I have seen the rest of the world, it is dark and brutal......

[21th century Roman]

This line from gladiator, (a movie I ended up disliking, not just for the metal spoons the slaves ate with) bring to mind, just how different do you believe modern people are? "Rome was an idea," Aurelius said in the movie.

 

Are we so lacking faith in ourselves not to understand that the past holds but examples of what we can accomplish today. You who study Rome, are Romans, because you have bought into the idea and ideals of what Rome was. We today are no different in basic character then those of thousands of years ago. Wasn't Rome an attitude that spread to the provinces. Didn't the Romanized provinces consider themselves Roman. Not all of them I grant you. After a few hundred years, didn't the Britons or Gaul consider themselves Roman Britons or Roman Gauls. In the end they all became Roman citizens. The first truly cosmopolitan nation with shared interests.

 

History is the inspiration for the future, its possibilities and its hopes. Rome continues today in those that believe so and understand its legacy. From its earliest days there was no other direction for them but avanti, forward. To stand still was to die. They actually had to live by "carpe diem" or perish. Are we any different? Isn't it necessary for us also to go out and conquer each day in our own lives?

 

We look back into their lives. I wonder what they would think if they looked into our lives and discussed us. What do you think they would say? How would they view political correctness? What would they think of people out to save trees? Could they understand groups like Greenpeace? Are you up for a little cultural role reversal? You are looking into the future 2000 years hence, as Romans. What would be your observations on the world of today?

 

Ron

[Northern Neil]

We look back into their lives. I wonder what they would think if they looked into our lives and discussed us. What do you think they would say? How would they view political correctness? What would they think of people out to save trees? Could they understand groups like Greenpeace? Are you up for a little cultural role reversal? You are looking into the future 2000 years hence, as Romans. What would be your observations on the world of today?

It is interesting that you mention Greenpeace, and environmental measures (saving trees).

 

When we analyse problems that beset Rome in the fourth and fifth centuries, they seemed to regard each setback and barbarian influx as a separate event, rather than part of an overall Eurasian pattern. We often wonder why they ignored ominous threats, and actually inflamed other threats by their high - handed behaviour. When Rome is finally sacked by Alaric, the Empire is aghast at the event; Rome had endured for hundreds of years, how could it possibly fall? For the ordinary citizen, still enjoying a (relatively) high standard of living, the impossible had happened and without warning. After all, what effect could a few unwashed barbarians far away have on them, with their high civilisation and invincible armies?

 

A few individuals saw the storm coming of course, but were largely ignored - possibly because for 100 years the christians had been saying similar things, albeit with little evidence other than the book or Revelations. We can equate this with climatologists doing serious research, and the issue being clouded by the sometimes irrelevent antics of radical environmentalists. In other words, 'Tree Savers and Greenpeace'. After 410 considerably more people are starting to talk about Rome's growing weakness, and serious problems to come. But by then, 'tipping point' had been reached, as Imperial revenues dried up with the disappearance of each province, and what was left went to fund wars against other Romans.

 

Back to Greenpeace and environmental issues. Will these people in 2000 years consider New Orleans, mass migration from increasingly unviable third world countries, 25'000 deaths due to heat exhaustion in Europe in 2003 which was hardly even reported - and many other recent events - in isolation? I think not. They may however draw parallels between our world now, and the knife - edge the Roman world was on back in 378 on the eve of Adrianople. They may look back on the complacency of ordinary citizens, who believe that their world cannot possibly disappear, or radically change. And so do nothing about trying to change things.They may look back on the vast amounts of money spent by Western governments on foreign wars whose aim is to secure more reserves of the very thing which is adding to these problems. Instead of spending the cash on projects which would alleviate them. In the same way, we bemoan Honorius spending dwindling reserves on raising armies of barbarians - who stayed - to fight other Romans.

 

Political correctness would be seen for what it is - by organisations, a bureaucratic exercise designed to minimise litigation. By individuals, a way of making people live slightly easier with themselves whilst being able to ignore the main issues.

 

Forgive me for giving my own, highly subjective view - but then, I was asked for it! People can only speculate on the thoughts of our remote descendents by giving their own, personal views, using available evidence as they see it.

Edited February 4, 2008 by Northern Neil

[Klingan]

Back to Greenpeace and environmental issues. Will these people in 2000 years consider New Orleans, mass migration from increasingly unviable third world countries, 25'000 deaths due to heat exhaustion in Europe in 2003 which was hardly even reported - and many other recent events - in isolation? I think not.

 

That will all depend om IF we are on the verge of change. It's easy to see a pattern after the events.

 

If we're not on the verge, the event will most likely fall into the mists of time.

Edited February 4, 2008 by Klingan

[Northern Neil]

Back to Greenpeace and environmental issues. Will these people in 2000 years consider New Orleans, mass migration from increasingly unviable third world countries, 25'000 deaths due to heat exhaustion in Europe in 2003 which was hardly even reported - and many other recent events - in isolation? I think not.

 

That will all depend om IF we are on the verge of change. It's easy to see a pattern after the events.

 

If we're not on the verge, the event will most likely fall into the mists of time.

That is a fair point, of course. However, in, say, 375 it certainly would not have done any harm to have listened to the profits of doom, just as it wouldn't do any real harm today. The benefits, then as now, would far outweigh the minor disruptions needed to address these concerns.

Edited February 4, 2008 by Northern Neil

[Klingan]

Back to Greenpeace and environmental issues. Will these people in 2000 years consider New Orleans, mass migration from increasingly unviable third world countries, 25'000 deaths due to heat exhaustion in Europe in 2003 which was hardly even reported - and many other recent events - in isolation? I think not.

 

That will all depend om IF we are on the verge of change. It's easy to see a pattern after the events.

 

If we're not on the verge, the event will most likely fall into the mists of time.

That is a fair point, of course. However, in, say, 375 it certainly would not have done any harm to have listened to the profits of doom, just as it wouldn't do any real harm today. The benefits, then as now, would far outweigh the minor disruptions needed to address these concerns.

 

Very much true. As there may or may not be reason to fear global warming, there is no argument against trying to protect our environment.

[21th century Roman]

Back to Greenpeace and environmental issues. Will these people in 2000 years consider New Orleans, mass migration from increasingly unviable third world countries, 25'000 deaths due to heat exhaustion in Europe in 2003 which was hardly even reported - and many other recent events - in isolation? I think not.

 

That will all depend om IF we are on the verge of change. It's easy to see a pattern after the events.

 

If we're not on the verge, the event will most likely fall into the mists of time.

That is a fair point, of course. However, in, say, 375 it certainly would not have done any harm to have listened to the profits of doom, just as it wouldn't do any real harm today. The benefits, then as now, would far outweigh the minor disruptions needed to address these concerns.

 

Very much true. As there may or may not be reason to fear global warming, there is no argument against trying to protect our environment.

 

 

I seem to have struck a chord with the environmentalist. My intent was to pick subjects that would have been foreign to Roman thinking, "modern issues." Again the question, how would the Romans see us today? From your studies of Roman culture what would their perspective of us be? Put yourself into their mind frame and look at our world. What would stand out to them and why? As far as the environment going, yes we have serious concerns that we with our technology makes us more aware of.

 

Would the Romans marvel at our transport systems? Would they be awed by our space stations, systems of public education? Would they consider our medical fields as advanced or backward? What would amaze them or utterly confuse them?

[M. Porcius Cato]

What would amaze them or utterly confuse them?

 

Modern ideas about the breadth of moral rights would both amaze and confuse them.

 

It's true that the the idea of universal human rights was espoused by Stoics and found favor among Romans like Cato the Younger (who opposed Caesar) and the Pisonian circle (who opposed Nero). But these were a small group of people, and even they never imagined that their universal rights conflicted with slavery, with patriarchy (and I mean real patriarchy, not underwear advertisements that "objectify" women), and with wars of conquest. The Latin termmaiestas--literally, "betterness"--perfectly captures the thinking of the ordinary Roman citizen, with his sense of innate superiority over all non-Roman citizens. Presumably, the end of pater potestas , slavery, and imperialism would delight the many Romans from whom we hear nothing.

 

But the same ideas would also confuse them. In the modern world, the cosmopolitan ideal of recognizing the rights and equality of foreigners has extended gradually to encompass not only all humans, but also to encompass the "animal companions" of humans, then rare "endangered" animals, then to protect all animals from "cruelty", and finally now even to extend to protect plants and hills from "exploitation".

 

How far this "expanding circle" of moral protection (to use a phrase from the philosopher Peter Singer) will--or should--go is a matter of debate even today. But I think it's safe to say that for a Roman patrician, the modern world would be like a minefield of moral outrage, with explosions of anger and horror for such ordinary (to him!) behavior as scorning plebs, murdering barbarians, raping slave girls, setting exotic animals to slaughter for sport, razing ancient forests, and washing away the habitats of bunny-rabbits for the mining of silver and tin.

[Gaius Octavius]

"...or should go -...." ???

 

Scorning plebes is the rule today.

Murdering 'barbarians' - Africa.

Raping slave girls - Eastern European girls.

Slavery is alive and well throughout the world - even on Long Island.

 

Perhaps, Roman patricians might feel at home, so long as they weren't on the receiving end.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Murdering 'barbarians' - Africa.

Raping slave girls - Eastern European girls.

Slavery is alive and well throughout the world - even on Long Island.

 

"Africa" is not an argument. "Eastern European girls" is not argument. At the very least, an argument requires a predicate.

And no one upholds the morality of slavery--not even of enslaving Long Islanders. (The inhabitants of Brooklyn, on the other hand, is another story...)

[caldrail]

The romans would sneer at a lot of our sensibilities I think.

 

Equal rights for women? Good grief, we've even got women in the front line! Are our armies now so effeminate? I notice soldiers now have instructions on how not to upset people, and that they are bound by laws of conduct? How do you fight wars like this? Societies for the protection of animals? Folly! Romans are masters of the known world and therefore we must master nature too. Besides, what does it matter if a few beasts die in the arena? It entertains the masses and demonstrates how skillful and courageous our venatorii can be, for if such slaves can be brave and skillful, what then can a true roman do? Oh and by the way, your sportsmen are definitely faking some of those injuries. Give them swords I say, and lets see what men they really are! I notice entertainers are treated like royalty these days, some more wealthy than their social betters. It isn't right you know. Look, if you do things properly - like romans do - then you'll get more respect.

[Gaius Octavius]

Murdering 'barbarians' - Africa.

Raping slave girls - Eastern European girls.

Slavery is alive and well throughout the world - even on Long Island.

 

"Africa" is not an argument. "Eastern European girls" is not argument. At the very least, an argument requires a predicate.

And no one upholds the morality of slavery--not even of enslaving Long Islanders. (The inhabitants of Brooklyn, on the other hand, is another story...)

 

I thought that I could leave predicates, premises, and conclusions to each. I am not very good with a lot of words.

I think that you got the wrong end of the bull in re Long Island. No matter. I really liked the quip, and will steal it for use in the future. I loved "The Venereal Family". You deserve a Pulitzer for that! You show great promise - for the future.

Edited February 4, 2008 by Gaius Octavius

[Northern Neil]

"Africa" is not an argument. "Eastern European girls" is not argument. At the very least, an argument requires a predicate.

And no one upholds the morality of slavery--not even of enslaving Long Islanders. (The inhabitants of Brooklyn, on the other hand, is another story...)

 

They may not be arguments, but they are pertinent to this discussion. We were asked our opinions on matters impossible to prove empirically - what Romans would think of us, and what people 2000 years on would think of us. As Gaius says, many of the things we perceive as evils of Rome are rife in our own society. There are quite a few more - Ammianus Marcellinus complains that in times of grain shortage, scholars and philosophers are asked to leave Rome, whilst gladiators and dancers are allowed to remain. He would look at the way 'Celebrities' have a privileged position in our society above scholars and scientists and give a knowing nod. Many Romans would look at the current 'Cold War 2' with Islam and say: 'Oh, I see the West and Persia are still at it, then?'

 

Not everything is black. World trade and globalisation would be looked upon with admiration, and the use of Spanish - 'Modern Latin' - as a world language would make them very proud. They would see as one of their successes the massive spread of Christianity, a religion largely re-shaped and re-invented by themselves. They would see neo-classical architecture in many cities throughout the world.

 

People in 2000 years time may, with wonderful hindsight, actually see ourselves and the Islamic world as direct continuities from Rome and Persia - our ongoing quarrels and cultural divide seem to point towards that. But then, they might see things in utterly different terms that would be confusing to us - a bit like our curious convention of saying: 'Right. From 610 onwards, we are giving the Roman Empire a different name, because we think it is different.' Perhaps they will give Post - 1948 Britain a different name, because after then it was no longer an Empire, and became multi-cultural. The speculation can be endless and fun.

[Primus Pilus]

I suppose much of this depends on which Romans we are talking about. I'd hazard to guess that the Romans of the 3rd century BC would have been quite aghast at the Romans of the 4th century AD... let alone the people of the 21st century. While technology didn't change much in the millennium of Roman prominence, attitudes changed greatly. I don't think it's any sort of revelation of course, but the later era Romans probably would've been far more understanding of some of our cultural positions than the earlier.

[Segestan]

This line from gladiator, (a movie I ended up disliking, not just for the metal spoons the slaves ate with) bring to mind, just how different do you believe modern people are? "Rome was an idea," Aurelius said in the movie.

 

Are we so lacking faith in ourselves not to understand that the past holds but examples of what we can accomplish today. You who study Rome, are Romans, because you have bought into the idea and ideals of what Rome was. We today are no different in basic character then those of thousands of years ago. Wasn't Rome an attitude that spread to the provinces. Didn't the Romanized provinces consider themselves Roman. Not all of them I grant you. After a few hundred years, didn't the Britons or Gaul consider themselves Roman Britons or Roman Gauls. In the end they all became Roman citizens. The first truly cosmopolitan nation with shared interests.

 

History is the inspiration for the future, its possibilities and its hopes. Rome continues today in those that believe so and understand its legacy. From its earliest days there was no other direction for them but avanti, forward. To stand still was to die. They actually had to live by "carpe diem" or perish. Are we any different? Isn't it necessary for us also to go out and conquer each day in our own lives?

 

We look back into their lives. I wonder what they would think if they looked into our lives and discussed us. What do you think they would say? How would they view political correctness? What would they think of people out to save trees? Could they understand groups like Greenpeace? Are you up for a little cultural role reversal? You are looking into the future 2000 years hence, as Romans. What would be your observations on the world of today?

 

Ron

 

 

I think the Romans would be amazed that it has been over 2500 years since the Republic was founded and after all these many centuries the battle for the perfect Republic still rages on. They would be saddened that in Italy itself, there still is no working Republic . The people have not learned how to govern any better than their early attempts. And an ...I told you so !... that the return of the Christ and his peace on earth was a fanthom idealism, one that still has not come any closer to realization today than what was so proudly proclaimed in Rome 2000 years ago. Amazed at just how little has actually changed in the ordinary lives of humankind. Modern tools do not make for a better man.

I do like you're reasoning that all those who study Rome today are a Roman. But in my view being a Roman is best lived as a Republican idea, not any other. Democracy is Greek.

[Klingan]

I suppose much of this depends on which Romans we are talking about. I'd hazard to guess that the Romans of the 3rd century BC would have been quite aghast at the Romans of the 4th century AD... let alone the people of the 21st century. While technology didn't change much in the millennium of Roman prominence, attitudes changed greatly. I don't think it's any sort of revelation of course, but the later era Romans probably would've been far more understanding of some of our cultural positions than the earlier.

 

A very good point. When I held a lecture on roman history for a class of 16 years old kids I used an example to show then for how long Rome existed. First I showed them a picture of Gustav Vasa, the first real Swedish king, from, 1524 and told them that the Roman Emperors rules for as long as it has passed since Vasa lived.

 

Then I showed them a picture of a long ship and a Viking and told them that if we go back from now to that point in time (8th century AD), we would still not pass more time then how old Rome was when it fell.

 

They were all quite amazed.