Ursus

It's interesting to speculate on what-ifs and might-have-beens. But it's hard to argue too seriously on alternative realities. The fact is that the cities of Hellas gave the Western world most of its arts and sciences at a time when the Germans were scratching around in the dirt and calling it a culture. Even if the barbarians were to someday build an advanced culture, the Greeks already had one, and the Romans thankfully adopted strands of it, thus ennobling what we call Western Civilization.

I was in Moscow and Petersburg in the 90's as a student. Russian girls can be striking looking, and - yes - they can hold their drinks. But the flip side of that are the hunchbacked babushkas that spend all day crossing themselves in church. Anyway, congratulations to your cousin. And yes, by all means, invite your monk friend here. Some intelligent conversations on the early church would be an interesting change of pace.

But according to the line of reasoning expressed above - having an adversary keeps one on ones toes and reinvigorates one's cultures - then constant wars with the implacable Sassanids and endless waves of Germanic war bands should have prevented Rome from degenerating, at least in a moral and cultural light, which it didn't. The culture of the Late Empire was anything but inspiring. But now it seems we are amending the above proposition to: having an adversary is good, but only if the adversary if easily beatable and has a lot of money. But if an adversary's purpose is to be beaten quickly and simply fleeced, this seems to nullify the original logic that competition with a rival is good on its merits as it builds a sense of martial and moral arete. I realize Rome's early empire was forged on its ability to absorb its neighbors before its neighbors absorbed it. Within an anarchic international system this is even necessary. But I still think the height of Roman civilization came with the Roman Peace, with Hellenistic style monarchs relatively free to fund culture and infrastructure, rather than locked in a death struggle with their neighbors.

Caldrail has hit the nail right on the head here. It's a point that has been well attested to throughout history; a civilisation that has no competition will atrophy. It's sort of like the saying "It's not the destination, but the journey that matters". Once Rome had no real rivals, the civilisation became blas

It's probably a topic in its own right, but I'm skeptical the Northern tribes could have developed a culture as advanced as the Hellenistic world, due to their differing cultural values and experiences.

Thanks for the reminder, Faustus. Unfortunately it has been very cloudy and rainy in my neck of the woods all summer. I think I will miss it another year.

If the Roman elite has not adopted strands of Hellenistic culture, Rome would still have had a historical impact as the power that united three continents for centuries of relative peace under its soldiers, laws and roads. But the fact that educated Romans, and provincial notables who were to become Romans in time, did adopt strands of Hellenic culture seems to me to have ennobled Rome from a simple imperial power into a cultural power - bringing the uplifting culture of the East into the formerly savage lands of Western Europe. I try to think of a Europe without Hellenism and its arts. A world of Celtic and Germanic barbarians living in hill forts, not cities as we know it. A world of crude geometric art rather than life like marble statues. A world of oral poetry rather than written history. A world where Aristotle had not inspired the scientific method. It is quite horrid to contemplate.

No need to overly belabor your point, ASCLEPIADES. Tirades on George Bush and modern American politics have happened dozens of time before and will happen dozens of times again. And that is permissable within certain boundaries, as long as it doesn't occur on forums actually dedicated to Roman history, the stated goal of this site. Thus the thread gets moved here to the baths, where it will either be forgotten in a week, or else explode and be consigned to the Arena. Cheers.

Roman Passions looks interesting.

While it's fine (I suppose) to approach modern politics from a post-Marxist perspective, let's not be so hasty to project said perspective back on the ancient world. In Antiquity the wealthier sorts underpinned the governmental elite because they were often expected to contribute to the state out of their own pocket. In citizen militias, the wealthy could afford the best armor and maybe a horse; In times of peace, the wealthy financed cultural pursuits and infrastructure. This was well within the Greco-Roman cultural values of seeking honor through service to the state, and the wealthy were naturally better poised to contribute resources. Despite occasional struggles between different social orders, it seems to have been a system that most internalized. As to the rest of this thread which is edging into hyperbole on modern politics, I am sending it to the Baths.

In college I had been one of those naive young students who had hoped Russia would turn into a liberal, free market democracy and staunch ally of the US and EU against common threats (like China and Islamic jihad). It seems however the powers that be there still want to play the sad game of the Russian Empire. I say the more countries we can liberate from Russia's sphere of influence, the better - especially the closer they are to Caspian Sea oil reserves.

While having issues with Constantine's religious policies, I have to conceed he was still a great man. Adept on the battlefield, shrewd enough to capitalize on Diocletion's reforms, visionary enough to found a new strategic city, he earned a place in the Roman panthon of emperors. Rebel or not, I think greatness is ultimately measured by success - better a successful rebel than a noble loser. Ask Cicero. I honestly think the most maligned figure in Roman history - is Rome itself. It has acquired the reputation of an evil empire who triumphed because it was more violent than anyone else. Rome wrote so much about itself and its struggles - while many of its subject peoples were illiterate, and thus not able to damn themselves with their own recorded failings.

http://www.bradthegame.com

I would have been more impressed if they had discovered beer.

I shall pour a libation of beer and sacrifice a hotdog to your baseball gods.

What was this thread about again? I forget. Anyway, here is an interesting question: is a democracy entitled to extend political and social "toleration" to identity groups who do not themselves respect any notion of tolerance, democracy or civil rights as modern Western Civilization currently understands it? To put it another way, do you encourage people to operate within your borders who, if given half a chance, would like nothing better to overthrow your liberal, tolerant democracy and force everyone to conform to some strict, religious code? In effect, is tolerant democracy committing eventual suicide by allowing the existence of theocratic groups? And lest someone accuse me of Islam bashing, I'm also wondering how many right-wing Christian groups in America could be lumped as threats to tolerant democracy

Definitely will get this one. Will review it too if no one else claims it before me. It Maty's publisher wants expedited press coverage, they can always ship me a copy.

I try to keep an open mind, but I find the idea far fetched at best. If the Romans wanted to create a more placable Jewish sect, they would have gone about it in a much better way: not an apocalyptic cult that spurned traditional Jewish religion and didn't seem to have much use for the world at all. Honor the ways of your ancestors, pay your taxes, follow the laws: that was the Roman way.

The court ceremonies and protocol Diocletian introduced were inspired by Rome's Persian rivals, and in that sense was certainly un-Roman. But as NN alluded to, they were designed to prop up the power of the Dominus and correct generations of civil war caused by pretenders to the throne. Caesar was killed for regal pretensions, but Diocletian was the first emperor in a long while to die peacefully - an indication of how Rome had changed in 300 years.

I think there are three problems with that, Christians aside: 1) It's not always clear which late imperial reforms are his and which are Constantine's, thus confusing who should get credit where credit is due 2) Whatever his share of the reforms, the economic, political and social climate was certainly more rigid and authoritarian than the earlier empire. Said phenomenon is not without its critics. 3) The experiment of the Tetrarchy failed, and to some looks ridiculous in hindsight. Having said that I think he deserves credit for seeing that the empire needed some profound changes if it were to survive. And as I think the scope of Christian persecutions is in general overplayed (and not something that really moves me in any event), I don't think him a bad emperor.

Remind me to stay out of Holland. What a sick joke. Let's not say anything critical about Islam because they might riot, and it would ruin our image of tolerance? Give me a break.

Yes, well, corruption didn't end (how could it?) and if we are to believe the sources then the later empire was truly bad (though some scholars see those sources as exaggerated). But everything I have read suggests the early imperial government kept the provincial governors on a tighter leash than the Republican Senate (as the emperor had the final say, and was keen on preventing future rivals). And furthermore regardless of the ultimate motives for expanding the citizen base, it did proceed much better than under the narrow band of oligarchical senatorial families.

And after it's destructive war with Sparta, what did Athens ultimately become? A second rate city clinging to its intellectual past, destined to become at best the University Town for upper class Roman youths. The intellectual torch of Hellenic civilization passed from Athens to Alexandria, a city designed and furnished by a great imperial power. And even there the various struggles between the great Hellenistic powers would end with subjugation to Rome. Yes, Greek individualism and freedom created a certain energy which in turn led to a brilliant century of cultural innovation, but ultimately it led to internecine wars that exhausted mainland Greece and made them easier prey for foreign powers. But we're fortunate the Roman upper classes had the good sense to adopt certain strands of Greek culture, and through them to the conquered territories in Western Europe. Even given the fact that the spread of Hellenization is sometimes overstated, I still can't divorce Greece and Rome in mind as cultural forebears - one the cultural power and the other the political power.

While those living in Rome proper certainly suffered under despotism at times, I think many provincials might argue that the empire was from their perspective better managed and more inclusive.

Let's try to keep this conversation focused on ancient history, not modern politics.