Which is better? All things considered

Ancient Greece Obviously.

Although they were far more successful in empire building, the Romans to me seem like Wal-Mart brand imitation Greeks.

Greece was the educated language of the ancient world. Greek scholors were hired all across the Med. (including in Rome). Greek scholors also jump started science/mathematics. Need I say more?

I like Rome better; their culture included the best of the Greeks', plus many others, including Etruscan, something you won't find anywhere else.

Ahh, I can't vote! I like the best of both worlds. You know, the one that was around for a thousand years after the First Rome fell.

Rome (and I consider the late Eastern Roman Empire a mixture of both, not fully included in either).

I consider the late Eastern Roman Empire a mixture of both, not fully included in either
Exactly. There should be an 'other Rome; the guys who had the Romania name first and then sort of transferred it to the guys who have it now' option. That'd make me happy.

I guess since I'm a Diadochi and Hellenistic era nut, I'd have to go with the Greeks.

Rome (and I consider the late Eastern Roman Empire a mixture of both, not fully included in either).

I consider the "original" Rome also a mixture of both. In truth it was never separated when those two elements met.

I consider the "original" Rome also a mixture of both. In truth it was never separated when those two elements met.

Granted that the Byzantine Empire was more Greek than the Roman Empire.

Granted that the Byzantine Empire was more Greek than the Roman Empire.
But it was the Roman Empire. :p

But it was the Roman Empire. :p

Depends on how you slice the cake. I don't call the Byzantine Empire "the Roman Empire" - I call it either the Eastern Roman Empire, or the Byzantine Empire. I suppose you could call it the Roman Empire.

Its like having two cousins named John - you call one John, the other Jack, just to avoid potential confusion.

the Eastern Roman Empire, and weren't they Greek Orthodox?

Depends on how you slice the cake. I don't call the Byzantine Empire "the Roman Empire" - I call it either the Eastern Roman Empire, or the Byzantine Empire. I suppose you could call it the Roman Empire.

Its like having two cousins named John - you call one John, the other Jack, just to avoid potential confusion.

I see it as calling John after adulthood as John. Certainly John has changed but he is still John. Calling him Jack because he has changed over time is redundant IMO.

I see it as calling John after adulthood as John. Certainly John has changed but he is still John. Calling him Jack because he has changed over time is redundant IMO.

I see empires in terms of their culture and people, as well as their name. Several medieval kingdoms considered themselves "The Roman Empire" (the Holy Roman Empire, the Ostrogoth kingdom and the Franks under Charlemagne (sp?), for three), yet they were not Latin. They had their own distinct people and culture, and though they encompassed much of the land the former Roman Empire had, they were not Latin.

Now the Eastern Roman Empire was Latin, for the first several centuries after the Western Roman Empire fell. I do not try to deny that. But you cannot argue that the later Byzantine Empire was Latin - it was distictly Greek. As such, two distinct entities were formed - much like two different branches of the same species. They were closely related; but I still do not count the Byzantine Empire as the Roman Empire.

I see empires in terms of their culture and people, as well as their name. Several medieval kingdoms considered themselves "The Roman Empire" (the Holy Roman Empire, the Ostrogoth kingdom and the Franks under Charlemagne (sp?), for three), yet they were not Latin. They had their own distinct people and culture, and though they encompassed much of the land the former Roman Empire had, they were not Latin.

Now the Eastern Roman Empire was Latin, for the first several centuries after the Western Roman Empire fell. I do not try to deny that. But you cannot argue that the later Byzantine Empire was Latin - it was distictly Greek. As such, two distinct entities were formed - much like two different branches of the same species. They were closely related; but I still do not count the Byzantine Empire as the Roman Empire.

I see empires in terms of which there goverment is , which their culture is and which their name is. The eastern Roman empire did not call it self Roman .It was always the Roman empire from 40 BC until 1453 AC . It was not magically formed when Costantine moved the capital.

You may wish to call it differently but it was still the Roman empire.

Now whether it culturally changed. I have to say it did but that part of the Roman empire was still more Greek than Latin.

But it was still Roman. Even before the division of the Roman empire in two , Roman did not mean Latin. So i don't know where you are coming from if Latin and Greek even before the even idea of an eastern Roman empire existed co existed , that they where mutually exclusive.

And actually the Roman empire was greatly influenced by the Greek element.
So instead of trying to divide between Roman and Greek why can't we do what the Romaioi did on themselfs ? They accepted both elements as not mutually exclusive. And the added Christian orthodox one as a new part of their Roman identity.

So if we want to make a distinction we either give a different meaning to the name Romaios after a certain time frame or we don't make such distinction. Inventing the word Byzantium for telling us things we can tell on ourselfs is redundant.

Because we basically have the Romans gradually accepting some new elements into their Roman culture. I refuse to invent a name for that situation when it is not needed.


All above in a friendly tone.

the Eastern Roman Empire, and weren't they Greek Orthodox?
Not until 1054. :p But yes. Not that they would have called themselves that for a long time - they just thought of themselves, even after the Great Schism, as "Christians".
Several medieval kingdoms considered themselves "The Roman Empire" (the Holy Roman Empire, the Ostrogoth kingdom and the Franks under Charlemagne (sp?), for three)
That's one. Theodoric's Ostrogoths never claimed the title of Roman Empire, but remained servants of the True Roman Emperor in Constantinople (hmmm!), who was actually the one who had sent them into Italia in the first place. And Charlemagne's Franks were the Holy Roman Empire. :p
Now the Eastern Roman Empire was Latin, for the first several centuries after the Western Roman Empire fell. I do not try to deny that. But you cannot argue that the later Byzantine Empire was Latin - it was distictly Greek. As such, two distinct entities were formed - much like two different branches of the same species. They were closely related; but I still do not count the Byzantine Empire as the Roman Empire.
Is the United States of today the same as the United States of 1789? Are the Germans of today the same as the Germani of 9? There's an awfully good reason Greco-Roman is often conflated, after all. As for the "culture" difference, half of the Roman Empire never was 'Roman'. Official business was often done in Greek, although Latin was used as well. (Of course, only one city-state was ever technically 'Roman', i.e. Roma itself, and extending its culture to the rest of Italia is folly, as any student of the Social War can see; the extension of a 'Roman Imperial' culture into the western half of the Empire does not mean that it was by any stretch the same thing as the original Romans did, thought, wrote, or said.) That half still decided to call itself Roman and had a capital named 'Roma' (well, technically 'New Roma'). 'Byzantine', being entirely an invention of Enlightenment French thinkers and Westerners who had this inflated image of themselves such that they were the only descendants of Roma and that nobody else ought claim the title, is frankly an abomination of a term. I personally am going to go with what they called themselves, i.e. Romans. Unless you know better than they themselves what they were.

Though ancient Rome in the poll would indicate that medieval Rome is out of the question.

Though ancient Rome in the poll would indicate that medieval Rome is out of the question.
Quite. Which is why I voted for ancient Greece. The fifth century in Hellas was nothing short of astounding, and the wars of the Diadochi would make a smashing film if they weren't so confusing (so many people...oyyy...it's hard to keep them all straight sometimes). Intrigue...conflict...disaster...epic adventure stories...globetrotting...great battles...I'd go watch it, if only to boo Kassandros. Who was a jerk. :lol:

Would you cheer Seleukos ?

Would you cheer Seleukos ?
Nah, I liked Antigonos Monophthalamos and Demetrios Poliorketes better. :D They were the only ones who had a shot at keeping the empire together under a single ruler. Too bad Demetrios went the wrong way at Ipsos...:mad: bloody fool shouldn't have chased after Antiokhos like he did...moron...

That's one. Theodoric's Ostrogoths never claimed the title of Roman Empire, but remained servants of the True Roman Emperor in Constantinople (hmmm!), who was actually the one who had sent them into Italia in the first place. And Charlemagne's Franks were the Holy Roman Empire. :p

For the Ostrogoths, I double checked. Odoacer was claiming to be viceroy of Italy, not emperor of Rome. My bad.

As for the second part, yes, Charlemagne was ruler of the Frankish Holy Roman Empire. I was refering to also the German Holy Roman Empire. You can consider both one-in-the-same; just in my mind, Charlemagne's empire was a Frankish kingdom, while the Holy Roman Empire later was a German one. Again, my bad.

Is the United States of today the same as the United States of 1789? Are the Germans of today the same as the Germani of 9? There's an awfully good reason Greco-Roman is often conflated, after all. As for the "culture" difference, half of the Roman Empire never was 'Roman'. Official business was often done in Greek, although Latin was used as well. (Of course, only one city-state was ever technically 'Roman', i.e. Roma itself, and extending its culture to the rest of Italia is folly, as any student of the Social War can see; the extension of a 'Roman Imperial' culture into the western half of the Empire does not mean that it was by any stretch the same thing as the original Romans did, thought, wrote, or said.) That half still decided to call itself Roman and had a capital named 'Roma' (well, technically 'New Roma'). 'Byzantine', being entirely an invention of Enlightenment French thinkers and Westerners who had this inflated image of themselves such that they were the only descendants of Roma and that nobody else ought claim the title, is frankly an abomination of a term. I personally am going to go with what they called themselves, i.e. Romans. Unless you know better than they themselves what they were.

Firstly, calling yourself something does not mean you are something. I understand what you are saying, but because the Byzantines called themselves "Roman" was merely a grip on the great memories of the past, and to try and dangle on that name in the hopes that it brought themselves the honor and prestige of Rome.

I use Latin and Roman interchangebly. Whether that is correct or not, I am not sure; but to cause no discreptencies, I will use "Roman".

And you said the only Latin state was Rome itself. This is true; but you cannot deny that Gaul, Britain, etc. all became Romanized. Rome's conquest brought the Roman way of life into Europe. I could definitely be wrong, but I do know that many areas kept their culture and way of life even after being incorporated into the Roman Empire; and I also know that many other areas did become Romanized.

Now, the Byzantine Empire did remain "Romanized" well after the fall of Rome. Before 1000 AD (and I am not trying to put a definite date down; I am just giving a generalized one) the Byzantine Empire was Roman in practice and culture. After 1000 AD, though, the emprie did become more and more Greek. After the Byzantines reverted away from their Latin roots, the only thing keeping them as the Roman Empire was that they called themselves the Roman Empire.

And yes, I would argue that the US of 1789 and the US today are the same, negating the technological differences. Our lifestyle changes as the world's changed; as such, it would have been impossible to remain an America of 1789 in this age. But, it would not have been impossible for the Byzantines to remain Roman in custom and language. Granted, the military, economy, etc. would have changed as the times/enemies did, but unlike the comparision between the US of 1789 and today, I do not see why Byzantium couldn't remain Roman.

Its like a comparision of Brazil and Portugal. One is the child of the other; but when you compare the two, there is a difference between Portugal, and Brazil. A slight one, but there is a difference. That is all I am claiming - there was only a small difference between the Byzantine Empire and the Roman Empire, but there was a difference nonetheless. A difference that should make the Byzantine Empire a seperate entity of the Roman Empire.

Like two related species in a family. Related, but not the same.

EDIT: A couple posts ago, I saw an interresting term. "Ancient Rome" and "Medieval Rome". I like that a lot - it shows that the two were related, but that they were two seperate entities.

Roma!!!

Legionary > Hoplite

Nah, I liked Antigonos Monophthalamos and Demetrios Poliorketes better. They were the only ones who had a shot at keeping the empire together under a single ruler. Too bad Demetrios went the wrong way at Ipsos... bloody fool shouldn't have chased after Antiokhos like he did...moron...

I had to wikipedia them to check who they where. And they where impressive. But didn't Seleukos after beating Antigonos have an even bigger chance of reuniting the empire ?


@Dreadnought. This is not Brazil and Portugal. If Portugal conquered Brazil and named it a part of the Portugal empire. It was subsequently influenced by Brazilian culture to the point that Portugal culture and Brazilian where one and the same although Brazilian culture had elements that where taken From Porugal culture. And after centuries they Portugal empire was divided in two. And "Brazil" was the only one remained , called Portugal. It would be anachronistic to not accept it as the Portugal empire. Because that what it was.

Claiming otherwise would be to claim that after centuries of them being part of the Portugal empire one day they awoke and they where not. When they themselfs say that they where still Portugals you can't draw that conclusion.

@Dreadnought. This is not Brazil and Portugal. If Portugal conquered Brazil and named it a part of the Portugal empire. It was subsequently influenced by Brazilian culture to the point that Portugal culture and Brazilian where one and the same although Brazilian culture had elements that where taken From Porugal culture. And after centuries they Portugal empire was divided in two. And "Brazil" was the only one remained , called Portugal. It would be anachronistic to not accept it as the Portugal empire. Because that what it was.

Claiming otherwise would be to claim that after centuries of them being part of the Portugal empire one day they awoke and they where not. When they themselfs say that they where still Portugals you can't draw that conclusion.

Brazil was part of Portugal's empire, Portugal's empire did split, and Brazil was the result of that split. Granted there was no feud over the name, but still Portugal's and Brazil's cultures are very similar, but not the same.

And neither Portugal nor Brazil would give their independence up to join the other. But that was the same as the Eastern and Western Empires - neither nation's emperor would bow to the other.

Brazil was part of Portugal's empire, Portugal's empire did split, and Brazil was the result of that split. Granted there was no feud over the name, but still Portugal's and Brazil's cultures are very similar, but not the same.

And neither Portugal nor Brazil would give their independence up to join the other. But that was the same as the Eastern and Western Empires - neither emperor would bow to the other.

I made a what if scenario that was the same with the one you compared it to. because you compared one scenario with another different one to form a conclusion. I could say Birds fly , Humans also fly therefor Humans are birds. But the reality is Birds fly due to a system that they naturally possess and are designed genetically to do so. Humans fly by creating machinery that can perform aviation.
Therefor Humans flight =/ Birds flight and Humans are not birds.


Brazil was part of Portugal's empire, Portugal's empire did split, and Brazil was the result of that split. Granted there was no feud over the name, but still Portugal's and Brazil's cultures are very similar, but not the same.

And neither Portugal nor Brazil would give their independence up to join the other. But that was the same as the Eastern and Western Empires - neither nation's emperor would bow to the other.

Brazil did not consider it self Portugal after it Split. And Portugal had a superior culture when those civilizations met. Rome on the other hand flourished with Greek culture. There where emperors that considered Greek culture superior and more Roman than Latin culture in the empire. (Hadrian) . It was a marriage of elements from the begining that concluded Roman as a combination of Greek culture and other cultures of the Roman world (Etruscan). Now if Brazil was a culturally superior civilization that lent much into POrtugal's empire. At a state that Portugal came to meet Brazilian + existing elements of Portugal. Then there would be no problem at it being called POrtugese.
empire .

You can't compare apple with oranges and reach a conclusion. That conclusion would be flowed even before it was formed.

In a few words. Roman = Existing Roman + Greek. Therefor Eastern Roman empire = Roman.

I made a what if scenario that was the same with the one you compared it to. because you compared one scenario with another different one to form a conclusion. I could say Birds fly , Humans also fly therefor Humans are birds. But the reality is Birds fly due to a system that they naturally possess and are designed genetically to do so. Humans fly by creating machinery that can perform aviation.
Therefor Humans flight =/ Birds flight and Humans are not birds.

I agree with what you are saying, but really: would there be any scenario in modern times that can illustrate the Roman debate?

And, honestly, I think my comparision between Brazil and Portugal is related enough to the discussion. Your comparision of birds and man is, no offense, pretty alien.

Brazil did not consider it self Portugal after it Split. And Portugal had a superior culture when those civilizations met. Rome on the other hand flourished with Greek culture. There where emperors that considered Greek culture superior and more Roman than Latin culture in the empire. (Hadrian) . It was a marriage of elements from the begining that concluded Roman as a combination of Greek culture and other cultures of the Roman world (Etruscan). Now if Brazil was a culturally superior civilization that lent much into POrtugal's empire. At a state that Portugal came to meet Brazilian + existing elements of Portugal. Then there would be no problem at it being called POrtugese empire.

Roman culture was the mix between Greek and Latin. I am not denying that. Byzantium, for a few centuries, was also that mix of Latin and Greek, but later the Latin component grew smaller and smaller until it disappeared.

I agree with what you are saying, but really: would there be any scenario in modern times that can illustrate the Roman debate?

And, honestly, I think my comparision between Brazil and Portugal is related enough to the discussion. Your comparision of birds and man is, no offense, pretty alien.

Exactly. That is why you don't need to compare it to anything to reach a conclusion. You just need to see it for what it was and throw arguments at that way.

My comparison with birds and humans seemed just as Alien as your example in my eyes.

Roman =/ just Latin to Roman people before the Eastern Roman empire.

Exactly. That is why you don't need to compare it to anything to reach a conclusion. You just need to see it for what it was and throw arguments at that way.

My comparison with birds and humans seemed just as Alien as your example in my eyes.

Roman =/ just Latin to Roman people before the Eastern Roman empire.

I am not denying that Rome was a mix of Greek and Latin. What I am saying is that there is a balance in the Roman empire that was not found in the Eastern Empire.

By the way, I am enjoying this debate. It has given me a perspective for this that I didn't see before.

I am not denying that Rome was a mix of Greek and Latin. What I am saying is that there is a balance in the Roman empire that was not found in the Eastern Empire.

By the way, I am enjoying this debate. It has given me a perspective for this that I didn't see before.

Was such balance in the Roman empire in the geographical region of Greece previously and was subsequently lost ? I think The Roman empire always had a more prevalent Greek part of those elements in the Greek region than in The Italian one. Would you call it not Roman ? When it is already part of the Roman empire and there is a Roman balance i don't think you have the right.

That creates many problems. How would you describe Hadrian who felt the Greek part of the empire as more important ?

I just think that when the inhabitants of those regions believed they had the right mixture of balance in elements to call themselves Romans and they where Romans (But if one starts changing his name eventually he changes his identity) , that all related to the Roman empire believed they had the right mixture of Romanity.

And they had been Romans for centurees so if you came there and called them anything as not Romans they will laugh at it. So i don't think you have the right to call them anything other what they where. Romans with maybe a changed mixture of Greek and other Elements over time.

They were Romans in nothing but name. Their cultures was Greek at the later stages of the empire. As such, their geography close to Greece made them Greek, but the Latin aspect of the empire was exterminated by the Greek aspect. Geography explains why they were more Greek, but does not validate why they were still Roman. And I will repeat this again, just because Bill says his name is Bob doesn't mean Bill's name is Bob.

I had to wikipedia them to check who they where. And they where impressive. But didn't Seleukos after beating Antigonos have an even bigger chance of reuniting the empire ?
Not really. Seleukos couldn't beat Antigonos on his own; he had to ally with Lysimakhos and Kassandros to even come close (Ptolemaios Soter didn't help them of course, because like all Ptolemaioi he was a sneaky, lazy prick. :p) But it is true that Seleukos was able to get almost all of the empire together immediately before his death, after defeating Lysimakhos at Korupedion, but was assassinated by Ptolemaios Keraunos before he could march against Egypt. But by that time the Ptolemaioi were securely entrenched in Egypt, so I think that had Antigonos won in 301 BC he would have had a better chance of dislodging the Ptolemaioi than Seleukos would have had in 281 BC.
I am not denying that Rome was a mix of Greek and Latin. What I am saying is that there is a balance in the Roman empire that was not found in the Eastern Empire.
The balance was never really the 'same' in the Western Empire either throughout its history.

What my whole point is is that the Roman Empire after the creation of Odovacar's viceroyalty/Scirian kingdom/whatever it was (an eminently debatable subject) never relinquished the institutions of the Roman Empire. The government stayed the same, with alterations as time went on much as the 'full' Empire had; the linguistic situation was largely the same as it had been for the inhabitants of those districts of the Empire that continued to refer to themselves as part of the Roman Empire in the days of the original Empire; the religious situation was largely the same (for another half-millennium anyway); and the military was organized in the same way until it too was forced to undergo reforms to keep up with the times. For me, referring to the Eastern Roman Empire as 'Byzantine' would be like refusing to call modern-day Greece Greece, despite the fact that it is missing Constantinople, the Ionian coastline on the eastern side of the Aigion, and for most of its history was sans Rhodos, Kriti, and the other islands off the coast, along with Thessaloniki and Ioannina. It also begs the question of what you will refer to as 'the United States of America' when the WASPs are finally outpopulated by the Hispanic immigrants...:p

They were Romans in nothing but name. Their cultures was Greek at the later stages of the empire. As such, their geography close to Greece made them Greek, but the Latin aspect of the empire was exterminated by the Greek aspect. Geography explains why they were more Greek, but does not validate why they were still Roman. And I will repeat this again, just because Bill says his name is Bob doesn't mean Bill's name is Bob.

They where not Romans in Name. They where the Roman empire. You could say they where Romans only in government. Which would be more correct but still not quite as correct.

And please stop with those analogies. I could make an analogy about any Nation not being what they are because they do not have the right mixture of something. But why should i make an outrageous analogy to prove something that does not require an analogy to do so.


Not really. Seleukos couldn't beat Antigonos on his own; he had to ally with Lysimakhos and Kassandros to even come close (Ptolemaios Soter didn't help them of course, because like all Ptolemaioi he was a sneaky, lazy prick. ) But it is true that Seleukos was able to get almost all of the empire together immediately before his death, after defeating Lysimakhos at Korupedion, but was assassinated by Ptolemaios Keraunos before he could march against Egypt. But by that time the Ptolemaioi were securely entrenched in Egypt, so I think that had Antigonos won in 301 BC he would have had a better chance of dislodging the Ptolemaioi than Seleukos would have had in 281 BC.

Well i just consider military defeats more inevitable than assasination attempts. Although both are equally inevitable because they happened ,the one makes for better what if scenarios. So what if Seleukos was not assassinated ?

Saying the government is Roman is one thing. But by saying that, since the government was Roman, that the Empire was Roman, is a whole different matter.

And with your Greece thing: Yes, Greece would still be Greece, mainly because the Greek culture as a whole as evolved in such a way that all Greeks in Greece are Greek.

Now, if you said modern Ionia called itself Greece, I would debate that, simply on the grounds that Ionia is not Greece at all geographically, and the cultures have been subsequently different.

EDIT: First of all, I still hold by my original point - Rome was Latin (or Latin/Greek, pick your poison). But, the Byzantine culture by 1000 had changed to Greek. That is not an opinion - that is fact. Second of all, I like analogies. I see nothing wrong with my "outrageous" analogy that just because someone says they are someone, doesn't mean they are.

It was the Roman empire because the people understood all cultural changes as cultural changes happened to Roman people. It was the Roman empire with a Roman government and with Roman people because they did not understand changes in culture as an abandonment of their existing Roman identity.

Such change would happen in the Enlightment after 400 years of Ottoman Occupation where they could not recreate the Roman empire Due to also political reasons , because the way they realized identities had changed. Thus we have the birth of the modern Greek state although in vilages their were people who even in the 20th century called themselfs Romioi. So at one point in History i agree that Roman ceased to exist and started to mean only Greek. But the eastern Roman empire was still Roman. That period happened many years later and was deeply related to the enlightment , to the independance war which was far easier to motivate people to fight for national freedom not for an empire AND to the situation in Europe at the time which was again related to the enlightment.

Now you may ignore what i say or you may think it over as i may have a perspective on the history of that region you don't.

Yes, it was a cultural change. But Rome, from its founding to its fall, did not go through a major cultural change. Eastern Rome did go through a cultural change, and the outcome was Byzantium.

Yes, it was a cultural change. But Rome, from its founding to its fall, did not go through a major cultural change. Eastern Rome did go through a cultural change, and the outcome was Byzantium.

That's because the times were changing.

Yes, it was a cultural change. But Rome, from its founding to its fall, did not go through a major cultural change. Eastern Rome did go through a cultural change, and the outcome was Byzantium.

What in the world are you talking about. There was never Byzantium. Even if there was a cultural change there was never an entity named Byzantium. Where did you find Byzantium in history other than from thin air ?

And Rome did went to a cultural change , after , during and before it's fall. So did the Eastern Roman Empire. Most notably after it's fall. The people living in those areas do not miraculously disappear.

Anyway if you wish to discuss this , i wish you increase the level of discussion. I am willing to discuss about the level of cultural change but not if Rome suddenly become Byzantium. That is just pseudohistory.

That's because the times were changing.

Times were changing. As such, I agree in changes to the military, economy, etc. But I do not see why a major cultural change was necessary.

What in the world are you talking about. There was never Byzantium. Even if there was a cultural change there was never an entity named Byzantium. Where did you find Byzantium in history other than from thin air ?

And Rome did went to a cultural change , after , during and before it's fall. So did the Eastern Roman Empire. Most notably after it's fall.

Anyway if you wish to discuss this , i wish you enhase the level of discussion. I am willing to discuss about the level of cultural change but not if Rome suddenly become Byzantium. That is just pseudohistory.

Byzantium is 'short' per say for Byzantine Empire. You have never heard the Byzantine Empire called Byzantium? Its like calling the United States of America "America" for short.

Could you please enlighten me to the cultural change that the Western Roman Empire went through prior to its fall? I understand it became barbarian after the fall, but...

Times were changing. As such, I agree in changes to the military, economy, etc. But I do not see why a major cultural change was necessary.

So long as Romans themselves inflicted the changes on themselves there is no reason to not call them Romans because you think they have changed . And there was not a major cultural change when the Greek element from the time it met with the Roman element has always been a part of the Roman identity.

Now If the Ottoman empire conquers the Roman empire and calls it self the Roman empire you would be justified at disputing it's claim.

But this isn't like a game of Civilizations. the Eastern Roman Empire didn't chose to become Greek. It happened naturally over time; little by little, until the results added up.

Well i just consider military defeats more inevitable than assasination attempts. Although both are equally inevitable because they happened ,the one makes for better what if scenarios. So what if Seleukos was not assassinated ?
He'd have got Makedonia in addition to his extant empire. But I doubt that, even if he had marched on Egypt, that he would have been able to maintain control there. The Ptolemaioi had done an excellent job of insinuating themselves into the Egyptian government by then (for having had such little time) and were very well entrenched. I suppose he did have a chance but Antigonos would have had a much easier time of it, seeing as Ptolemaios wasn't fully in control of Egypt yet.
Now, if you said modern Ionia called itself Greece, I would debate that, simply on the grounds that Ionia is not Greece at all geographically, and the cultures have been subsequently different.
The Treaty of Sevres, as well as a whole lot of descendants of the Greeks that were either genocided by the Turks or who fled Ionia to escape the aforementioned genocide would disagree with your claim that Ionia isn't Greece geographically. :p
EDIT: First of all, I still hold by my original point - Rome was Latin (or Latin/Greek, pick your poison). But, the Byzantine culture by 1000 had changed to Greek. That is not an opinion - that is fact.
But it wasn't "Greek" at all. An Athenian from 440 BC would not have even come close to recognizing the language (Koine as compared to the myriad of dialects of classical Greek), religion, governmental institutions, clothing, or even a lot of the idioms that a resident of the Aigion littoral in 1000 would have. The Roman Empire by 1000 was as different, culturally, from the classical Greeks as it was from the Romans of the Principate.
Yes, it was a cultural change. But Rome, from its founding to its fall, did not go through a major cultural change.
I would strongly disagree with that. The Romani of the Kingdom had a different pantheon, a different language (because 'ancient' Latin was nearly indecipherable to many Romani in the time of the Republic and the Empire), dress, style of government, and world outlook than did the Romani of the Dominate a thousand years later. Roma changed just as much between the urbe condita and the ascension of Constantinus as between Constantinus I and Konstantinos IX.

@Dreadnought
I think you have things way too defined in your head. I agree they didn't chose to become Greek. They where Romans with heavily influenced Greek culture and also Christian orthodox culture.

I wonder if you consider Christian Romans as Romans as there culture did change from their ancestors substantially in that factor and due to that factor. And i am referring to the Christians of the Western Roman empire before it fell. Where they Romans ? Or Christians ?

In this subject of identity i usually call them Romaioi Ellines Christianoi Orthodoxoi. Because that is what they where. If you choose to exclude any of the above elements you are being pseudohistorical. If you decide to describe them with the term Byzantium you again are pseudohistorical because you invent a term to explain the characteristics of people when you don't have to.

Adding another identity when such are found rather than removing them is another solution to the identity problem.

There is also anothe solution , It is so because one is constantly repeating it and they have changed because one says so. In that case i say that i have already "Discussed" this with you as much as i should because you completely ignore what i have to say. I mean the discussion makes little progress.

He'd have got Makedonia in addition to his extant empire. But I doubt that, even if he had marched on Egypt, that he would have been able to maintain control there. The Ptolemaioi had done an excellent job of insinuating themselves into the Egyptian government by then (for having had such little time) and were very well entrenched. I suppose he did have a chance but Antigonos would have had a much easier time of it, seeing as Ptolemaios wasn't fully in control of Egypt yet.

Oh well. I just consider assassinations more "Unfair" than military defeats so in my eyes Seleukos had a bigger chance.

Since when has Greek only been compared to itself in 440BCE? What would you call Greece culture in the time of the Byzantine Empire?

@scy12: Dude, this is a debate. This isn't a duel to the death. I am defending my side, and listening to yours.

And I haven't made any comments against you, just your idea. I haven't labeled you as pseudohistorical or ignorant or whatever.

Meanwhile, religion, though a major part of it, doesn't define culture. I could remain American by switching faiths; it doesn't make too much of a difference to be called a "change of culture".

And I did not invent the term Byzantium! Byzantium refers to the name of the city Constantinople before it was renamed by Constantine.

Finally, I am American, and I am Christian. Am I not American because I am christian?

What I am argueing is that Eastern Rome was more Greek than Roman. I am not arguing that they called themselves Roman. I am not arguing that Byzantine was a term made in the 18th century.

I am listening to what you have to say, and commenting on it. I would be ignoring what you have to say if I just kept repeating my idea without countering yours.

Since when has Greek only been compared to itself in 440BCE? What would you call Greece culture in the time of the Byzantine Empire?
I would call it Roman, or Greco-Roman. :p

Since when has Greek only been compared to itself in 440BCE? What would you call Greece culture in the time of the Byzantine Empire?

Greek culture + Christian culture + other cultures of the Roman identity of that particular empire and people.

I just don't consider any element of the sum of the parts to be mutually exclusive of the other.

And funnily enough there is a group calling the Eastern Romans not Greek enough because they where Romans. I have a more convenient outlook on it. They where both Romans , Greek and Christians. And i do consider the last one just as important as the other two as a characterization. So you can either call it Roman and mean all three. Call it Christian-Greek-Roman or invent a word to call it but that word would come out of not history but thin air.

I edited the above post.

You don't seem to understand.

I am willing to call them Eastern Romans.

I am not willing, however, to call them Romans in their own right.

They where both Romans , Greek and Christians. And i do consider the last one just as important as the other two as a characterization.
This is basically what I think. I call them 'Roman' because they called themselves Romaioi; the fact that they used a Greek word to do it means that they are something not quite Roman and not quite Greek, but something between. Since 'Byzantine' is wholly made up and really ought only refer to that Greek city-state that charged an awfully high toll on the Bosphorus (and which was allied to the Ptolemaioi more often than not), I default to 'Roman'.

EDIT: Usually I say 'Eastern Roman Empire' to differentiate and not confuse people, but sometimes I shorthand it to 'Roman' when I'm too lazy to type out the entire thing. :p

I have to go. So, until tomorrow, I will leave my closing remarks.

I am willing to call the Eastern Roman Empire: Eastern Roman, Byzantine, Greek-Roman, what have you. But I don't think Eastern Rome should be labeled as Rome.

And I'd like to repeat that this debate was very enjoyable. Thanks again for your opinions on the matter.

This is basically what I think. I call them 'Roman' because they called themselves Romaioi; the fact that they used a Greek word to do it means that they are something not quite Roman and not quite Greek, but something between. Since 'Byzantine' is wholly made up and really ought only refer to that Greek city-state that charged an awfully high toll on the Bosphorus (and which was allied to the Ptolemaioi more often than not), I default to 'Roman'.

Hey , Well we could call them Romaioi. But then we have to adapt the word in English then. Which puts me in thinking how would future historians judge us ?

The thing is , didn't they call themselves Romaioi even long before the eastern Roman empire ?

Anyway i agree that we should not use the Byzantine term and use the Roman one while keeping in mind their distinctive characteristics over that time frame . Which we must do about Romans of other time frames as well.


EDIT: Usually I say 'Eastern Roman Empire' to differentiate and not confuse people, but sometimes I shorthand it to 'Roman' when I'm too lazy to type out the entire thing.

Well i usually use only the Eastern Roman empire so people can understand at which time frame i am talking about but i am also using just the Roman empire when one claims that the Roman empire ended at the fifth century. I think at the point the empire was divided they should be called as western and eastern to avoid confusion.

Hey , Well we could call them Romaioi. But then we have to adapt the word in English then. Which puts me in thinking how would future historians judge us ?
So long as we're not Greek...:p...I fully support this and would use it, if I ever encountered somebody not on an English-language forum (or, gasp, in RL) with whom I would have occasion to reference the Eastern Roman Empire. Which is, sadly, seldom.
The thing is , didn't they call themselves Romaioi even long before the eastern Roman empire ?
They did. A real 'sea change' in cultural outlook there. ;)

So long as we're not Greek...:p...I fully support this and would use it, if I ever encountered somebody not on an English-language forum (or, gasp, in RL) with whom I would have occasion to reference the Eastern Roman Empire. Which is, sadly, seldom.

They did. A real 'sea change' in cultural outlook there. ;)

So long as we're not Greek...:p...I fully support this and would use it, if I ever encountered somebody not on an English-language forum (or, gasp, in RL) with whom I would have occasion to reference the Eastern Roman Empire. Which is, sadly, seldom.

If i ever discussed this in RL it would probably be with a Greek speaking person.
The argument there changes to Side A "They where not Greek enough" against side B "They where Greek enough". My answer would be "They where Jack of all trades."

They did. A real 'sea change' in cultural outlook there.

I mean how would the most likely Greek speaking Romans call themselves. How did Hadrian call himself when he was speaking in Greek ?

Ancient Greece. The birthplace of western culture.

I mean how would the most likely Greek speaking Romans call themselves. How did Hadrian call himself when he was speaking in Greek ?
There's an Antinous joke here, but I'm not going to make it. :lol:

The residents of the eastern half of the Roman Empire generally referred to themselves as 'Romaioi', same as they did after Odovacar made the little boy Romulus Augustulus run away to Campania.

People always say that the later Roman empire (that is, the Byzantine empire) was culturally Greek, but no-one ever seems to explain what that means. In what ways, exactly, had the empire's culture changed (say by AD 1000) to make it more Greek than Roman? As far as I can tell, its culture had certainly changed, but not in a notably "Greek" fashion; Byzantium in AD 1000 was a lot less like Athens in 400 BC than it was like Rome in AD 200. The only difference is the language.

Anyway, the answer to the poll is clearly Greece. The Roman empire was built upon violence both abroad and at home. It was a brutal and appallingly sexist society in which women and children were routinely murdered for the purposes of social engineering and violent death was presented as jolly entertainment for the masses.

Anyway, the answer to the poll is clearly Greece. The Roman empire was built upon violence both abroad and at home.
Huh, what empire wasn't?? EVERYTHING was built on violence!! From Ancient Egypt to the Soviet Union!!! The European Union is the only thing I can think of that was not built on violence. And plus, I'm pretty sure people had way better living conditions in the empire than outside it.

It was a brutal
While Greece was not brutal at all... and the Ancient world was not brutal at all either. :p

and appallingly sexist society
Sexist maybe, I'll give you that. But don't forget that again, much of the world was still sexist until much more recently than the Roman Empire.

in which women and children were routinely murdered for the purposes of social engineering
Can you elaborate? And apart from that, weren't others the ones famous for doing it more often? Like... Sparta? :p

and violent death was presented as jolly entertainment for the masses.
Is the problem with the fact that the gladiators got killed in the process? Or that it was presented as "jolly entertainment for the masses"? Because if the latter is the case... well.... we have much more awful and terrifying stuff today in horror movies. Much more gross, too. Should I point out how in modern entertainment people who kill hundreds of others are presented in a fabulous light?

I find it amazing how everyone in the UK seems to be completely anti-Roman... I really wonder why that is.

Huh, what empire wasn't?? EVERYTHING was built on violence!! From Ancient Egypt to the Soviet Union!!! The European Union is the only thing I can think of that was not built on violence.

Maybe all empires are indeed built on violence; but why does that affect the issue at hand? The question was whether Rome was preferable to Greece, not whether it was preferable to the Soviet Union. Of course it's a pretty vague question because we're not told which period of history we're talking about or which elements of those cultures. Classical Athens is the period of Greece I know most about so I suppose I'm thinking primarily of that. The Athenian empire was a lot smaller than the Roman one, so to that extent, it was less wicked.

And plus, I'm pretty sure people had way better living conditions in the empire than outside it.

I don't know about that. No doubt some people did, but in what ways was the average non-elite inhabitant of the Roman empire better off than anyone outside the empire? I ask that as a serious question, not a rhetorical one.

Sexist maybe, I'll give you that. But don't forget that again, much of the world was still sexist until much more recently than the Roman Empire.

That's an over-simplification. The Middle Ages, for example, were considerably less sexist than both antiquity and early modern times. It was quite common for women to own their own businesses in the Middle Ages whereas it was extremely unusual in the Roman empire.

Don't forget, too, how young women generally were when they were married. In theory a girl could not be married before the age of 12, but there were no legal penalties for marrying someone even younger, and there's good evidence that such marriages were quite common. It was perfectly common for a girl to be having her first child at the age of 12 or 13, and about half of all Roman girls could expect to be married before the age of 15. All of this was inspired not only by an apparent desire to rape children on the part of many Roman men but also by the fact that a husband would take all of his wife's property when he married her; a married woman couldn't own anything. This is why widows were always expected to remarry as quickly as possible: a single adult woman owning stuff was a social anomaly.

Of course this sort of thing was quite common in antiquity, although I don't know if other societies were as extreme as Rome. But it certainly wasn't universal. Christians didn't share these attitudes towards child brides, brutalising of women, or widows.

Can you elaborate? And apart from that, weren't others the ones famous for doing it more often? Like... Sparta? :p

Most people in the Roman empire wanted sons and not daughters, rather like Chinese in modern times. I'm sure you know how common the practices of exposition or simple child murder were when people had unwanted children, above all girls. Abortion was also a common practice in the Roman empire, and was performed by a variety of very nasty methods, such as the husband simply kicking his wife in the stomach until she miscarried. Procedures such as this very often resulted in the death of the woman, and don't forget that the woman would generally have had no choice in the matter too.

These practices led to a serious gender imbalance in the empire, which some estimates have put at as much as 4-3 in favour of men. In other words, a quarter of all the women who should have been living in the Roman empire weren't there. This is one of the major reasons why the empire suffered from a low birth rate, to the extent that emperor after emperor tried to encourage people to have more children.

Is the problem with the fact that the gladiators got killed in the process? Or that it was presented as "jolly entertainment for the masses"? Because if the latter is the case... well.... we have much more awful and terrifying stuff today in horror movies. Much more gross, too. Should I point out how in modern entertainment people who kill hundreds of others are presented in a fabulous light?

Come on, you know perfectly well that there's a big difference between a film which glorifies violence and an entertainment which involves the actual killing of people. However gory a horror film may be, no-one actually dies in the process of making it. We may think such films are bad because of the effects they have on people, but surely we can agree that whether they are bad or not, showing real deaths for entertainment is worse. And I'm not just talking about gladiators. Don't forget that a day at the circus always featured public executions as well, after the animal hunts in the morning but before the gladiator fights in the afternoon. The gladiators were presented as strong and brave, representing the "manly" virtues that Romans liked to think their empire embodied. The criminals, by contrast, were presented as weak and pathetic, wretches who had transgressed society's norms, and who were justly crushed. They executed in incredibly sadistic ways; think of all the martyrologies which depict naked Christians being tied up in nets and trampled by bulls, or roasted on griddles in front of baying crowds. Even public executions in medieval and early modern times generally dispensed with the torture and simply killed the victims, except in exceptional cases; in the Roman empire, watching someone get tortured to death was part of the normal day's entertainment. It wasn't just gladiators getting killed in the course of doing a dangerous and exciting job. It was the public humiliation and torture of the weakest people in society, displayed for the glorification of the state.

I find it amazing how everyone in the UK seems to be completely anti-Roman... I really wonder why that is.

No idea. Who else are you thinking of there?

The Roman empire was built upon violence both abroad and at home.

While the Greek cities spent their time fraternizing, and peacefully colonizing uninhabited strips of land.

It was a brutal and appallingly sexist society

I always heard Greek women were far less free...

Agreed on pastimes: theatre is better than ludii.

While we're on the subject of violence and all, IMHO I think despite the violence of conquest and certain "sport" of questionable moral value, the Romans are the more tolerant of the two. When considering Roman history, keep in mind that it doesn't only include what we commonly thought as Roman culture. The Empire is essentially multicultural, with Roman culture interacting with many of the conquered but older cultures around the Empire. Greeks, for most of the time, tend to impose their culture on other people rather than interacting with them. This is perhaps a reflection of the political structure - Greece consists of city-states, not an empire like Rome.

Talking about citizenship, the Roman Empire would give foreigners citizenship after serving in the army, (I believe 20 years) after which he and his family would be citizens.

What was the Greek policy on becoming a citizen? As far as I can remember, many Greek city states were very up-tight about that.

I'm now a convert to the 'Rome and Greece were inseparable in the Middle Ages' cult i.e. the Eastern Roman Empire was not Roman nor Greek but a solid mix of Rome, Greece, Christianity, and developments over time and space. Of course in Civ terms it was just Rome with loads of Greek culture/Greek citizens in their cities... :mischief:

As for the poll, Greece for the win because Greek history in general is so romantic (oh God, I just found that so funny with this edit).

As for the poll, Greece for the win because Greek history in general is so romantic (oh God, I just found that so funny with this edit).
I'd like to forestall the inevitable "Sertorius" response to this post by saying that most of what you will read about Sertorius is recent revisionist BS and that according to, say, Plutarch, he was a vicious and kinda brutal dude. In addition to being an excellent general, of course. He was still not a nice guy. And definitely not romantic.

Rome used the Greekness and made it better.

ITALIANS DO IT BETTER.

Infraction for spam and threadjacking point irrelevant to discussion. - KD

Rome used the Greekness and made it better.

ITALIANS DO IT BETTER.

That what they thought at the start of WW2 until their theory was put to test.

Infraction for baiting post. - KD

That what they thought at the start of WW2 until their theory was put to test.

OMGZ LOL HAHAHAHAHAHA. Dats so original lol :lol:



Note the present tense in "Italians do it better". World War II was from 1939-1945, don't you know? That's in something called the past, spelt P-A-S-T. Therefore, the phrase "Italians do it better" and the past are two mutually exclusive things. You show your ignorance in your post.

OMGZ LOL HAHAHAHAHAHA. Dats so original lol :lol:



Note the present tense in "Italians do it better". World War II was from 1939-1945, don't you know? That's in something called the past, spelt P-A-S-T. Therefore, the phrase "Italians do it better" and the past are two mutually exclusive things. You show your ignorance in your post.

But then, with your wording in the present tense, how does your statement contribute, seeing as the Romans were in the past...?

Rome used the Greekness and made it better.

ITALIANS DO IT BETTER.

OMGZ LOL HAHAHAHAHAHA. Dats so original lol :lol:



Note the present tense in "Italians do it better". World War II was from 1939-1945, don't you know? That's in something called the past, spelt P-A-S-T. Therefore, the phrase "Italians do it better" and the past are two mutually exclusive things. You show your ignorance in your post.

Troll ? Rome = present or past ? You decide. What in earth does the comment Italians do it better have to do with the thread then if it does not have something to do with your other sentence.

Anyway i think Trolls are more related with other civilizations than the Greek and the Roman one.

Though they come in many sizes. Maybe in the present Italy is better at producing Trolls than other regions. Are you an Italian Troll ? (although you are a multinational group)

Troll ? Rome = present or past ? You decide. What in earth does the comment Italians do it better have to do with the thread then if it does not have something to do with your other sentence.

Anyway i think Trolls are more related with other civilizations than the Greek and the Roman one.

Though they come in many sizes. Maybe in the present Italy is better at producing Trolls than other regions. Are you an Italian Troll ? (although you are a multinational group)

You know what happens when you fight fire with fire? The fire gets bigger.

Trolling to a troll does nothing.

But then, with your wording in the present tense, how does your statement contribute, seeing as the Romans were in the past...?

Ask scy why he is talking about WWII if this thread is about Ancient Rome.

I could feed you and say that the reason i did so was that Italians which where formed later as a nation have nothing to do with Rome in the first place and so i replied on the subject of Italians and not Romans. It is obvious you are a troll. Your subsequent comment about past and present was also amusing.

Trolling to a troll does nothing. Indeed but atleast it gives the impression to the troll that people are aware of his nature. To the other participants it provides few to no results though. Maybe it is masochistic to do so .

I could feed you and say that the reason i did so was that Italians which where formed later as a nation have nothing to do with Rome in the first place and so i replied on the subject of Italians and not Romans. It is obvious you are a troll. Your subsequent comment about past and present was also amusing.

Please feed me, I am a hungry troll.

Anyway , what always amazed me on regard of Rome was not the culture , not the legion not the history but the Roads , Bridges and generally their building techniques. They certainly improved and possibly as Etruscans where originally better in this subject than the ancient Greeks. And to be frank later on when the Etruscan element and the Greek element merged they created a great civilization but what certainly surpused what a Greek empire had at those points was certainly the Roman roads,bridges and generally the great techniques they used at building them.

Medieval Europe certainly lacked on that respect. The Cement like material needed time to be reinvented also.I see Rome as a combination of elements but i see the road infrastructure as something distinctly more Etruscan-Roman than Greek. And i do think it is certainly a big accomplishment.

Yes, I do agree with you.

(By the way, you don't have any troll food about, do you? Im real hungry! Thanks!)

Infraction for continual baiting. Pls use the report function if you have an issue. Thx. - KD

I like Rome better; their culture included the best of the Greeks', plus many others, including Etruscan, something you won't find anywhere else.

So, from whence came the desire to see hundreds of people fighting and dying every holiday? What about the penchant for genocide and mass enslavement? The excessive militarism? Paranoia? technological stasis?

Those all uniquely Roman thing, huh?



I'm pretty sure people had way better living conditions in the empire than outside it.


Why?


I find it amazing how everyone in the UK seems to be completely anti-Roman... I really wonder why that is.


They're not. The majority of people (pretty much everywhere) would be easily classified as pro-Roman. Partly because nobody bothers to cast a critical eye over history-as-written-by-the-victors. It doesn't help that our main source of classical texts, the Catholic Church (and monk copyists), had been selectively deciding which texts to copy and pass down for significant number number of centuries. They've found it suits their interest to copy out Roman texts saying nice things about Rome whilst leaving out other texts giving a slightly more nuanced view.

Not that I disagree or anything, lovett, but do you happen to have arcane objective knowledge on Rome?

Why?
Because with the exception of Parthia, the Roman Empire expanded to every spot on or near its borders that encompassed lands with a non-subsistence economy, i.e. the people were 'better off'. Then they made it even better with infrastructure improvements and had a relatively lax system of local government. What evidence exists to imply that the Romans weren't better off than their neighboring barbarian brethren?

EDIT: The above has been confirmed by archaeology, which is actually a better source of knowledge for the Later Roman Empire than the chroniclers are. :rolleyes:

Not that I disagree or anything, lovett, but do you happen to have arcane objective knowledge on Rome?

Nothing arcane, Im afraid. But it's not like anybody has gone out of their way to expunge any conflicting testimony regarding the fruits of Roman civilization. There's plenty of archaelogical evidence that throws doubt on the practice of splitting the ancient world up into two fractions: Rome and Barbarians. The barbarians being the less advanced, civilized and generally decent of the two.

There's also a few sources coming from protestant copyists, who were generally less concerned about propagandising for Rome. Indeed, several texts and accounts quite simply change when one read them in a less forgiving manner. Take Caesers conquest of Gaul for example. He killed about a million people, 1 in 4 Gauls. He enslaved another million. He massacred cities full of civilians and completely destroyed a booming and vibrant culture. By our standards, he's a killer on the order of Pol Pot or Idi Amin. But that stuff is convieniently ignored, after all, he was bringing the 'light of civilization' to those dirty barbarians. Right?

The main problem with properly assessing Rome is that the myth of Roman civilization is so strong and enticing. The story of a little city that became a world-spanning empire, an empire that spread civilization and the rule of law to the furthest corners of the world. That kept the torch of civilization burning until the slavering barbarian hordes broke down the gates, and plunged Europe into a thousand years of barbarism. You got yourself the makings of some good narrative tension right here.


Because with the exception of Parthia, the Roman Empire expanded to every spot on or near its borders that encompassed lands with a non-subsistence economy, i.e. the people were 'better off'. Then they made it even better with infrastructure improvements and had a relatively lax system of local government. What evidence exists to imply that the Romans weren't better off than their neighboring barbarian brethren? -Dachspmg

That seems like a rather perverse way of being better of to me. That the Roman empire produced a higher standard of living then everyone else, by the simple expedient of destroying everyone else. Perhaps it would be more useful to compare the living standards of provinces before and after Roman conquests. Although this isn't that easy, as the Romans wern't exactly the gentlest of people in victory.

Let's take the Celts as a case study. By 'Celts' im roughly refering to the people who inhabited modern France and the Atlantic seaboard (including Britain). It's very hard to claim that the Romans ruled these people better then they ruled themselves. Before being conquered, the Celtic world was a place of trade. The Atlantic allowed a system of interlinked societies to develop, each one dependent on trading with far-flung neighbours. Gold ornaments mined in Ireland have turned up in Cornwall, Normandy and Brittany, Necklaces from southern Iberia are found in the Orkneys, Northern Ireland and the Low countries. Celtic Society really wasn't primitively tribal. On a technological level they probably surpassed the Romans in many way. Iron working, certainly The forged ploughhares, steel blades and proper armour. The Romans thought that celtic smiths were magicians. Hell, they had even invented a harvesting machine. Pliny writes 'On the vast estates of Gaul very large frames fitted with teeth at the edge, and carried on two wheels, are driven through the corn by a team of oxen pushing from behind'. Bas-relief sculptures confirm his words, and a replica was built and tested in the 80's. It was basically a wheeled comb that beat off the ears of corn and deposited them into a container. It disappeared sometime between the second and third century AD, and harvesting became back-breaking manual labour with a sythe for another 1500 years.

Another area of superiority appears to be maths. Consider the Coligny Calendar. It was discovered at the end of the 19th, and appears to be an early celtic calendar. Frankly, it blows Roman time-keeping out of the water. Calendars are difficult thing, see. Mathematically one needs to the 12 lunar months with the solar year, which is not helped by the fact that neither last an exact number of days. The 'barbarians' could do it. The Coligny calendar is basically as good as our modern calendar, more or less. Each month starts at a new moon without festivals loosing their exact place in the seasons. The Roman, well. The seige of Alesia began on the 25th of June, according to the Roman calendar it was happening in December. That what happends when you can't do the math.

Celtic cities were also pretty impressive. They built long wooden road to link them together by land, and they were impressively large. Take Manching in Southern Germany. It was the capital of the Vindelici and sported walls five miles in circumference. There was a cluster of cities that size. One of the largest lies between modern-day Stuggart and Ulm. The walls enclosed a huge connurbation over 6 miles in area. Just for comparison, the Aventine walls enclosed barely a quarter of that. Obviously, you only get cities that size with a strong financially-fit trade based economy.

It helped that the Celts were so much richer then the Romans. In terms of gold, it's estimated they mined about seventy tons of the stuff. Gaulish Gold mines a hundred feet deep have been excavated in Dordogne. They have fully lines galleries that used Archimedes screw pumps to prevent flooding. Socially, of course, I think it hard to say that Roman culture came as an improvement. To mention just a few thing, in Celtic society women tended to have full-rights, could own property and divorce their husbands. Roman society, not so much. Freedom of religion was also an interesting Celtic affectation, as well as spending money on things apart from your military.

That was the Celtic world before Roman invasion. Afterwards, the Romans had a habit of culturally assimilating people. It's hard to make a direct comparison on whether Roman Governance was any better of course, partly because the invasions tended to devastate the land. Obviously Gaul was worse of after being conquered, but how much of that was due to the million dead, the million enslaved, the cites raped for loot as opposed to opportunistic governance.

The fact that technology declined and cities fell in size suggests that Roman rule didn't bring great benefits to the people in question. As for a 'relatively lax systems of local goverments', it does make me wonder if we're thinking of the same Roman empire. Unless im completely wrong, it's my recollection that it was the Roman empire which inevented serfdom. Diocletian (or perhaps Constantine) initiated a series of economic edicts which effectively tied abourers to their land. They wern't allowed to travel without permission. They also tied tradesmen to their professions. If the son of a taylor wanted to own a farm he was given the middle finger, in no uncertain terms. If you were a taylor, you and all your descendents in pepetuam would be taylors. I don't think this is particularily lax.

Nothing arcane, Im afraid. But it's not like anybody has gone out of their way to expunge any conflicting testimony regarding the fruits of Roman civilization. There's plenty of archaelogical evidence that throws doubt on the practice of splitting the ancient world up into two fractions: Rome and Barbarians. The barbarians being the less advanced, civilized and generally decent of the two.
Sure, there were obviously levels of 'civilization' amongst the 'barbarians'; the La Tene Celtic culture, for example, was a good deal more advanced than the Jastorf (higher quality pottery, higher standard of living, generally better metallurgy, somewhat cleaner) and the nomads of the Russian steppe were nothing near as civilized as, say, the Sweboz or the Casse of Europe. But there is even more archaeological evidence showing that by the time the Roman Empire reached its full extent, outside of Parthia, none of its neighbors had even close to the standard of living, technological development, and infrastructure that could be found within the Empire. There is significant evidence for a gradual diffusion of Roman agricultural technology and practice outside of Roman borders starting in the first centuries BC and AD, but even four hundred years after the process began the development was insufficient to allow most of the advances the Romans had, but plenty sufficient to allow Germania and the lands beyond the Danube to become overpopulated, leading to an awful huge knock-on domino effect when the Huns started making their way westward in the 360s and 370s. Even in the fifth century, when one would think that those barbarians would have caught up to the stagnant Romans, one finds along the Danube in the Hungarian Plain, in the heartland of the Hunnic Empire, gravesites with many artifacts of Roman origin; virtually nothing original of value, save perhaps their composite bows, was of Hunnic or Germanic manufacture in the Hunnic tombs. Finally, there is the 'evidence' (if one would call it that), of the many thousands of barbarians who came across the Rhine and Danube frontiers seeking asylum and a new life in the Roman Empire, from Augustus on down to the Greuthungi and Tervingi. Yet no Romans were fleeing the Empire to live with the barbarians.

Life inside the Roman Empire, even for a peasant (who in fact would be doing extremely well in the Later Empire given the agricultural boom everywhere in the Empire except Italy and northern Gallia), was far superior to that on the other side of the Rhine and Danube. Claims that the barbarians were less 'decent' are of course bollocks, but there's also no need to go around idealizing them as the noble savages either.
There's also a few sources coming from protestant copyists, who were generally less concerned about propagandising for Rome. Indeed, several texts and accounts quite simply change when one read them in a less forgiving manner. Take Caesers conquest of Gaul for example. He killed about a million people, 1 in 4 Gauls. He enslaved another million. He massacred cities full of civilians and completely destroyed a booming and vibrant culture. By our standards, he's a killer on the order of Pol Pot or Idi Amin. But that stuff is convieniently ignored, after all, he was bringing the 'light of civilization' to those dirty barbarians. Right?
:rolleyes: Yes, he was a mass murderer; no one would dispute that. (Although those numbers seem off - a little high; I'll see what I can dig up. The ancient Romans have always had an odd penchant for inflating casualty counts just as the American army in Vietnam did, and Caesar always had his eye towards making his conquests look more impressive.) Romans were uniquely good at killing people. But the fact that Romans killed lots of people does not mean that the 'barbarians' automatically became superior to them, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of life in either place. Life in Germania and non-Roman Europe was a singularly undocumented existence, but when one sees that the barbarians, when sacking Roman cities, often did things just as terrible as Roman actions against the barbarians - witness the many destructions and sackings of Aquileia (Italy's doormat), or the behavior of the Cimbri after the Battle of Arausio, or (for something even earlier) the Gallic actions towards the Roman colonists in northern Italy after the north Italian colonies were abandoned during the Second Punic War.

Life in Germania and non-Roman Europe was a singularly undocumented existence, but when one sees that the barbarians, when sacking Roman cities, often did things just as terrible as Roman actions against the barbarians - witness the many destructions and sackings of Aquileia (Italy's doormat), or the behavior of the Cimbri after the Battle of Arausio, or (for something even earlier) the Gallic actions towards the Roman colonists in northern Italy after the north Italian colonies were abandoned during the Second Punic War.

I made an edit to my previous post, which hopefully addresses some of your thoughts.

To the above, I'd just add that what's irking is the difference in perception. Roman conquests are find and dandy, the bringing of civilization to barbaric areas. When the Romans enter a city, they caputure it. When barbarians enter a city, apparently they 'sack' it. Take Alarics 'Sack of Rome' for example. After quite a bit of provocation, he finally enters Rome and sacks it. This sack consists of virtually no rape, as little bloodshed as possible (by Alaric's orders) and very little looting. A few fires were started, but the city was hardly damaged at all. Yet for a thousand years or so, this event was depicted as the razing of Rome by the barbaric Barbarian hordes.

In contrast, when Rome does something like raze a city to it's foundations and salt the ground it was built on (Im looking at you, Cathage), and in all enact a destruction so complete that not a single sentence of Punic survives, it's seen as an interesting historical event. A deserved Roman victory after a century of war.

I can't help but see a double standard here.

I made an edit to my previous post, which hopefully addresses some of your thoughts.
It does; I wouldn't pretend to be anything close to an authority on Celtic history (or even pre-imperial period Roma). I guess the issue that the Gauls had was more of an organizational and centralization one than a technological. One in which they were so far behind as to put them at a horrifying disadvantage.

There is an often cited passage from Priscus' diplomatic history in which a Roman and a Roman merchant who lived with the Huns (and had done so for many years) had a conversation about which system was better. They were able to agree that the Romans had one great advantage over the non-Roman barbarians: their system of law, which guaranteed the rights of property. 'Amongst the Romans there are many ways of giving freedom. Not only the living but also the dead bestow it lavishly, arranging their estates as they wish; and whatever a man has willed for his possessions at his death is legally binding.'

As to city size, IIRC it only declined immediately after the Roman invasion, and by the period of the Later Empire Gallia had easily recouped any population losses from Caesar's invasion and more. Southern Gallia was one of the more prosperous places in the Western Empire.

My point about the Roman relatively lax local government was that it was nothing compared to modern interference by the national government at the local level. All the Later Empire did was collect taxes from the lower levels, and all other policies were largely up to the curials on the town councils who implemented them. The locals paid taxes, if they needed to be protected the imperial army would be deployed, and outside of that tit-for-tat the state did very little to meddle in local affairs. Diocletianus' economic reforms, outside of streamlining the budget and tax system, were sheer idiocy, and the exception to the above rule. The oft-cited Maximum Prices Edict was ignored within the time of his reign. He did essentially create serfdom, the economic implications of which seem to have not been negative (though the social implications would be beyond me as a political/military historical student); the mechanics for enforcing it seem not to have existed, so I'm not sure what effect Diocletianus' edict could actually have had. He was kinda 'ahead of his time' in what he thought the central government could make the locals do, and certainly by the end of Constantinus' reign little remained of all but the budgetary and tax reforms that Diocletianus had put through.
To the above, I'd just add that what's irking is the difference in perception. Roman conquests are find and dandy, the bringing of civilization to barbaric areas. When the Romans enter a city, they caputure it. When barbarians enter a city, apparently they 'sack' it. Take Alarics 'Sack of Rome' for example. After quite a bit of provocation, he finally enters Rome and sacks it. This sack consists of virtually no rape, as little bloodshed as possible (by Alaric's orders) and very little looting. A few fires were started, but the city was hardly damaged at all. Yet for a thousand years or so, this event was depicted as the razing of Rome by the barbaric Barbarian hordes.
Yes, Alaric's sack was relatively controlled. Was Geiseric's? :p (That, at least, has been discussed at least once on these boards.) The double standard that you refer to - when it does appear, and frankly the Americans with whom I have occasion to discuss history (very few of them exist sadly :() are either too uneducated to know the difference or don't have this aforementioned double standard - is retarded. Romans were awfully nasty and didn't really have the polish that the Greeks did - what they were was organized and brutal, and that won them an empire. Which is part of the reason I voted for the Greeks. :p

There's also a few sources coming from protestant copyists, who were generally less concerned about propagandising for Rome.

I don't wish to dispute your basic point, but I was puzzled by this. What sources are you thinking of? Given that there weren't any Protestant copyists (Protestantism began after the invention of printing) I'm not sure what you mean. I'm also not sure why you think that Catholic copyists tried to whitewash the Roman empire - after all, the most vitriolic attacks upon the Roman empire are found in Roman Christian authors such as Tertullian, Cyprian, etc - indeed, the book of Revelation consists in large part of a sustained attack upon the wickedness of Rome.

Yes, Alaric's sack was relatively controlled. Was Geiseric's? :p (That, at least, has been discussed at least once on these boards.) The double standard that you refer to - when it does appear, and frankly the Americans with whom I have occasion to discuss history (very few of them exist sadly :() are either too uneducated to know the difference or don't have this aforementioned double standard - is retarded. Romans were awfully nasty and didn't really have the polish that the Greeks did - what they were was organized and brutal, and that won them an empire. Which is part of the reason I voted for the Greeks. :p

Well, that's a tricky one. I'm inclined to belive that Geiseric's sack of Rome was of the medium-violence-mainly-looting character. I.e, certainly far more brutal then Alarics sack of Rome, but not a traditional barbarian led bloodbath. As per the Vandals in general, I think they're on the recieving end of some very bad press. During their migration they never usually went in for loot and plunder. They left Iberia and Gaul relatively untouched.The invasion of Africa was pretty gentle too. It helped that nobody was really able to oppose them, but they were also seen as liberators. The fact that they chopped the enormous taxes the empire levelled (to pay for the army) won them popular support. When Geiseric started to capture cities, it was always most defininitely a capture. The Vandals didn't loot or burn, because they intended to rule. Indeed, after capturing Cathage the Vandals could be said to have improved it's moral fibre somewhat (;)). Regardless of a partial freedom of religion thing (the Catholics really wern't into that) they banned bloodsports and reduced alcohol consumption. Huh.

Mainly they're so associated with destruction because of there 'vandalism' of the catholic church. Geiseric was an Arian, who exiled over 5000 catholic churchmen and stopped the persectution of Donatists and Pelgians. He basically replaced the Catholic orthodoxy with a leaner, far less wealthy one.


What sources are you thinking of? Given that there weren't any Protestant copyists (Protestantism began after the invention of printing) I'm not sure what you mean. I'm also not sure why you think that Catholic copyists tried to whitewash the Roman empire - after all, the most vitriolic attacks upon the Roman empire are found in Roman Christian authors such as Tertullian, Cyprian, etc - indeed, the book of Revelation consists in large part of a sustained attack upon the wickedness of Rome.

Apologies. I mispoke by saying 'Protestant'. Replace it with 'Non-Catholic Christianity' and you get the general idea. Mainly, the Irish wing of christianity have given us several interesting non-classical texts. Take the Brehon Laws, for example. It's a collection of texts passed on by Irish copyists, which describes the system of law celtic society tended to work with.

Cathol monastries seem to have been uninterested in any sources that cast 'Barbarians' in a light that lent itself to any interpretation other then 'barbaric'. It's always been in the Churchs interest to selectively preserve some texts, destroy others and create new ones. That's why one has the relative paucity in sources from 'Barbarian' areas. Nobody preserved them. The point of this was to discourage paganism, a cause the Church was rather devoted to. For example, the one remaining Bronze statue of a pre-christian emperor, Marcus Aurelius, survives only beecause the image was thought to be that of a christian. Pop Gregory the great tried to surpress the works of Cicero and burn all the manuscripts of Livy that he could get his hands on. The general idea being to destroy any sources or texts that didn't jive with what the monks approved.

Right, although of course everyone did that to at least some degree, not just Catholics. But that doesn't seem to me a glorification of Rome at the expense of "barbarians" or of Greece - it's a glorification of Christianity at the expense of paganism. So pre-fourth-century Rome wouldn't be glorified at all under that mentality.

Don't forget that it was quite common among early Christians to refer to Christianity as "the barbarian philosophy", originally a term of abuse from pagan philosophers, but one which they made their own. So even within the Catholic tradition there was an element of glorification of the "barbarians" as well as one of trenchant criticism of the Roman empire.

Neither of them.I prefer Byzantine empire.

That's just a continuation of the Roman Empire, in the Greek territories.

Romans were awfully nasty and didn't really have the polish that the Greeks did - what they were was organized and brutal, and that won them an empire.

Greeks did that well before, but it didn't grant them any Empire: must have been something else. Besides, the reasons why Gaul impoverished can't be only Rome: after all, Greece and her culture developed well under Roman rule...

A consideration: slavery was worse in Greece than in Rome where the law grew more and more liberal towards them (heh, Nero, who was previously debated here, gave them the right to take masters to court if mistreated).

An item for discussion: the Melian dialogue (http://www.wellesley.edu/ClassicalStudies/CLCV102/Thucydides--MelianDialogue.html), which should be studied in every school to gain understanding of politics.

Well, that's a tricky one. I'm inclined to belive that Geiseric's sack of Rome was of the medium-violence-mainly-looting character. I.e, certainly far more brutal then Alarics sack of Rome, but not a traditional barbarian led bloodbath.
Well, I usually go by Victor of Vita in this, who said that the returning Vandal fleet after the sack had enough human cargo in it to have the bottom drop out of the slave trade. And I'm not sure what you mean by 'traditional barbarian led bloodbath' either.
As per the Vandals in general, I think they're on the recieving end of some very bad press. During their migration they never usually went in for loot and plunder. They left Iberia and Gaul relatively untouched.
By 'leaving Iberia and Gaul relatively untouched' do you mean 'almost completely wiping out the imperial infrastructure there'? There's a famous quote from a Roman living in Gallia who was an eyewitness (Orientus): "All Gaul was filled with the smoke of a single funeral pyre." Moguntiacum was sacked, Augusta Treverorum was nearly leveled, Durocortorum was torched, and then from there they fanned out all over the Gallic countryside. They took two years to get across Gallia alone and by the time they were done, Gallia had been ruined so badly that after forty years of rebuilding and reconstruction it still wasn't entirely finished when the Huns rolled through. And then Hispania was hit badly too. Hydatius mentions 'disasters' that left many of the Hispanic inhabitants dead, allowing the Sweboz, Hasdingi, Alani, and Silingi to carve up Hispania into little mini-kingdoms. Prosper of Aquitaine says 'He who once turned the soil with a hundred plows, now labors to have just a pair of oxen; the man who often rode through splendid cities in his carriages now is sick and travels to the deserted countryside wearily and on foot. The merchant who used to cleave the seas with ten lofty ships now embarks on a tiny skiff, and is his own helmsman. Neither country nor city is as it was; everything rushes headlong to its end [...] with sword, plague, starvation, chains, cold and heat - in a thousand ways - a single death snatches off wretched humankind.'
The invasion of Africa was pretty gentle too. It helped that nobody was really able to oppose them, but they were also seen as liberators.
First off, the religious tensions meant that nearly everybody in Africa hated the Vandali and Alani - they were Arian, while the inhabitants of Africa were largely Chalcedonian. Augustine's letters from the period are full of carping about the vile heretics besieging Africa; when the Vandali finally did manage to seize control, their domestic relations were singularly bad (as compared to the Ostrogothi, who did an excellent job of keeping the peace in Italy, or the Franki, whose conversion did wonders for the relations with the Chalcedonian Gallo-Romani), persecuting Chalcedonian clergy and expelling a few bishops from their sees. Here's a take on the Vandal invasion of Africa: 'Finding a province which was at peace and enjoying quiet, the whole land beautiful and flowering on all sides, they set to work on it with their wicked forces, laying it waste by devastation and bringing everything to ruin with fire and murders. They did not even spare the fruit-bearing orchards, in case people who had hidden in the caves of the mountains [...] would be able to eat the foods produced by them after they had passed. So it was that no place remained safe from being contaminated by them, as they raged with great cruelty, unchanging and relentless.' When the Vandali continued their assault in 439 (breaking, by the way, the peace that the Romani had granted them allowing a portion of Africa), this was the result: 'Where is Africa, which was for the whole world like a garden of delights?...Has our city not been punished cruelly because she did not want to draw a lesson from the correction handed out to the other provinces?...There is no one to bury the bodies of the dead, but horrible death has soiled all the streets and all the buildings, the whole city indeed. And think on the evils we are talking about! Mothers of families dragged off into captivity; pregnant women slaughtered...babies taken from the arms of their nurse and thrown to die on the street...The impious power of the barbarians has even demanded that those women who were once mistresses of many servants, have suddenly become the vile servants of barbarians...Every day there comes to our ears the cries of those who have lost in this assault a husband or a father.' As to being seen as 'liberators', we're talking about the same Vandali who forced so many of the people that they were theoretically 'liberating' to leave Africa that Valentinian had to enact legislation exempting these thousands and thousands of refugees from taxation and other obligations until they could get back on their feet, right?
The fact that they chopped the enormous taxes the empire levelled (to pay for the army) won them popular support.
No. Cutting taxes would have been suicidal for the Vandali, who were with one brief exception at war with the rest of the Mediterranean world for the remainder of their existence. Without trade between Africa and the rest of the Roman Empire, they had to maintain themselves by keeping production and taxation as high as they had been during the days of the Empire. Maintaining their pirate navy also cost a helluva lot of money, and even that didn't pay for itself; a lot of the funds they needed came from the land.
When Geiseric started to capture cities, it was always most defininitely a capture. The Vandals didn't loot or burn, because they intended to rule. Indeed, after capturing Cathage the Vandals could be said to have improved it's moral fibre somewhat (;)). Regardless of a partial freedom of religion thing (the Catholics really wern't into that) they banned bloodsports and reduced alcohol consumption. Huh.
Uh...source? Freedom of religion was definitely not the Vandal bag. Arian relations with the Trinitarians were as bad as Protestant-Catholic ones during the sixteenth century. The fact that Geiseric and his successors deliberately meddled with the Church leadership in Africa and either imprisoned, exiled, or killed anyone in their way, leads me to believe that he wasn't particularly interested in 'freedom of religion'.
Mainly they're so associated with destruction because of there 'vandalism' of the catholic church. Geiseric was an Arian, who exiled over 5000 catholic churchmen and stopped the persectution of Donatists and Pelgians. He basically replaced the Catholic orthodoxy with a leaner, far less wealthy one.
Actually, he wasn't all that nice to Donatists either. They didn't mesh too well with Arianism (or so I believe; Plotinus would be a much better person to ask about all this).

Interestingly enough in Greek Vandalos is synonymous with Hooligan with destroys property specifically monuments or with a person that has a predisposition at general destruction and usually for destroying such buildings. The act is named vandalism.

http://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B2%CE%AC%CE%BD%CE%B4%CE%B1%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%82

Actually it was introduced by others first it seems.

Yes, that's in English too. The name of the tribe is the genesis of the term.

The Romans were better engineers, but the Greeks were better architects, so my vote is for them.

Romans lasted 2 milennias, whilst Greece 2 centuries: need to say anymore?

The Romans were better engineers, but the Greeks were better architects, so my vote is for them.

Ehh? What a pile of crap...

Infraction for flaming. Pls back up your one-liner with arguments and do it politely, or don't say anything. Thanks. - KD

Actually, he wasn't all that nice to Donatists either. They didn't mesh too well with Arianism (or so I believe; Plotinus would be a much better person to ask about all this).

The Donatists didn't mesh at all with anyone. They were about as exclusivist as you can get. But you're right - they weren't Arian.

The Romans were better engineers, but the Greeks were better architects, so my vote is for them.

That's a joke, or what? :p I think the Romans were by far the best architects that existed in Europe until many centuries after they fell. :)

That's a joke, or what? :p I think the Romans were by far the best architects that existed in Europe until many centuries after they fell. :)
Not really. The Romans tended toward self-important, often somewhat tasteless facades. The Greeks were the true masters of expertly proportioned object buildings.
There are some excellent Roman buildings, I'll grant you, but many of these are feats of engineering, like the Pantheon. The Greeks produced things like the Parthenon, which were much more important in terms of architecture as an art. Don't get me wrong, the Romans were decent architects, but most everything they did they owe to the Greeks.

Not really. The Romans tended toward self-important, often somewhat tasteless facades. The Greeks were the true masters of expertly proportioned object buildings.
There are some excellent Roman buildings, I'll grant you, but many of these are feats of engineering, like the Pantheon. The Greeks produced things like the Parthenon, which were much more important in terms of architecture as an art. Don't get me wrong, the Romans were decent architects, but most everything they did they owe to the Greeks.

This is not correct. It's also true Greeks have extensively by Egyptians, Minoans and several middleastern civilizations. Does it makes they less importants? No IMHO.

Romans saw architecture more for a practical use, so they didn't care about beautiful as greeks.

Neither of them.I prefer Byzantine empire.

Then why did you dudes destroy it? :)

It's interesting to note that Mehmed II at least saw himself as the successor of the Byzantines.

Then why did you dudes destroy it? :)

Strictly speaking, Quildavyr did not destroy the Byzantine Empire.

Strictly speaking, Quildavyr did not destroy the Byzantine Empire.

Indeed i used the plural term "dudes" meaning "turks in general" not strictly Quildavyr.

Indeed i used the plural term "dudes" meaning "turks in general" not strictly Quildavyr.

Strictly speaking, the Turks in general did not destroy the Byzantine Empire. A few many, many years ago did.

Strictly speaking, the Turks in general did not destroy the Byzantine Empire. A few many, many years ago did.

Is this discussion important for this thread?

Is this discussion important for this thread?

no .

Indeed i used the plural term "dudes" meaning "turks in general" not strictly Quildavyr.

Whatever you meant, it was trolling. Please don't.

Then why did you dudes destroy it? :)

We have got many reasons;
-Out of curiousity
-Money
-Spreading Islam
-Need to take Constantinople for further advancement in Europa.
-For being more greater.

Strictly speaking, Quildavyr did not destroy the Byzantine Empire.

I would do it just for the reasons I listed above.

It's interesting to note that Mehmed II at least saw himself as the successor of the Byzantines.

Yeah.Actually the only difference between this two states is;Ottoman rulers were muslim and byzantine rulers were christians.And different ethnicity for that times.Today too little.

I would do it just for the reasons I listed above. And i would be the one to kill you if you attempted it.

But anyway that is off topic.

Yeah.Actually the only difference between this two states is;Ottoman rulers were muslim and byzantine rulers were christians.And different ethnicity for that times.Today too little.

No,there where one thousand and one differences between the two empires.

Anyway as we discussed the topic extensively how about the issue of which period of history of the Roman empire one prefers. The one after the western Roman empire fall and the Eastern Roman empire remained or the classical Rome.

I would do it just for the reasons I listed above.

I don't think the United Nations would like that. Look at what happened in 1974.

I don't think the United Nations would like that. Look at what happened in 1974.

Yes but UN only condemns it after it happens. The only ones who can stop it other the defending force are Powers or Superpowers.

And the USA and Soviet Union at the time did not dislike it so much as to attempt to avert it. A human catastrophe it was but they say , if there is a strong military pressence in the island and we still keep our bases (The Turks stopped at the point where there where the Brittish bases. Cyprus is the biggest aircraft carrier in the world) and we can still use Turkey for the middle east , that means we avert a war with two NATO powers because Turkey is s strong in the region it will not attempt to do anything else and Greece does not have the military to take it back , we keep our bases , and we remain pleased.


And the 200 000 people who lost their hopes the thousands of dead and raped was a non issue. It is really disgusting from you Quildavyr if you really meant that you would repeat another humanrights catastrophe for things you would not personally enjoy , which are territorial expansion of your country which respects human rights far less than any modern democracy should.

I really have no respect for a human being who does not give a damn for other humans.

Unless we lived at an age that War was the only way to survive , then i would have done the same i guess.

Iron working, certainly The forged ploughhares, steel blades and proper armour. The Romans thought that celtic smiths were magicians. Hell, they had even invented a harvesting machine. Pliny writes 'On the vast estates of Gaul very large frames fitted with teeth at the edge, and carried on two wheels, are driven through the corn by a team of oxen pushing from behind'. Bas-relief sculptures confirm his words, and a replica was built and tested in the 80's. It was basically a wheeled comb that beat off the ears of corn and deposited them into a container. It disappeared sometime between the second and third century AD, and harvesting became back-breaking manual labour with a sythe for another 1500 years.

I have some doubts about the steel blades. And I'm pretty sure that corn came from America, after 1500.

There has been, for the last 200 years or so, a tendency among some circles to glorify the Celts, with little proof to back it.


By 'leaving Iberia and Gaul relatively untouched' do you mean 'almost completely wiping out the imperial infrastructure there'? There's a famous quote from a Roman living in Gallia who was an eyewitness (Orientus): "All Gaul was filled with the smoke of a single funeral pyre." Moguntiacum was sacked, Augusta Treverorum was nearly leveled, Durocortorum was torched, and then from there they fanned out all over the Gallic countryside. They took two years to get across Gallia alone and by the time they were done, Gallia had been ruined so badly that after forty years of rebuilding and reconstruction it still wasn't entirely finished when the Huns rolled through. And then Hispania was hit badly too. Hydatius mentions 'disasters' that left many of the Hispanic inhabitants dead, allowing the Sweboz, Hasdingi, Alani, and Silingi to carve up Hispania into little mini-kingdoms. Prosper of Aquitaine says 'He who once turned the soil with a hundred plows, now labors to have just a pair of oxen; the man who often rode through splendid cities in his carriages now is sick and travels to the deserted countryside wearily and on foot. The merchant who used to cleave the seas with ten lofty ships now embarks on a tiny skiff, and is his own helmsman. Neither country nor city is as it was; everything rushes headlong to its end [...] with sword, plague, starvation, chains, cold and heat - in a thousand ways - a single death snatches off wretched humankind.'


There's also something strange with this: Why did the whole western empire collapse in the space of a century, when it was so much richer that the invaders? City walls were hastily erected to defend against the barbarians, apparently to no effect. Then during the 5th century most urban centers were abandoned (not simply burned: abandoned).
Several wealthy and well populated regions of the empire were periodically raided: Iberia occasionally from north Africa, Africa itself, Gallia and the whole Danube line regularly.

The Roman Empire's collapse is not unique. But is still seems strange that provinces such as those in Iberia and Africa (and Italy itself), with a few years to react to the 4th century invasions coming through Gallia, were unable or unwilling to put up a good fight, even on their own. Especially if the barbarians were indeed so damaging to the existing society. Could it it just be the effect of bad leadership and civil wars?

Greece = better.

No more threadjacking in this thread pls, or else I will close it and request you guys to start a new thread...

Yeah.Actually the only difference between this two states is;Ottoman rulers were muslim and byzantine rulers were christians.And different ethnicity for that times.Today too little.

I bet the Jews and Christians in the Empire think differently...

Infraction for continual threadjacking, and ignoring mod warning just above. - KD

Rome conquered Greece, so i guess romans were better in army and fleet.

But Greece was much, much more influential in philosophy, science, literature, music, architecture, and even religion.

In terms of benefits for civilization, Ancient Greece is no. 1. In terms of imperial splendor & military might, Ancient Rome is the king. The Ancient Romans are just following the Greeks.

Rome had a representative semi-democracy, but Athens had the real thing.

Rome had a representative semi-democracy, but Athens had the real thing.

It did in its arse. almost no one could vote.

But it's still better than no one voting at all. Besides, Athens was more democratic than the US until 1870.

But it's still better than no one voting at all. Besides, Athens was more democratic than the US until 1870.

IMO theres nothign denmocratic at all about only letting the rich vote, I dont consider it a lesser form of democracy, I dont see it as democracy at all. whats the difference bwteen letting only the rich make the decisions and letting only the party or the Royal family make all the decisions?

For ancient times, Athens was amazingly democratic. Also, they did let the poor vote.

But Greece was much, much more influential in philosophy, science, literature, music, architecture, and even religion.

You have to consider Greek golden age came 2 centuries before Rome's one. Greek made it before but not better. Roman empire was the main cause now we can read greek operas.

The Greek camp should address the point: Athens =/= Greece.

Athens =/= Greece.

:eek::eek::eek::confused:

The Greek camp should address the point: Athens =/= Greece.

This is in favor of the greece camp actually.

Can we not make broad generalisations that all Greek people are homosexual?

Infraction for trolling. Pls watch it. - KD

Can we not make broad generalisations that all Greek people are homosexual?

http://www.titoloonline.it/wp-content/uploads/800px-300.png

They agree ;)