Diminishment of Roman Civilization?

[spittle]

I was actually quoting part of a Tony Blair speach where he said that 'England is to America what Greece was to Rome' and I feel sure that this perception of evolved influences is shared by the vast majority of people.

 

Roman gave Greek Gods new, Latin names but their religion was esentially a continuation of that of Greece.

 

I am not even sure what about my analogy you find unhelpful but I am interested to find out as I am a beginner to the subject, as my quoting of a Tony Blair speach may have indicated (haha).

[RomanItaly]

The Roman Empire was Hellenized to such degree, that the Greek language eventually replaced the Latin on the Eastern half (not to talk about the "Byzantine" period).

 

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.

 

All that said, I still don't find useful the analogy quoted by Spittle (ie, the British as Greeks and the Americans as Romans). Up to this moment, I'm not sure if you disagree or not.

 

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.

Edited October 7, 2007 by RomanItaly

[ASCLEPIADES]

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.

Please note I didn

Edited October 8, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[RomanItaly]

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.

Please note I didn

[ASCLEPIADES]

Just for accuracy - the Gospels were written in Aramaic, not in Greek. The rest of the New Testament was written in Greek for the sole reason that those Jews were Hellenized. The Jews at that time were split up into the Aramaic-speaking and the Greek-speaking, and Paul was one of the latter. Had a Latinophile got that revelation instead of Paul, perhaps the rest of the New Testament would have indeed been in Latin.

 

Regardless, the first full translation that spread throughout the Empire was Latin Vulgate, if I recall correctly.

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.

[RomanItaly]

Just for accuracy - the Gospels were written in Aramaic, not in Greek. The rest of the New Testament was written in Greek for the sole reason that those Jews were Hellenized. The Jews at that time were split up into the Aramaic-speaking and the Greek-speaking, and Paul was one of the latter. Had a Latinophile got that revelation instead of Paul, perhaps the rest of the New Testament would have indeed been in Latin.

 

Regardless, the first full translation that spread throughout the Empire was Latin Vulgate, if I recall correctly.

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.

[Ursus]

Everyone,

 

The topic is about modern perceptions of Rome's legacy.

 

Topics such as British influence on America, or which language the Gospel was written in, is better reserved for the Univeral History folder.

 

Thanks.

[RomanItaly]

Everyone,

 

The topic is about modern perceptions of Rome's legacy.

 

Topics such as British influence on America, or which language the Gospel was written in, is better reserved for the Univeral History folder.

 

Thanks.

 

You're right. That issue is closed anyway, it only expounded on my stupid misconception.

[Metro99]

Okay, let me take an uneducated stab at this.

 

I don't believe that History (capital "H") exists in any objective form. The recounting of the events of the past is terribly subjective and writers of history books have biases about the subject matter. That's why the most important section to any book (history or otherwise) is the Preface/Author's Note/Introduction where the author lets his or her hair down and oftentimes reveals their prejudices.

 

Subjective history varies not only from person to person but also over time. The Founding Fathers of our republic placed great emphasis on the positive aspects of Roman history and you'd be hard pressed to find a FF who could not read/write/speak Latin. I would imagine Napoleon's France, the Prussians, and other expansionist regimes saw much that was positive in Rome of the Principate. I would also imagine that in the post WWII era, with the collapse of European and the Japanese empires, Rome fell out of fashion. And there is no denying the attraction of the intimacy of the Classical Hellenic city state (doomed to ultimate failure that they were).

 

I have a female friend from Madras who insists that Tamil culture/civilization is the greatest in human history. I also have a very close buddy who's Jewish. He insists that the Jews are the source of all good things in Western civilization. I'm 100% Italian, so I'll give you three guesses who I love (and the first two guesses don't count).

 

SPQR, baby!!!

[Ursus]

Evaluating a civilization's perceived "greatness" is indeed subjective, as it depends on how one defines and measures "greatness."

 

Nonetheless I think one can, on some level, objectively trace a given culture's influence on modernity. Rome's legacy on the European, especially Western European, development is rather critical. I see a measure of influence there I don't see from other cultures.

 

Whether one perceives that influence as being beneficial or not is entirely a subjective thing - some rabid Celtophiles I know feel it is where Western Civilization made a wrong turn. As for me personally I rather enjoy it.

 

But I think the original poster was deploring the fact that Rome's legacy, whether perceived as good or bad, has at times been downplayed in our post-colonial intellectual atmosphere. On that note I would agree that ignoring the full measure of our heritage is a mistake.

[Segestan]

[quote name='Ursus'

 

But I think the original poster was deploring the fact that Rome's legacy, whether perceived as good or bad, has at times been downplayed in our post-colonial intellectual atmosphere. On that note I would agree that ignoring the full measure of our heritage is a mistake.

 

 

Agreed... Roman History in all it's glory and shame is the Western World. To remove that History is to remove ourselves as it's founders. As the builders of the modern world. To me the Western World today needs leadership akin to what Rome had.. persons who , in the main, will put Family and nation and God above the rest of the world. Each nations peoples must if they are going to survive , must up-hold heritage. But that's just my pro-western view.

[caldrail]

We often see civilisations as entities in themselves and therefore their achievements tend to be viewed in isloation. However, all cultures learn from those they come into contact with (or usually perish in the superiority stakes) and so it must be said that behind the success of any society there is the influence of others. That needs to put into perspective though. The chinese were an aggressive nation in the 90's AD, even to the point of defeating an army from India and sending a military expedition that reached the Caspian Sea. But how much influence did they take on board? The chinese are notorious for their intractable viewpoint. In military terms, some foreign ideas must have been adopted either because they were clearly better or perhaps because the situation was forcing them to consider new methods. From a purely cultural view thety were instensely conservative.

 

So how dowes this apply to the romans? Well we know the romans were only too keen to adopt foreign ideas. Again, its in military terms that we see this accentuated. But literature and art were unashamadly hellenistic. We also observe that hellenistic influence increases with time, not withering away like you might expect. The harsh 'survivalist' latin culture gives way to a softer, more passive hellenistic way of life.

 

Not only were the Romans influenced by foreign ideas, they were colonised and ultimately converted to them.

[M. Porcius Cato]

In my view, the Roman contribution to modern life that is most under-appreciated is the republican ideal. Fergus Millar has attempted to right this historical wrong in his book "The Roman Republic in Political Thought," which I'd highly recommend.

[Segestan]

In my view, the Roman contribution to modern life that is most under-appreciated is the republican ideal. Fergus Millar has attempted to right this historical wrong in his book "The Roman Republic in Political Thought," which I'd highly recommend.

 

Exactly! ..... Roman republicanism was a slowly evolving step for Rome, but resulted over time in a giant leap for mankind. Rome becoming the Worlds most influnencing culture , through repuplicanism resulted in forging republicanism onto the world's political stage. A much needed idealism in an time of master and slave. I also feel historical value in how Rome was founded according to legend by the God's Jupiter, Janus, Mars and others. How Jupiter a supreme being , a father , and God of self-worthiness through virtues , him being a protector of Roman virtues ; and Mars the God of War , the protector of Rome in it's battles for preservation, Janus who protected the home of the Romans by keeping save watch over it's gates and doorways. . They to me so clearly defined the all important ideas of family , nation and God. Not exclusive virtues but Rome seems to have held it leadership to these ideas better than others. The result .....Rome was a superior culture.

[DecimusCaesar]

Subjective history varies not only from person to person but also over time. The Founding Fathers of our republic placed great emphasis on the positive aspects of Roman history and you'd be hard pressed to find a FF who could not read/write/speak Latin. I would imagine Napoleon's France, the Prussians, and other expansionist regimes saw much that was positive in Rome of the Principate. I would also imagine that in the post WWII era, with the collapse of European and the Japanese empires, Rome fell out of fashion. And there is no denying the attraction of the intimacy of the Classical Hellenic city state (doomed to ultimate failure that they were).

 

 

I think that interest in the Roman world went into a sort of decline following the Second World War. Maybe it's because the fascist empires copied Roman symbols, architecture and the militarty. Even as far as Japan, Mussolini payed for the erection of statues in honour of samurai heroes (especially the White Tigers of the 1860's) with SPQR written beneath them. Along with the depiction of Rome as an evil militaristic empire in the Hollywood epics of the 50's and 60's - The Roman Empire's image has been badly tarnished in the last few decades.

 

Most people's view of Rome is based on its image in popular culture, and not many people actually bother to pick up the works of Tacitus or Cicero. As a result its easy for many people to believe that Rome was decadent and worthless, as they simply have no real knowledge of it beyond films like 'Gladiator'.

 

I find it very interesting that Greece and Rome are now referred to as 'Mediterranean Civilisation'. It's similar to the Celts being renamed Iron Age Tribes or the Anglo-Saxons having their existance questioned. I think this stems from historians and archaeologists problems with forcing identities on diverse peoples with catch all labels . They are even thinking of doing away with the word 'medieval' as "it is a word that carries too much baggage."

Personally I don't see the point in using 'Mediterranean Civilisation' as it is far too generic. Plus it tells you nothing about the Romans or the Greeks.

Edited November 14, 2007 by DecimusCaesar