The Colosseum

[Axel]

Was the fall of carthage a big reason to change Rome political system by building the colosseums all over the Empire and importing the Gladiators all over it especially baberians ?

 

i'm a barberian from Aures south mounts to Cirtha (actual Constantine-Algeria) .I'm in Vet-medical studies and even at the right time big dogs have big demands not to be domesticated but to use'm for fights...

[Ursus]

Ni!

Edited September 23, 2009 by Ursus

[sylla]

Was the fall of carthage a big reason to change Rome political system by building the colosseums all over the Empire and importing the Gladiators all over it especially baberians ?

 

i'm a barberian from Aures south mounts to Cirtha (actual Constantine-Algeria) .I'm in Vet-medical studies and even at the right time big dogs have big demands not to be domesticated but to use'm for fights...

 

Edited September 24, 2009 by sylla

[Axel]

Ni!

 

Si!

 

i guess i'll creat a new forum called Ni&Si Ursus Vs Axel !

Scientific debats can't be resolved by Sis and Nis!

[Axel]

Was the fall of carthage a big reason to change Rome political system by building the colosseums all over the Empire and importing the Gladiators all over it especially baberians ?

 

i'm a barberian from Aures south mounts to Cirtha (actual Constantine-Algeria) .I'm in Vet-medical studies and even at the right time big dogs have big demands not to be domesticated but to use'm for fights...

 

[sylla]

So what i want to know is : was the punic wars and the Barbarians danger against rome a reason to re-enforce the military and encouraging the fights and the gladiators for changing the system of rome to the way of the fights against its enemies?

 

As you can see actualy in france...as it was the last coloniser force of numedia...You can see the distroyers the incidences from time to time...all of them are Emigrants especially Berberians...

 

As we note actually The Old barbarians still excist in europe Italians Africans Scotch Irish...and more comunly they like the Red...

By the way i'm from a big est tribe called The RedTribe in barbarian 'The Zegarot' wich it means the Red Color ...The identification pronoun is Tha or Ta or The or A...as you can see in 'Thamugadu' 'Thevest' 'Tabarce' 'AMaziren'...

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[Axel]

So what i want to know is : was the punic wars and the Barbarians danger against rome a reason to re-enforce the military and encouraging the fights and the gladiators for changing the system of rome to the way of the fights against its enemies?

 

As you can see actualy in france...as it was the last coloniser force of numedia...You can see the distroyers the incidences from time to time...all of them are Emigrants especially Berberians...

 

As we note actually The Old barbarians still excist in europe Italians Africans Scotch Irish...and more comunly they like the Red...

By the way i'm from a big est tribe called The RedTribe in barbarian 'The Zegarot' wich it means the Red Color ...The identification pronoun is Tha or Ta or The or A...as you can see in 'Thamugadu' 'Thevest' 'Tabarce' 'AMaziren'...

I'm not sure if I have understood all your argumentation rightly, but please believe me; trying to use ancient nations to support modern national pride is essentially chauvinism and has never been a good idea.

 

Modern Algeria is not ancient Numidia, France is not Gaul and the old Barbarians are not there any more; all populations have always merged together, and not exclusively the Berbers or the Barbarians; please remember the latter were not even an ethnicty, but simply non-Romans (any non-Romans).

 

All the ancient nations (as a whole) were ancestors of all of us (as a whole too); History is no human cloning.

 

Populations have constantly migrated for multiple reasons and they have often find some problems to live together; even so, I can't find any relevant analogy between the Germanic invasions of the Roman Empire in the IV & V centuries and the modern migrants to the European countries.

 

I certainly don't think that moden migrants are trying to make Europe "fall" in any way, if that is what you imply.

 

My guess is that like 99% or more of all human migrations, modern European immigrants will eventually merge in their respective new countries, if that has not already happened; experience shows us that migrants (any migrants) systematically merge in the lapse of one or two generations.

 

OhhKeeyy!

I saw that my bad english guided you to an unexpected way!

I understand from your answer that you took a defensive way to answer!

when i gave you the exemple it was not by the meaning that they wana make europe fall....but what i would say is that : according to me genetic factors and developped caracters of the human personality is hereted ...

Well i give you another exemple to understand...my little brother or all our kids (lesser than 1year old) likes to use his head to keek some one...if you took him and you try to play with him than you start laughing hi becames angry than he gives you a head...even when he crawls, when some one disturb him he starts quiking his head and becomes very angry but he dosn't cry at all...another thing when a mother get out with their kids to go shooping...first act to do 'Evryone is deasapered' they start running as much as they can and they climbs evrything in their ways...

So running and sports and fights still runings in blood...What do you think about this words:

a sport called 'Le Parcour'

a first football player called Zinedine zidane and his head in final world cup!...

about morrokian athlet 'hichem gerroudje'...

the hooligans!...

[caldrail]

The Etruscans are often credited with the origin of gladiatorial combat but whilst they did indulge in bloody funeral rites (as did other cultures of the time) there's no evidence that it was a direct descendant. In fact, Roman sports owe more to the greeks and if you notice, the symbolism and religious significance of gladiators inlcudes celebration of greek warriors, a connection made stronger by the tradition of two greek warriors deciding a battle by single combat (a familiar theme in human warrior ethics).

 

The Romans themselves might have inherited Etruscan attitudes, yet it must be acknowledged the origin of the Roman civilisation emerges from rival tribes raiding each other for assets, and this sort of thing is enshrined in the story of the Rape of the Sabines which survives as the modern marriage ritual of carrying a bride across the threshold.

 

We have then a martial culture which had little to do with the bucolic bliss later Roman patrons like to portray and instead absorbed customs from dominant cultures around it. The development of the gladiator roughly begins in 264BC when the first public display was staged in a cattle market between two pairs. Combat between two slaves to honour the dead with blood sacrifice had been going on for some time, a Roman invention based on their interpretation of Etruscan methods allied with greek culture (which although responsible for much academic learning was also no less violent than the Romans).

 

The need to impress others for political purposes gave rise to public displays which eventually developed into the entertainment industry we know as gladiatorial combat by the late republic, with professional and volunteer participants emerging toward the beginning of the Empire.

 

The Augustan Franchise (Augustus cleverly instituted a competitive system of urban development in the provinces in which towns vied with each other for favours in return for efforts to emulate Rome itself - and increase tax revenue at the same time) spawned a rapid increase in the spread of gladiatorial combat beyond Italy, a trend reinforced by the policy of colonisation by Roman veterans as part of the franchise.

 

Public demand for these free shows and the desire of Vespasian to impress his Roman subjects inspired him to have the Colosseum built, though he never lived to see it finished. Most performances had (until the mid-Principate at least) been held in temporary wooden arenas or any available public space. Caligula's death for instance took place in such a temporary arena erected in front of the palace. The trend toward permanent stone arenas was encouraged both by this need for impreessive architecture but also to offset the shoddy work often done at a budget by the builders of wooden structures, and the worst case was the collapse of one such arena at Fidenae in ad27 which killed and injured thousands.

[Axel]

The Etruscans are often credited with the origin of gladiatorial combat but whilst they did indulge in bloody funeral rites (as did other cultures of the time) there's no evidence that it was a direct descendant. In fact, Roman sports owe more to the greeks and if you notice, the symbolism and religious significance of gladiators inlcudes celebration of greek warriors, a connection made stronger by the tradition of two greek warriors deciding a battle by single combat (a familiar theme in human warrior ethics).

 

The Romans themselves might have inherited Etruscan attitudes, yet it must be acknowledged the origin of the Roman civilisation emerges from rival tribes raiding each other for assets, and this sort of thing is enshrined in the story of the Rape of the Sabines which survives as the modern marriage ritual of carrying a bride across the threshold.

 

We have then a martial culture which had little to do with the bucolic bliss later Roman patrons like to portray and instead absorbed customs from dominant cultures around it. The development of the gladiator roughly begins in 264BC when the first public display was staged in a cattle market between two pairs. Combat between two slaves to honour the dead with blood sacrifice had been going on for some time, a Roman invention based on their interpretation of Etruscan methods allied with greek culture (which although responsible for much academic learning was also no less violent than the Romans).

 

The need to impress others for political purposes gave rise to public displays which eventually developed into the entertainment industry we know as gladiatorial combat by the late republic, with professional and volunteer participants emerging toward the beginning of the Empire.

 

The Augustan Franchise (Augustus cleverly instituted a competitive system of urban development in the provinces in which towns vied with each other for favours in return for efforts to emulate Rome itself - and increase tax revenue at the same time) spawned a rapid increase in the spread of gladiatorial combat beyond Italy, a trend reinforced by the policy of colonisation by Roman veterans as part of the franchise.

 

Public demand for these free shows and the desire of Vespasian to impress his Roman subjects inspired him to have the Colosseum built, though he never lived to see it finished. Most performances had (until the mid-Principate at least) been held in temporary wooden arenas or any available public space. Caligula's death for instance took place in such a temporary arena erected in front of the palace. The trend toward permanent stone arenas was encouraged both by this need for impreessive architecture but also to offset the shoddy work often done at a budget by the builders of wooden structures, and the worst case was the collapse of one such arena at Fidenae in ad27 which killed and injured thousands.

 

Thank you.

That's a complement to my informations.

But i understood that The Roman Empire was a scientific Empire based on knowledge and elegance in architectury, towns civilisation foods....etc but it was not barbaric, and the power of it's army was in technics, plans, advanced arms and than danger soldiers the berbers.

The punic wars was realy a big issue in the History of the Empire that obliged the Empire to be more much powerful to destroy their enemies, wich it was not good for the empire so it was a big diviation. It looks like a smart college student that becames street fighter.

Well as they says 'Berbers can only be fighted by a berber' so the Roman Army was obliged to import the Germanic tribs and celtic berbers to fight carthage after this carthage was all burned and became a province of Rome.

A new hibrid barbaric people are born.

By the way i'm from a place called HenShire. and my grand father home is built by roks and ancient ruines.

[caldrail]

Thank you.

That's a complement to my informations.

But i understood that The Roman Empire was a scientific Empire based on knowledge and elegance in architectury, towns civilisation foods....etc but it was not barbaric, and the power of it's army was in technics, plans, advanced arms and than danger soldiers the berbers.

The punic wars was realy a big issue in the History of the Empire that obliged the Empire to be more much powerful to destroy their enemies, wich it was not good for the empire so it was a big diviation. It looks like a smart college student that becames street fighter.

Well as they says 'Berbers can only be fighted by a berber' so the Roman Army was obliged to import the Germanic tribs and celtic berbers to fight carthage after this carthage was all burned and became a province of Rome.

A new hibrid barbaric people are born.

By the way i'm from a place called HenShire. and my grand father home is built by roks and ancient ruines.

 

Scientific empire? I think not. Rome was a martial society whose builders often created some of the most shoddy jerry-built housing ever known. A roman historian (I think it was Suetonius off the top my head) mentions the frequent collapses of insulae and that building regulations were brought in by some emperors to help prevent collapses and fires.

 

Crassus, a contemporary of Caesar, made an absolute fortune by offering deals on property once a building had been accidentially destroyed and subsequently developing the land himself.

 

Yes, the Punic Wars were a big deal to the Romans, but it made almost no impact on the development of gladiatorial combat.

[sylla]

Well i give you another exemple to understand...my little brother or all our kids (lesser than 1year old) likes to use his head to keek some one...if you took him and you try to play with him than you start laughing hi becames angry than he gives you a head...even when he crawls, when some one disturb him he starts quiking his head and becomes very angry but he dosn't cry at all...another thing when a mother get out with their kids to go shooping...first act to do 'Evryone is deasapered' they start running as much as they can and they climbs evrything in their ways...

So running and sports and fights still runings in blood...What do you think about this words:

a sport called 'Le Parcour'

a first football player called Zinedine zidane and his head in final world cup!...

about morrokian athlet 'hichem gerroudje'...

the hooligans!...

Offending post deleted

[Northern Neil]

My guess is that like 99% or more of all human migrations, modern European immigrants will eventually merge in their respective new countries, if that has not already happened; experience shows us that migrants (any migrants) systematically merge in the lapse of one or two generations.

Hmmm... four or five generations on, and I still wait for it to occur in the UK. Some communities are very good at retaining their identity, and have hardened their attitudes relative to their immigrant parents and grandparents. Many have publicly stated a lack of willingness to mix with other groups, and in countries like the Netherlands even mainstream political voices have expressed a worry that 'states within states' are starting to develop.

[sylla]

Hmmm... four or five generations on, and I still wait for it to occur in the UK. Some communities are very good at retaining their identity, and have hardened their attitudes relative to their immigrant parents and grandparents. Many have publicly stated a lack of willingness to mix with other groups, and in countries like the Netherlands even mainstream political voices have expressed a worry that 'states within states' are starting to develop.

Offending post deleted

[caldrail]

The ancient Romans were indeed pretty "scientific" relative to many of their contemporaries more often than not, and they were certainly refined and civilized too, which is probably the concept that you're looking for (admittedly, not so much previous to the Punic Wars).

 

Some Romans were refined and civilised, at least in some respects, but they were a pretty hard nosed and avaricious lot who came to believe they had a predestined right to dominate. I think the cultural achievements of the Romans blind us to the conquest state that they became. It's also worth pointing out that those cultural achievements, roads, acqueducts, all the usual benefits of Roman society, were primarily intended for the adminstration and policing of the state, the development of wealth for the few, and it had little dto do with the comman man who was bought off with circuses et panem.

 

The level of snobbery in Roman society (and Tacitus gives away some pretty clear examples of it) mitigates against refinement. What we have in other words is a pecking order in which status is defined not just wealth and influence, but by fine details of behaviour. Does that make refinement a good thing? Not in my book if it's used to judge a man less than his peers. We also need to see the Romans as a competitive society, one in which failure is regarded poorly, and a society that has little time for those who fall by the wayside. Hardly a progressive culture then. They of course thought it perfectly natural that the strongest dominate and profit.

 

As regards 'scientific', I can't really see much evidence for that at all. The Romans did not, as a rule, sponsor science despite the civil engineering marvels we associate with them (which incidentially were built according to the need for aggrandisement as much as utility). They were a very superstitious people. For them, science was something that emulated the works of the gods and was perhaps tempting fate.... Unless it made them wealthy in which case avarice overcame their religious biundaries more often than not. Pure science, the expansion of knlowledge for its own sake, didn't really occur to them. The outside world was a curiosity and a potential possession, not a place to be understood and studied. In any case, science was essentially 'greek' in character and whilst very amusing and clever, remained something a typical sponsor wasn't likely to invest in, given the risk of embarrasement compared to the political reward of civil benificence.

 

The whole point about civilisation is one I seee regularly regarding Romans. It's largely image. They were of course a very organised state and one that had developed a huge capacity for control over its neighbours by the application of guile and threat of brute force, but as to whether we consider the Romans 'civilised' is largely a matter of opinion since elements of their society were hardly civilised at all.

 

This also brings up the point of imperial culture. The image of Roman society is one of 'romanisation', a phrase I've come to dislike intensely. It never really happened. Rome was a conqueror, an occupier, and the various peoples they annexed and defeated carried on life in their midst as they always had done. Certainly some people in the provinces adopted Roman ways (Tacitus again reveals what 'refined' Romans thought of that!) in order to improve their circumstances, and yes, the Romans were keen to encourage that, but the idea was not beneificence or some enlightened attitude toward the civilisation. They saw it as a means of control, of tempting the natives with luxuries and decadence and bringing them into a sphere of local government by means of bribery and political subterfuge. It worked. It was the basis of provincial government that went on all over the empire, and in the case of Dark Age Britain, even survived them.

 

Ultimately I have to leave the question of whether the Romans were civilised to each of you to decide for yourselves. If you point at literature, art, civil engineering, organisation, then perhaps you're right. If on the other hand you see the arrogance, brutishness, greed, and downright callousness that existed as what they regarded as positive sides to their culture, then perhaps you'll think differently. What is certain is that we cannot in any degree regard the Romans as 'scientific'. Why would they need to be? They had plenty of conquered experts to do all the clever stuff for them.

[sylla]

Ultimately I have to leave the question of whether the Romans were civilised to each of you to decide for yourselves. If you point at literature, art, civil engineering, organisation, then perhaps you're right. If on the other hand you see the arrogance, brutishness, greed, and downright callousness that existed as what they regarded as positive sides to their culture, then perhaps you'll think differently. What is certain is that we cannot in any degree regard the Romans as 'scientific'. Why would they need to be? They had plenty of conquered experts to do all the clever stuff for them.

Offending post deleted