What have the Romans ever done for us?

[Onasander]

I had a few pan philosophy groups..... 

Don't forget history is a sub category of philosophy- if you are going to focus on technological legacy, look up the current big guns. I myself follow Samuel Butler, Ibn Khaldun, and a few philosophers from the middle ages no one here are expected to of heard of.

 

Heron of Byzantium introduced 3d drawing..... something you should look into..... Dumbarton Oaks put a free translation online. Also check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_technology

[Number Six]

Well, if you wanna tell some funny fact that'd make them think, you can tell that Romans taught us bilingualism: starting at least with the Scipions era and going down to the imperial era, learned Romans read and spoke Greek fluently. That's how they conquered the world: they were eager for Greek works and Greek thought. Unlike the ancient Greeks, who were a bunch of parochialist cities that would not as much as care to learn other languages: during classic, Hellenistic and Roman era (I'm not talking of the late empire, when some knowledge of Latin was somehow present in the East, although briefly) what was not written in Greek simply wasn't read by Greeks (I'm quoting Momigliano on this line of thought).

Roman diplomatic, during the late Republic and during the Empire, even had two official languages: Latin and, if the document was going to the East, Greek.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Number Six

[Onasander]

So Emperor Ashoka's edicts don't count?

[Number Six]

It's hardly in our historical heritage.

[Onasander]

No, but it was in the Hellenistic Heritage, and the successor states of Alexander, especially the Ptolemies, had to do it. The Mauryan empire, though not of the western tradition, was of the Alexandrian-Hellen system, and I cant help but notice the western greeks, Romans, and Christian Apologists of the era knew about Buddhism.

[Number Six]

Greeks had knowledge of foreign stuff, even during the age of the polis (sometimes wrong opinions, for they lacked direct access): they had travellers and quite obviously they had official interpreters and random bilingualists. But the point I was trying to make was not about just having bilingualism: it's about a whole nation teaching a foreign language to its upper class, letting it absorb a more advanced culture and even re-using the same foreign language (and culture) by themselves: there is no equal to what happened in ancient Rome with Greek.

 

Also the pre-Roman Hellenistic era produced a lot of bilingualism: the Hellenistic kingdoms themselves were Greek and yet had knowledge of local languages; but it was a bit different there: Hellenistic kingdoms were Greek establishments that naturally developed an interest and sometimes an official use for the language of their locals. Sure it produced a lot of cultural meltings, though.

 

If anything, what happened in Rome is more similar to what happened in pre-Alexandrian Macedonia (and probably there are other examples alike): the father and the ancestors of Alexander tried to assimiliate themselves to the Greek nation; they set a divide between them and their subjects, claiming they were Greek themselves, Greek descendants, and carrying Greece-centetered politics. Yet it's not a phenomenon of the nature and the dimensions of what happened in Rome.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Number Six

[Onasander]

So the Ionians in asia Minor didnt learn the persian tongue, or the various states under the persian empire? Did the Jews under the Alexandrian successor states speak greek koine at a lower rate than the romans greek?

 

I accept the Roman supremacy of scale in bilingualism, but not the originators, which is what this thread is about. Indiais the largest democracy, but did not invent democracy.

[Number Six]

Bilingualism is a practice, before than being an idea: any country that happened to be in a certain socio-historical condition practiced it in some way. But exactly because it's a practice, not an idea, I don't think it makes sense to speak of supposed 'originators' who did something - in fact - different. It's not just about size.

 

The point is: in the light of the OP's approach, the example that we can get from Roman bilingualism is an example that, as far as I can see, we cannot get from any other ancient civilization.

 

We talk about universal citizenship? In that case we should rather look at the ones Romans took it from. We talk of bilingualism? What happened in Rome has no equals.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Number Six

[Onasander]

No, I think the Hellenic Jews and Samaritans were every bit as bilingual as the Romans were, in terms of the elites. I can't see it any other way. 

[Number Six]

Hellenic or Hellenistic Jews?

[Onasander]

Both..... there were colonies.

[Number Six]

Well, the argument doesn't apply at least to the 'Hellenic Jews': Jews living in a Greek city and learning Greek is quite different from Romans living in Rome and learning Greek. As far as Hellenistic Jews, Samaritans and what not are concerned, I should therefore ask you what did they do with their bilingualism, how did it affect their culture, so we can apprecciate if it's anything comparable with my example. Philo (Alexandrian) doesn't count. Joseph probably does, although it's not a matter of single personalities, as it's not for Rome. But I may also ask: what Jews are we talking about? The Jews before or the Jews after 70 CE?

 

In the end, we can spend the next few days with you listing all of the ancient nations and with me saying why they're different (or asking you why are they similar), or you may try to understand the point I was trying to make, which is not even a strict point, and it's difficult to contest if you don't either argument the supposed similarities of your examples. Like you said, this kind of talk is not scientific, but it's not universally invalid either. In fact I wonder if you're bitter because I didn't recognize the greatness of cynism, which you appear to study, or because you don't like the unscientific approach of the OP, which I didn't challenge but supported instead.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Number Six

[Onasander]

I am bitter about what? I really Don't care if you recognize the existence of Cynicism, it's your belief, just as I don't believe Ottawa actually exists. I take flack for it, but never met a trustworthy person who ever claimed to of traveled there. I'm okay with skepticism.

 

In talking about Greek, as in, oh F'k, here comes Alexander out of Tyre kinda Greek. 

 

Do you not know of the cultural tug a war between Hebrew and Greek at this time? Also of Assyrian?

 

I am not upset at anyone on this site. My method oftentimes is the diatribe, but I hit ideas, not people. Persona is always in flux.

[Number Six]

You keep suggesting examples that belong to the wrong time, place or dimension.

I am not gonna challenge them anymore. If you want, argument them. I'm not gonna make an argument on each and every moment of Jews history just to prove a point. I don't think we understood each other anyway. Since you already said that you accept the Roman supremacy of scale in bilingualism, I'm not even sure what are we talking about anymore.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Number Six

[Onasander]

We are talking about the OP's parameters. This ceased being a mere internet chat once he admitted to giving paid talks about this, he needs to have the best info.

 

I further accepted your argument to make it a western cultural heritage. Alexander's invasion of Israel came before Rome's invasion. I have also conveniently for you left out Persian precedents that would still fit both the OP's and your parameters.

 

Your entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. There is a chronology to history. This is why the OP started this thread,to test our conceptions. Now if someone with a understanding of chronology challenges a claim of roman bilingual superiority during one of his speeches, he can react competently. I don't like sending guys in front of a audience with bad info.

 

My own claim, the Romans invented monks, can similarly be challenged. It's one of scale, but the OP wants origins.

 

Disentangle your ego from the facts. This is history, we all get stuff wrong, others are here to check us. Thank them when they do, someone just called me out about the battle of Hastings and I did just that.