The beauty (or [insert word]) of Rome?

[Bijo]

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]

[Mount Suribachi]

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.

[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

[Strike For The South]

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.

[KARTLOS]

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.

[Kralizec]

[cynic]you can't have the good without the bad[/cynic]

[nokhor]

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.

[Geoffrey S]

Your missing the point, we take things in context.

Good summary of what I wanted to post.

[Bijo]

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.

[Rex_Pelasgorum]

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.

[Suraknar]

As some have said here,

Context is very important.

But what does this context that some keep refering to really mean?

It simply means, that when we studdy history, a particular culture, civilisation in History, we try to avoid making judgements based on our views of today.

For instance, Christians considered Homosexuality a bad thing, but to the Ancient Romans and Greeks it was not a bad thing.

So, lets say that a Medieval Priest was reading about the history of Rome and decided that Rome was not a good civilisation because they were practicing homosexuality.

Would that statement be accurate and fair to the History of Rome? Would that Studdy of Rome would be unbiassed?

Not it would not, because judgements were made from the point of view of that Priest and not from the point of view of the subject of studdy itself. In other words it would be out of context.

And in order to make it within context one has to find out what romans thought of romans, what the other civilisations around rome thought of rome and make an informed opinion based on historical evidence.

Same goes with making a conclusion based on Today's ethical and moral views.

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.

It is actually quite the opposite. A biassed History is not History, its a version of History, the version of the Beholder.

Studdying History is not aboyut making judgements it is about learning our past and being able to trace our evolution and about understanding it. And it is also about learning from past mistakes.

Roma was Great, because the people of that time thought so, and not because of what people think of it today.

[AntiochusIII]

The Romans are respected because of their presence in today. We find them in our civic buildings, in our language, in our code of laws, even in the naming conventions of our scientific arts. When we see the White House what do we see? A Roman imitation. Of course a lot of people admire Rome. Cause becomes effect, effect becomes cause. The monarch proclaims his might to be equivalent to that of the old Empire which spreads from one end of the sea to another, and in glorifying himself he glorifies Rome also; the artist and the philosopher find inspiration in the works of the old civilizations, and in mimicking them they infuse new life and respect to them; the people looks in awe at the Ionic columns around the City Hall and the Romans become a familiar topic of "our past."

I personally finds it interesting to explore the less well-treaded topics of history though, because I am surprised again and again to find things that I never know are there.

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.

I sincerely doubt that utopian picture of a happy country life is true.

If anything, the whole "The Rape of the Sabine Women" myth was quite funnily the opposite of the picture you're painting.

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.

Huh?

Gimme a break. Homosexuality and divorce doomed Rome, eh? "Morality" inspires a strong nation? Please, that's an outdated notion since 1945.

[Spino]

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.

Not entirely true... or fair to the Greeks. Rome had prolonged exposure to Etruscan civilization which was arguably just as amoral as Hellenic civilization. Those morality issues you mentioned did not instantly bubble up from the ground during Augustus' time but he was one of the few rulers to make it a point of addressing them via legislation. Rome's ruling class had been in moral decline for a long time prior to Augustus. The steady flow of riches and lands brought into Rome's control beginning say, after the Second Punic war, certainly didn't encourage its aristocracy to exercise any kind of self-restraint. Putting Rome's general population on the teat of state welfare didn't help matters either. State supplied food staples, entertainment and extravagance probably didn't encourage the common man to stay honest.

[Bijo]

It is actually quite the opposite. A biassed History is not History, its a version of History, the version of the Beholder.

Studdying History is not aboyut making judgements it is about learning our past and being able to trace our evolution and about understanding it. And it is also about learning from past mistakes.

Roma was Great, because the people of that time thought so, and not because of what people think of it today.

I'm not getting what you're saying (yet). How is it the opposite? Why do the words 'biased history' come in? Why in the second part do you include the act of studying history?

The point I made is that there are many people NOW who like or admire ancient Rome and - for example - DISLIKE the Nazi Empire. The brutal principles they both applied were very much alike, therefore it is rational to think that these people should DISLIKE ancient Rome as well, regardless of time, simply due to its expansionism, power-hungry leaders, bloody business, and so forth. And the fact that Rome has had influence on culture, etc., is not the issue nor an excuse because the fact still stands that they were just as blood-thirsty, cruel and oppressive as many other civilisations.

That is the point

[Suraknar]

The point I made is that there are many people NOW who like or admire ancient Rome and - for example - DISLIKE the Nazi Empire. The brutal principles they both applied were very much alike, therefore it is rational to think that these people should DISLIKE ancient Rome as well, regardless of time, simply due to its expansionism, power-hungry leaders, bloody business, and so forth. And the fact that Rome has had influence on culture, etc., is not the issue nor an excuse because the fact still stands that they were just as blood-thirsty, cruel and oppressive as many other civilisations.

Yes and I understand the point, however, I am saying that the point is biassed, from a historical point of view.

he brutal principles they both applied were very much alike, therefore it is rational to think that these people should DISLIKE ancient Rome as well

hehe, rationality and logic...is not impervious to error...as I am trying to point out in another thread :P Anyways.

Here is the problem, from a historical point of view:

Nazi Germany did what it did within the context of the Modern World, where it was not part of the normality it was one side amongst many. The allies had a completelly different Ideology of what is cruel and what is not. hence different context.


In the times of Rome, the "cruelty" or "blood-thirstiness" was the way of life for ALL the then cultures. Human Life did not mean much. Kings and Rulers, had the power to to decide who lives and who dies.

As such, within That context, it is not viewed as cruel, so we compare cultures on other aspects, because the "cruelty" factor prety much nulifies itself, hence from the other angles, Rome is considered Great.

Context is very important in History, to avoid biassed Judgements.

In other words, from our present point of view, yes Romans were cruel, but not from the "then" point of view, and in History we evaluate the "then" point of view, not only "our present" point of view, to make a fair judgement.

Does that explain it better friend?

if we are to judge them from a modern ethical or Humanist point of view, then yes, they were bloody just as anyone else that has been deemed bloody, yet, it would be a judgement in error if we are talking history.

[Bijo]

I knew/know what you mean and I thank you for your explanation :)

Context might be important in history, but still it's so that we are not to talk history in such a way in this particular discussion. I'm glad we understand each other, but the point remains the same, and to include this history context you speak of, and explained so beautifully, would be - according to rules of argumentation, logic, rationality, etc. - irrelevant.

Though, I certainly appreciate the shares of you and others on history

[Slug For A Butt]

I personally believe that the Romans, like many imperialists, brought a lot of good to their subjugated foes.
It seems that in this day and age, with different moral values , we forget (or conveniently overlook) this.

Anyone remember Monty Python "What did the Romans ever do for us"?

Whether it was the Egyptians, the Romans, the British... lets not forget what more "civilised" nations did for other peoples' societies, and what happened when these "civilised" societies left them... to their own devices.
I think the Romans should be viewed with respect, and lets not talk about subjucating and killing. Everyone did that in those days. Don't judge them by your moral standards.

[Lorenzo_H]

I just got back from Rome! What an awesome city.

I also saw Pompeii, and let me tell you; the Ancient Romans were perverted.

[Suraknar]

I knew/know what you mean and I thank you for your explanation :)

Context might be important in history, but still it's so that we are not to talk history in such a way in this particular discussion. I'm glad we understand each other, but the point remains the same, and to include this history context you speak of, and explained so beautifully, would be - according to rules of argumentation, logic, rationality, etc. - irrelevant.

Though, I certainly appreciate the shares of you and others on history

irrelevant?

But, my friend, you asked why...

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.

... And I gave an answer, because most people in "serious" conversation about history take under account the Historical context. That is why.

And you are very welcome.

Now if your asking why people that dont take under account the historical context like Rome, then that is another story and the reasons are multiple and also most of the time very simple. (i.e. its cool to side with the victors).

[Bijo]

I know I said that, but that was merely a simple kind of introduction with nice words for I don't attend the Monastery at all usually, and it seems there are people around here who - maybe not qualified or maybe they are - know a lot more about history.

In any case, to go on with that, the question was still about 'people now' and not necessarily history the way many talk it or are supposed to talk it, though it's said that I still appreciate it, the question itself was still another thing which you have mentioned yourself already, and they were not my intention to have them in connection even if it seemed so.

The main thing remained and still remains the question about people now admiring ancient Rome, even if it seems they shouldn't. The history talk is still only side stuff that's nice to add.

[Tran]

Well I believe many and many people view the mighty Gengis Khan as none other than evil warlord despite many other people and historians praising him as brilliant and great military leader...this maybe OFF topic but I'm just drawing a simple comparison, and also don't forget how the Chinese empire was forged, (I think) it was after brutal military conquest from one of those western Chinese kingdom or something against anothers, imperialist way.

It really depend on one's point of view

[Horatius]

Well I believe many and many people view the mighty Gengis Khan as none other than evil warlord despite many other people and historians praising him as brilliant and great military leader...this maybe OFF topic but I'm just drawing a simple comparison, and also don't forget how the Chinese empire was forged, (I think) it was after brutal military conquest from one of those western Chinese kingdom or something against anothers, imperialist way.

It really depend on one's point of view

There are a few reasons for that.

1. The Mongols got to be considered the wrath of God at the time, and so everything they did not associated with God's wrath was relegated to the margins of history.

2. The scale of Ghengis Khan's conquests was far larger then any single Roman general including Julius Caeser.

3. Unlike Caeser Ghengis Khan never wrote his own story, remember the pen is mightier then the sword. There was a lot of good that the Mongols did, the West should especially be grateful for him opening up the East to it, but they did not publicize it with the pen.

Putting Rome's general population on the teat of state welfare didn't help matters either. State supplied food staples, entertainment and extravagance probably didn't encourage the common man to stay honest.

But Spino modern Western Countries also have large scale welfare for the poor, and to play devels advocate that makes the wealthy feel better about themselves (whose taxes go to help the poor in any society that makes use of welfare before or sicne?) and self confidence is essential to any functioning society.

[Erik Bloodaxe]

Interesting read people!

The meaning of reading history imo is NOT to repeat it.

Comparing Nazi Germany and Rome's conquest doesn't seems right to me. Not sure but there is something that somehow makes a huge difference between them. Hilter was elected? A whole nation were behind him!?
I'm sure the Romans did a lot of evil things too, but people seems to ignore this and maybe most of all they don't have any idea and does't care at all.

The Romans thought that everyone else but themself were barbarians right?
hmm.. haven't we heared that again just 60 years ago? They even used the same salutation/that sieg-heil stuff like the Romans did.

The Nazi guys at the other hand, almost everything they did have been recorded, we got it all on tape=) some people even remember how it was like today, unfortunately they are short in numbers and information being lost.. If a regime in present time used to crucify people I think Amnesty International would be there fast as lightning and make all the world react with horror. No wonder why people needed to believe that someone actually resurrected and that a whole life with no Romans was waiting.

Anyone know any estimated numbers on how many died during the Roman conquest?

[Taedius]

How does one compare a regime that lasted for twelve years with a culture that lasted for... How long? A thousand?

[nokhor]

kinda off topic here but i disagree with the assumption that the 'old romans' were noble and self-sacrficing and then they gained the empire or stumbled across hellenistic culture and then became degenerate. that argument has been used pretty much since the first history was written and it crops up in a lot of religous texts and populary mythology but i just don't buy it.

i don't think the republican romans were less ruthless, or morally ambiguous than their progeny, it's just that roman history only seriously started to be written by livy and others after the upper class had lost most of their political power to one of their kind. and they blamed the loss of their political power on their moral decay, whereas i think it had more to do with the fact that as the state grew wealthier and more powerful, it could support several oligarchs with the might of independent monarchs who then waged devastating civil wars against each other. but the romans own accounts of their early history is filled with backstabbing. the rape of the sabine women, aenas deserting dido, rome being originally a haven for bandits and outlaws, romulous murdering his own brother, and then being murdered in his turn by the senate. and it continues in the repulbican era with brutus slaying his sons, appius claudius' attempted rape of verginia, the decemvirs trying to set up an autocracy, as well as all those executed for trying to set up tyrannies like coriolanus, lucullus and his garden, the tax farmers the romans had in asia etc..

[ShadeHonestus]

"Morality" inspires a strong nation? Please, that's an outdated notion since 1945.

mos majorum and its importance to the foundation and strength of Roman society is not a dated notion nor will it ever be

[AntiochusIII]

mos majorum and its importance to the foundation and strength of Roman society is not a dated notion nor will it ever be

I don't believe you. At its essential human nature is all the same. The Roman society is driven by the same basic forces of greed, power, religious zeal, social control, and all that as the Chinese and the Mayans. Their manifestations are different, the intensity of their degrees different -- as cultures are different -- but to claim that a society with strong "morality" even actually exists in the first place is hard to justify for me.

Of course, that doesn't mean I deny that a patriotic society tends to be more protective of itself and aggressive in the pursuit of its material betterment than a more "convoluted" one, translating into better survivability when the world was (and, sadly, is) still a cruel perennial jungle; but that's not morals, more like social control, institutionalization, and zeal. It's good to imagine a society where politicians stop before they accept a bribe because they become aware of the conscience instilled into them by society and the average person loyally does his best in his part to better his society, of which the popular portrayal of Rome insists so, but it simply just doesn't exist. Not in any long term. At most such patriotic zeal -- mind you fueled by some of the most extensive and sophisticated propaganda efforts known to man -- show themselves during the Great Wars of the 20th Century, and the population quickly became exhausted by it.

[Boyar Son]

Rome is great because they brought peace within their empire, wouldnt you rather live within Rome instead of Gaul or the warring states of greece, or the baby sacrificing Carthaginians???

Besides who wouldnt want money and the power, hour after hour?

[Warmaster Horus]

Besides who wouldnt want money and the power, hour after hour?

Money and power? Sorry to disagree with you, but:
-slaves -> no money, no power
-women -> cash, but no real power (inter family alliances, sure, but...)
-money? if you were trying to rise the Cursus Honorum, you'd get indebted rather quickly (especially when you were an Aedile)
-power? if you didn't have money, you weren't powerful, and if you didn't have ambition, then you wouldn't want power. Pompey, Marius, Sulla, Caesar all wanted to be the "Roman Alexander". Crassus was rich, and all he wished for was glory.

They brought peace within their empire. So, how often wasn't there a civil war, or some kind of foreign war, or some kind of plotting (notably for Emperors).

I don't disagree with the idea that Rome was great, but if you look at the social classes, you can't really say they were.
I admire Rome, but it's more of an awe-inspired feeling. They were one of the longuest standing civilizations (still standing, technically), and they brought a relative peace to the world. Even after the dozen wars of the first century BC, Rome still came on top of the world, and that's one of the things which I admire.

[Boyar Son]

Money and power? Sorry to disagree with you, but:
-slaves -> no money, no power
-women -> cash, but no real power (inter family alliances, sure, but...)
-money? if you were trying to rise the Cursus Honorum, you'd get indebted rather quickly (especially when you were an Aedile)
-power? if you didn't have money, you weren't powerful, and if you didn't have ambition, then you wouldn't want power. Pompey, Marius, Sulla, Caesar all wanted to be the "Roman Alexander". Crassus was rich, and all he wished for was glory.

Yup, like I said: money and the power, hour after hour

slaves -> Need money for that
women ->got to have money, everyone knows women loves money, unless ya got pimp skillz
-money-> =power, or....
...C.R.E.A.M.-> Cash Rules Everything Around Me