Rome or Greece?

[RedRalph]

Which is better? All things considered

 

[scy12]

Ancient Greece Obviously.

 

[kulade]

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

 

[Dreadnought]

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?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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

 

[Dachs]

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.

 

[Mirc]

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

 

[Dachs]

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.

 

[scy12]

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.

 

[Dreadnought]

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.

 

[Dachs]

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

But it was the Roman Empire.

 

[Dreadnought]

But it was the Roman Empire.

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.

 

[civ_king]

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

 

[scy12]

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.

 

[Dreadnought]

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.

 

[scy12]

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.

 

[Dachs]

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

Not until 1054. 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.

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.

 

[scy12]

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

 

[Dachs]

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.

 

[scy12]

Would you cheer Seleukos ?