Romanization

[Ursus]

Rome is often painted as one of the foundations of Western society.

 

However, some scholars have pointed out the limits of Romanization. The East had an older and in some respects more advanced culture, to which educated Romans generally conceded superiority. The East did not take much in the way of Latin Culture, while educated Romans internalized to varying degrees Eastern culture.

 

In the West, Romanization had limits. The Romans were not interested in mico-managing the lives of their subjects as long as they behaved. Romanization was primarily confined to a few urban centers and their immediate territories. The provincial elite would have fused into Roman society, and those greatly affected by the Roman military or Roman economy would have been Romanized to some degree. But again this was an urban phenomenon; those living in the great mass of countryside in the West would have largely retained their native cultures, and Rome saw no need to bother with them as long as they behaved.

 

Some scholars go onto to say that when the Germanic hordes settled in the West to carve up their kingdoms, the populace became more thoroughly

[Guest spartacus]

Romes most lasting influence was in its buildings, viaducts, roads etc, as you point out their culture was not forced upon others so long as they fell into line!

If any of romes cultures were adapted I think it was more from choice than force so the Roman link was weak and could easily be broken

The populace in the West probably could "relate" more to the Germanic culture than Romes so it was more readily accepted

As you mentioned in your last paragraph, the Greek culture had more impact than any other culture including Romes

To close I think the Roman cultural spread was limited

[P.Clodius]

Any of you guys strolled through Washington DC lately?

[Guest spartacus]

AND, your point ????

[Primus Pilus]

Much of the US national monuments are based on Roman architecture. I think thats the point he'd trying to make.

[Guest spartacus]

OIC !!

 

Must be v. nice city then !

[Ursus]

Just the tourist quarter and the wealthy suburbs. The rest of it is a slum known for high murder rates.

[Demson]

Interesting...!

 

As pointed out by Fatboy a while back, the Celtic society continued to function throughout the Roman occupation. Commerce already existed, it is believed there already was a road network, Celts were urbanising, and they had an elaborate system of laws. Civilisation was very much present in Celtic society.

 

So romans did not neccearily brought civilisation. What they did bring were Legions and arcitecture for public works. Though they did institute governing so that the wealth of Gaul and Britain could be redirected at Rome, Celtic society kept functioning roughly the same way it did before.

 

After Rome fell, the legions vanished from history and architecture for publics works were forgotten and re-invented after the Dark Age. A bloody shame if you ask me.

 

So there is a truth in the theory of those scholars. Rome's legacy in terms of civilisation is not what's it's pumped up to be. Hellas and later Hellanised Egypt have a much more important legacy, if you ask me.

 

That said, Rome managed to unite Central Europe, North Africa and Asia Minor for an extended amount of time. I don't see that happening again for quite some time The prosperity of the Pax Romana might prove to be their real legacy, as it shows what can be done if people unite.

 

Also, their laws are still model for our current justice systems. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing though.

Edited March 12, 2005 by Demson

[Ursus]

Even in laws, England and its former colonies are often more directly infleunced by Anglo-Saxon common law than Roman jurisprudence.

 

Anyway, would you agree with the school of thought that Rome's principle contribution was in building the necessary infrastructure which preserved and transmitted the legacy of Hellas?

[Demson]

Even in laws, England and its former colonies are often more directly infleunced by Anglo-Saxon common law than Roman jurisprudence.

 

Anyway, would you agree with the school of thought that Rome's principle contribution was in building the necessary infrastructure which preserved and transmitted the legacy of Hellas?

 

Hmmm, I'm not sure. I think not.

 

Hellas did not influence Western Europe much until the renaissance. The infrastructure of the Hellenistic world was pretty capable by itself. Roman infrastructure might have helped (especially the Byzantine empire), but it was not neccesary for the suvival of the Hellenistic legacy.

 

I'm putting in a disclaimer though. This is not my area of expertise.

[Germanicus]

Roman ideas, and consequentially Greek ideas were also spread through the provinces by the Legions - and by settlement of veterans in newly pacified lands. Legionaries gaurding the Rhine and Danube for example, often had wives and consequentially children in the neighbouring populations, and most major Military bases had surrounding settlements poulated by these families. This intermixing/marriages would have surely had some influence. The roads and infrastructure certainly would have helped spread roman and greek views/ways of seeing the world, and many Roman ideas were then carried beyond the fall of Rome itself by the Roman Catholic Church who preserved their language. It is interesting just how much you can tell about a culture from the language.