularly in europe.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
Your missing the point, we take things in context.
Good summary of what I wanted to post.Your missing the point, we take things in context.
Hmm, I understand it when people speak of so-called "greatness" of the Roman civilisation, but the argument that in that time it was "more common" is misplaced and unnecessary. In the following paragraph you'll see my argumentation.
We are talking about people *now* who admire the Romans. If it is true that nowadays or basically in the Modern World such brutal acts are not accepted (and this is true) these same people should also critisize and be disgusted by Rome and those other old civilisations, regardless whether it was common for the time, 'cause the fact that is was common is irrelevant in our time.
We are talking about people *now* who admire the Romans. If it is true that nowadays or basically in the Modern World such brutal acts are not accepted (and this is true) these same people should also critisize and be disgusted by Rome and those other old civilisations, regardless whether it was common for the time, 'cause the fact that is was common is irrelevant in our time.
Rome was a great civilization. We cannot judge a great civilization.... in any direction.
In the begining, it started like a modest settlement on the bank of the river Tiber, than later it continued to grow more and more. Roman law in the begining was great, they had nice family life, they where honorable people, brave and full of courage when defending their land. They where examples of virtuos people.
Rome started to decay (morally), after conquering Greeks and entering in contact with the Hellenistic civilization, from wich it borrowed the worse.
So, in the former moralistic and simplistic roman society, hommosexuality, divorce, promiscuity, perversion , cruelty stareted to be common during the time`s of Augustus. Certain laws needded to be made in order to abolish such stuff, and Augustus did try his best. He even banished his daughter (Iulia), for an adultery she made. But it was in vain. Things started to go downwards. And to a certain degree, once the fundamentall cell of a society (the family) becames "sick", the respective society wil eventually fall and crumble into pieces. The process may be long, or may be short, but will eventually happen.
Its a sad thrut, as we are living in a society wich in many ways, is a reminder to that decadent Rome.And we might not even realize this.
In the begining, it started like a modest settlement on the bank of the river Tiber, than later it continued to grow more and more. Roman law in the begining was great, they had nice family life, they where honorable people, brave and full of courage when defending their land. They where examples of virtuos people.
Rome started to decay (morally), after conquering Greeks and entering in contact with the Hellenistic civilization, from wich it borrowed the worse.
So, in the former moralistic and simplistic roman society, hommosexuality, divorce, promiscuity, perversion , cruelty stareted to be common during the time`s of Augustus. Certain laws needded to be made in order to abolish such stuff, and Augustus did try his best. He even banished his daughter (Iulia), for an adultery she made. But it was in vain. Things started to go downwards. And to a certain degree, once the fundamentall cell of a society (the family) becames "sick", the respective society wil eventually fall and crumble into pieces. The process may be long, or may be short, but will eventually happen.
Its a sad thrut, as we are living in a society wich in many ways, is a reminder to that decadent Rome.And we might not even realize this.
[cynic]you can't have the good without the bad[/cynic]
i have two thoughts.
one is that most of the major world powers of the last 500 years can claim some kind of connection to rome either politicallly as in western europe or cultural transmission for the superpowers. i.e rome-britain-america and rome-byzantium-russia. so for politically prestigous reasons it helps to claim descent from the big bad boy of yesteryear. if say china or indonesia becomes the dominant kid on the block within the next century, the prestige of rome will correspondingly decline.
the second thought is that the definition of the word 'civilization' has changed since world war II, i believe. before world war II i think the word just referred to the cultural greatness and achievements of a state or nation. since the second world war, how a state treats it's populations, whether indigenous or captive, how it treats the Other has been integrated into the definition of civilized. it is no longer o.k. to build a civilization upon a pile of skulls. that's why all the skull piling states of today are always lying and denying what they are doing, because it is no longer acceptable to do so publicly.
one is that most of the major world powers of the last 500 years can claim some kind of connection to rome either politicallly as in western europe or cultural transmission for the superpowers. i.e rome-britain-america and rome-byzantium-russia. so for politically prestigous reasons it helps to claim descent from the big bad boy of yesteryear. if say china or indonesia becomes the dominant kid on the block within the next century, the prestige of rome will correspondingly decline.
the second thought is that the definition of the word 'civilization' has changed since world war II, i believe. before world war II i think the word just referred to the cultural greatness and achievements of a state or nation. since the second world war, how a state treats it's populations, whether indigenous or captive, how it treats the Other has been integrated into the definition of civilized. it is no longer o.k. to build a civilization upon a pile of skulls. that's why all the skull piling states of today are always lying and denying what they are doing, because it is no longer acceptable to do so publicly.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO