RomanItaly

Aside the most splendid city of all time Rome, I would pick my native city of Catania (Catina in Roman times).

I'm glad I'm not the only one feeling that way. I think you've summed it up well. It's definitely an emotional connection, and a fierce desire to defend it, which is why I also can get a bit bitter when talking exclusively about the Greeks, considered original and genius, while Rome gets the rap of being a copying civilization and unoriginal (which is infuriating, especially considering how much Rome actually contributed to the world, and also taking into thought all that the Greeks copied and stole from Egypt and Mesopotamia). In truth, the actual difference in participation between Greek democracy and the Roman Republic is negligible, if it exists at all. The Greeks were hardly "good people" who preferred allowing the general populace to run government. Most people forget to mention that "the people", if any, comprised at most 1/3 of the population. The Roman Republic was far more practical, and no less "free" in my opinion.

Well, Dante lived and died in Ravenna, so something should have happened. But throughout much of its Renaissance existence, Ravenna was occupied by Venetian soldiers.

Of course it facilitated it, but the Renaissance was not started by them. Italy was not in the dark post-Roman Empire, as the cities became richer, the culture began reviving. It's way too much of a stretch to say the Byzantines started it. Colombus is definitively Italian. Both from his records the Genoese administration holds, from his genetics (which confirm him as being Italian), and also from the fact that he sent a third of his reward to Genoa after discovering the Americas.

The Renaissance had already begun at that point.... So I don't think that is necessarily true. Sure, the Byzantine scholars help... But they certainly didn't "start" the Renaissance.... By 1453 it was already occurring.

I don't know if it is safe to ask this question but..... Is it safe to say that Rome had an influence of Greece? I mean, perhaps (obviously) not has much as vice-versa, but can we really say that in a thousand years of Roman civilization, Greece was completely unaffected culturally by Rome?

You're right. That issue is closed anyway, it only expounded on my stupid misconception.

Just for accuracy, check your sources. The Gospels were written in Greek, not Aramaic (there is some controversy about the possible existence of a primordial Aramaic Matthew, but most scholars accept the Greek primacy for this Gospel too). All the eastern half of the Empire was Greek-speaking, and so it continued. The Vulgate was from the early V Century. You're quite right. I'm sorry. I don't know where I got that misconception on the Gospels. Regardless, it's for that same reason that I stated - the Jews were broken up into two groups, the phihellenes, and the Aramaic speakers. The ones who wrote the Gospel fell in the first group.

Please note I didn

How is that possible? Latin was enforced in the East until Emperor Heraclius in Byzantium. So to say that Greek simply replaced Latin seems a bit incorrect, at least by your statement. The Romans were indeed influenced by the Greeks. But let's not exaggerate here. Rome was separate from Greece. Why not? It's basically stating that the British were the foundations of American culture, and the American nation. Except perhaps that's a little extreme for an example, in my opinion. I think the Babylonian-Assyrian analogy would be more accurate.

I find your answer a little imperfect, to say the least. American colonists were not 100% british. French and spanish populations were evident in other areas than the east coast, which also had german and dutch groups. Romans may never have been greek, and its true they detested greeks more often than not, but their culture was based on hellenistic principles before they dumped their royal court. They weren't eventually hellenised, the western empire diverged from the hellenistic ideal toward oriental influences, although I do admit that the romans built their own culture on top of hellenistic principles. But that is what the Greeks did with the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians.... So I don't see why no one makes accusations towards Greece...

Which is exactly what I'm referring to. The history book I have goes on to state how the Chinese and Indians were so notable for their innovations and extent of culture, but that the Greeks and the Romans were simply not as good, did not develop as extensive and valuable civilizations (all while merely grouping them together into a single "Mediterranean Civilization", which really annoys me), and basically that they did not contribute as much. Unfortunately, my history book reads a lot like your article. And it honestly mentions the "spread of Greek civilization" as Rome's achievement, and that "Mediterranean civilization" mostly served simply to spread civilization and agriculture. That really astonished me. It all has to do with the disgusting politically correct society we live in. In order to maintain a "balanced" view of foreign cultures, it downplays what has really been the cornerstone of our society today - Rome. I'm not saying that Rome was a perfect society or that modern day Europe is, but I find unacceptable that nowadays we of Western civilization have to feel that we need to be ashamed of our past, and indeed need to downplay it in the face of others. I personally consider that as one of the many faults of modern Western civilization. We're giving ourselves too much guilt that we really do not deserve. I'm sure that if you go to China, no one here will end up diminishing the impact of Chinese culture to the world - in fact, China is historically known for their cultural arrogance. And that's one example. If others don't diminish the emphasis of their cultures in order to promote international harmony, I really don't understand why should we. I personally find the whole notion ridiculous. There is no fault in admitting that Rome was founded on a Greek base, or that Rome was influenced by Greece. It's natural for a civilization to be influenced by a predecessor and then develop its own culture and society. But I submit that Rome developed its own civilization and culture that is apart from Greece. All cultures and civilizations start off that way. Even Greece itself is essentially the product of immense influences from Mesopotamia and Egypt. No one seems to be criticize that, or bother with that. The only real "original" civilizations are the first ones that developed after the agricultural revolution...

Well, the book itself does entirely. In fact, it refers to the period of Rome not as the Roman Empire, but merges Greece and Rome and calls it "Mediterranean civilization." My history teacher too, he really hasn't said much - next-to-nothing - on Rome. Perhaps I don't know any famous people so far who have said that....but it's frustrating.

I don't understand what's going on... Lately all I've been noticing is a played down and diminished role of the Roman Empire in history. That is, people are playing down the significance of this wonderful civilization and what it's done to the world. I mean, all that I hear of late is: - Rome is nonsense, it's only a copy of Greece - Rome is not original in anything - Rome wasn't that important to world history, China was I mean, I just don't understand it. Even in my AP History class, the impact of the Roman Empire has been played down immensely. My history book, for instance, tells a few words about the Roman Empire and that's it. It mostly echoes most of what was bulleted above. It just astonishes me that Rome has been so diminished by these people. How do you respond to this? Do any of you hear or read any of this?

Honestly, I find it difficult to fathom why people do not[/d] like Rome. OK, so perhaps I'm biased. I'm Italian, so the Roman Empire has always been a part of our culture and history for my family. One day, in third grade, I went to the library with my father, and he gave me a book on the history of Italy. I began reading, and became fascinated with the history of the Roman Empire. The fact that my father is a history enthusiast doesn't hurt either, and always loves to tell me the glories of Italy...and especially of Ancient Rome. But I especially love Rome because Western Civilization today is so based on it, and it's difficult to imagine a world without it. Lately I've been getting angry with how people have played down the impact of Roman civilization. Even the history books in my AP class hardly mention Rome at all, and dismiss it.