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.

Any good reads on that? It'd be mighty useful for my thesis. I can give you a few names of notable gentes that were of Etruscan origin, all of which can be found among the magistrates of Rome's Republican era: Perperna (or Perpenna), Tarquitia, Ancharia, Arruntia, and Volcatia. -- Nephele Fascinating. Something that I could definitely use to support it. Speaking of Etruria, I found this fascinating article off the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7028330.stm

Any good reads on that? It'd be mighty useful for my thesis.

Absolutely, his work on the Roman army provides excellent insight into the structure of the Roman legions, though it is much more an overview than a detailed treatise. Unfortunately, critics claim that since he was neither a historian nor a soldier his work is dubious. Essentially, he was compiling data to send to the emperor in order to prove that the army needed to be reformed. Regardless, I don't recall him asking the emperor (either Valentinian or Theodosius) specifically to adopt a new invention, but rather to return to the old methods of recruitment and training. Of course, feel free to dig around for yourself though... http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/home/war/vegetius/ Didn't his fourth book deal with some kinds of inventions?

Well, if it's something I can prove - than I'd like to do it on it. I just have to scrounge around for sources... And I think I found out the man I was looking for: Flavius Vegetius Renatus, and his "De Re Militari". Anyone know about that?

The etruscans dominated the region in the early days, and most of the kings of Rome were etruscan. The etruscans influenced the urbanisation of the tiber valley and provided some of the basis for roman customs. The roman empire was created by the domination of the republic by one man as ruler without the customary restraints of republican government. The republic itself was founded when the romans got fed up of the kings and had the last one thrown out. tarquinus Superbus is supposed to have raped a latin woman named Lucretia, and that was the final straw. He tried to win his kingdom back but lost. Would it be logical to assert something like that Roman civilization was an extension of its Etruscan predecessor? Is that much too radical? I'm writing a paper, and I was considering that as my thesis.... And you guys, thanks for trying to help find that historian/person..... It's so far none of the above. He didn't work for any Byzantine emperor, I don't think the Roman Empire had been that old by the time he came up with his letter.... I only wish I remembered at least the emperor...

And I was hoping that the "V" being pronounced like a "W" was all nonsense.... Now the language seems so hideous...

This seems like fun.... Anyway, here is my scrambled first-and-last names... DoariAlnggaio

I think some people here are considering this too much in ancient terms. For example, I don't think there would be any gladitorial games or even slavery at this point. Christianity served as a major "reformer" in terms of culture, and although early Christianity practiced slavery, and perhaps condoned it, the major principles reject it entirely, and I think after a couple of centuries it would have been abolished. That I think goes for gladitorial combat as well - unless, perhaps, in terms of acting and theater. Of course, I'm not saying that Roman civilization would be perfect - far from it - but I think it would evolve positively. I think Greek influence would begin to decline. Latin was already dominant in the West, and I think after a while it would tend to envelop the East as well. I mean, it wasn't until far after Justinian that Greek began to truly replace Latin as the official language in the Byzantine Empire. I think technology would naturally improve. Of course, slavery was perhaps an impedement to it, but I can't simply sit and think that the Romans would simply have kept slavery until 2007, or if they had, it certainly would accompany technological change. I think that part of the problem was that after the Pax Romana and the five good emperors, the chaos that engulfed the empire kind of stalled any kind of focus on technological innovation. China had more stability, and was able to grow in that sense. Had the Roman Empire not been harassed by barbarians, then it would have remained stable and grown. Even in military terms, technology would have to improve in order to keep the army strong, and I think that would inevitably lead to technology for civilian use as well. Different than China, however, I think the Romans would still consider themselves open to other cultures, though maybe also adopting an attitude of cultural superiority. Chinese civilization has persisted for thousands of years, and has developed because it enjoyed such great stability. I can't help but be excited at the prospects of the Romans had they been stable politically. I wonder if the Romans would have continued to expand militarily, that's an interesting thought. I would also like to imagine increased relations with China. Think of the scientific and cultural exchange between these two mighty empires, what benefit! And I also disagree that Christianity would fade. By the empire's end, Christianity was intrinsically bound with the Empire, and in effect became part of Roman civilization. It would continue to expand and develop, and would lead to more works of literature being produced, and would spread abroad too. Very interesting theory.

Hello everyone, I'm new to these boards. I've always been a history enthusiast, and the Roman Empire has always enticed me (perhaps because I am Italian, hehe). Anyway, I have a couple of questions, please. - I remember hearing (watching?) once something about the decline of the Roman Empire, and that during that period, an architect or historian sent a letter to the emperor (or a book, I can't remember) asking him to invest in some technological innovation. He presented some sketches on what he felt should be accomplished. Anyone know the name of that person, or the book, and the inventions? - This may sound stupid, but - has there ever been a theory that perhaps the Roman Empire is an extension of Etruscan civilization, or perhaps that the Etruscans founded Rome?

I have a question, in Iran, for example, the King was bestowed the title "King of Kings, King of Iran and non-Iran," and what about a Roman emperor? Were they just considered "Emperor of Rome" and that's all?