Our Knowledge of the Romans

[Cassius Loginus]

How close are we of REALLY knowing the Roman civilizaton through archaeological information and text writings - are we close 90%? Is there any important information we do not know of the Romans?

 

My fear is that our knowledge of the Romans can be wholly different from what the Romans really were.

[ASCLEPIADES]

How close are we of REALLY knowing the Roman civilizaton through archaeological information and text writings - are we close 90%? Is there any important information we do not know of the Romans?

 

My fear is that our knowledge of the Romans can be wholly different from what the Romans really were.

Salve:

 

AMBROSE BIERCE:

HISTORY, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.

 

GEORGE WILHELM HEGEL:

What experience and history teach is this -- that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles

 

NAPOLEON:

History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Is there any important information we do not know of the Romans?

 

My heavens, Yes!

 

To grasp the enormity of what we don't know, just look at what we do know of 20th century America. We have: vast forests of photographs and newspapers from competing sources with different points of view, huge vaults of news reels depicting Presidential speeches and armies at war and recent inventions, detailed diaries and letters from people of all walks of life, probability-sample opinion polling on political and cultural issues, comprehensive archives of Congressional deliberations and roll call votes, DAILY economic data on publicly traded companies, MONTHLY economic data on labor and wages, archives of all patents, tradmarks, and 99.9% of all published books, magazines, and journals.

 

For modern historians, the chief problem isn't data collection, but data compression--rather like the problem of reducing the file size of a digital movie without affecting picture quality. In contrast, the chief problem of the ancient historian is the lack of basic data--rather like trying to assemble a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle from a few dozen pieces (and no puzzle box cover to help).

[Maty]

That's the thing about this period that makes it so fascinating. We have enough facts to go by, but not enough to spoil a good argument. Everyone on this board has, consciously or unconsciously tried to get into the heads of the Romans, to work out what makes them tick and to understand their view of the universe. And when you think you are getting there, you find something that makes you change your views again. However you imagine Rome and the Romans to have been, rest assured that you are to some degree wrong.

 

That said, there are times, even in translation and across two thousand years, when you read something, and it speaks to you so directly that you realize we and the Romans also have a lot in common.

[caldrail]

The real trick to understanding romans, I think, is to remember that as humans they were no different from us. We are descended from them, our own culture is partially based on their principles, and even in a small way, there are bound to be similarities.

 

I remember working for a japanese logisitics company in recent years. The oriental mind is very different from the west, as I discovered to my cost. I was told when I joined them that they were an alien species - How right that gentleman was.

 

But the romans are not so alien. Sure, their culture, taboos, customs, andbeliefs are no longer with us... or are they they? I notice our wedding rituals are theirs, preserved by the christian church. We exchange rings, we carry our bride across the threshold in celebration of the Rape of the Sabines. The giving of gifts at Christmas is unashamedly roman. Our sporting activities have developed along similar lines to roman ones. Sure, we don't watch people killing each other for fun any more - our society wouldn't tolerate that level of cruel barbarity - but we still see wrestling, boxing, martial arts, football. These days we see conflict around the world served up to us on prime time news. We watch horror films containing the most horrendous pyschopathic behaviour, and overtly sexual material is big business. In a rather remote way, are we any any different from them. Not really. As people we still respond to the same stimuli, we have the same range of emotional responses. Given the technology and circumstances of the time, I don't see the romans as fundamentally different to us, we could be like them very easily if our society drifts toward conquest and hedonism - and lets be honest - isn't there a part of us that ever so slightly wants to be part of the roman world?

[ASCLEPIADES]

That's the thing about this period that makes it so fascinating. We have enough facts to go by, but not enough to spoil a good argument. Everyone on this board has, consciously or unconsciously tried to get into the heads of the Romans, to work out what makes them tick and to understand their view of the universe. And when you think you are getting there, you find something that makes you change your views again. However you imagine Rome and the Romans to have been, rest assured that you are to some degree wrong.

 

That said, there are times, even in translation and across two thousand years, when you read something, and it speaks to you so directly that you realize we and the Romans also have a lot in common.

The next time somebody asks me why do I like the Roman world, I am going to steal your post.

[Ursus]

My fear is that our knowledge of the Romans can be wholly different from what the Romans really were.

 

 

But even given the gaps of knowledge, Romanophiles are more blessed than possibly any other student of ancient civilization. They were, unlike some ancient peoples, highly literate, and loved to write about themselves and their neighbors (albeit in a sometimes biased fashion). Latin is easily understood unlike some other ancient languages.

 

The material remains are scattered throughout three continents, and archaeology brings a significant new discovery almost every month it seems. The Romans built with durable brick and marble, unlike some of the cultures that built with wood and mud (but kudos to the Egyptians for building some enduring monuments as well).

 

I choose to concentrate on what we do know rather than what we do not. In contrast, pity the poor Celtophile, whose chief source of literary reference was from a Roman general at war with the culture!

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve!

 

The paradox of historic knowledge (and of scientific knowledge in general, BTW) is that any answer always generate more new questions, commonly in an exponential progression.

 

Then, the relatively abundant sources about ancient Rome generate literally myriads of questions.

 

Conversely, in the case of other less lucky (for us) populations, the only question that you can validly elicit is if they ever existed at all.