Romans, not so successful in the long run

ScumLord

I know it's been the best part of 2000 years since the Romans were at their peak but I think we do have the leftovers from other European cultures in our society today and Europe got to go back to it's more natural state after the Roman empire collapsed.

We're nothing like the Romans in any way, theres very little of their language left in use, their numeral system has been more or less completely abandoned, their social order was abandoned as soon as possible, their religions were abandoned completely. I think their influence has been completely over rated in Europe.

When you compare the different tribes around Europe at the same time as the Romans who had a much more equality, women had rights to divorce, sometimes becoming the leaders, children were given the same rights as religious leaders due to being innocent (the Romans literally threw unwanted babies on the rubbish tip), the elderly were looked after, the disabled were looked after (rather than also being thrown on the rubbish tip at birth).

Rather than all roads leading to Rome, the other cultures around Europe had a road network that just went places people needed to get to which shows they had important trade routes throughout Europe. The art used in the celtic tribes is still in use today, the languages are still alive and in use, the music is still in use and our laws are more similar to celtic tribes than anything the Romans did.

The fact we think of the rest of Europe as celtic shows that these separate tribes shared a lot of culture peacefully.

If anything the Romans put a halt to culture and science in Europe, they did indeed spread culture throughout Europe but it was a horrible culture and once Europe got the chance it tried to revert back to a power system that was more spread out and representative of indigenous people. It took hundreds of years of fighting but overall I think Roman lifestyle just didn't suit Europe at all.

Victor

Empires come and go. Theirs' was rather large and long lasting.

You wrote your post with the Latin alphabet.

ScumLord

Victor wrote: »

Empires come and go. Theirs' was rather large and long lasting.

It changed and betrayed itself a number of times though. Starting as a republic assimilating all the best technologies of the time through a fairly open society. Then became a dictatorship wiping out cultures left right and centre. Then split up and abandoned it's roman capitol, then became the centre for a religion that they originally despised.

You wrote your post with the Latin alphabet.

True.

Cossax

ScumLord wrote: »

I know it's been the best part of 2000 years since the Romans were at their peak but I think we do have the leftovers from other European cultures in our society today and Europe got to go back to it's more natural state after the Roman empire collapsed.

We're nothing like the Romans in any way, theres very little of their language left in use, their numeral system has been more or less completely abandoned, their social order was abandoned as soon as possible, their religions were abandoned completely. I think their influence has been completely over rated in Europe.

When you compare the different tribes around Europe at the same time as the Romans who had a much more equality, women had rights to divorce, sometimes becoming the leaders, children were given the same rights as religious leaders due to being innocent (the Romans literally threw unwanted babies on the rubbish tip), the elderly were looked after, the disabled were looked after (rather than also being thrown on the rubbish tip at birth).

Rather than all roads leading to Rome, the other cultures around Europe had a road network that just went places people needed to get to which shows they had important trade routes throughout Europe. The art used in the celtic tribes is still in use today, the languages are still alive and in use, the music is still in use and our laws are more similar to celtic tribes than anything the Romans did.

The fact we think of the rest of Europe as celtic shows that these separate tribes shared a lot of culture peacefully.

If anything the Romans put a halt to culture and science in Europe, they did indeed spread culture throughout Europe but it was a horrible culture and once Europe got the chance it tried to revert back to a power system that was more spread out and representative of indigenous people. It took hundreds of years of fighting but overall I think Roman lifestyle just didn't suit Europe at all.

About a billion people today speak languages descended from Latin.

Billions of people also live under a descendant of codified Roman law in the form of the Civil law system.

Their empire lasted the bones of 2000 years and bequeathed to Europe many ancient texts/knowledge to Europe on it's collapse and was, IIRC, one of numerous factors in the birth of the Renaissance.

Though they didn't found Christianity, they certainly helped its spread and made it the official religion of the empire.

Themselves and the Greeks have inspired fine architecture and public buildings all across the world.

I'm sure someone else could continue, they had a massive impact on our modern world but people don't always consider exactly how.

ScumLord

Cossax wrote: »

About a billion people today speak languages descended from Latin.

The languages spoken today are a mish mash of many different ancient languages, Modern place names have gaelic and viking influences too.

Billions of people also live under a descendant of codified Roman law in the form of the Civil law system.

Every civilization had it's laws I think over all too much credit is given to the Romans simply because they wrote everything down.

Their empire lasted the bones of 2000 years and bequeathed to Europe many ancient texts/knowledge to Europe on it's collapse and was, IIRC, one of numerous factors in the birth of the Renaissance.

It's true that the Romans in particular inspired that creative explosion but that's just because it was mostly Roman stuff left over and the Romans were taking a lot of inspiration from conquests rather than being creative themselves.

Though they didn't found Christianity, they certainly helped its spread and made it the official religion of the empire.

The empire enabled Christianity to spread but that happened in spite of the Romans rather than being helped by them.

Themselves and the Greeks have inspired fine architecture and public buildings all across the world.

They have but we could have had much more inspiration from the past if the Romans hadn't raised other cultures to the ground.

I'm sure someone else could continue, they had a massive impact on our modern world but people don't always consider exactly how.

They did have a big impact but I think they've been overrated, other cultures were being just as advanced and perhaps more civilised by modern standards.

JuliusCaesar

ScumLord wrote: »

The languages spoken today are a mish mash of many different ancient languages, Modern place names have gaelic and viking influences too.

Let's see: Romance languages are French, Spanish, Portugese, Italian. All descended from Latin. Not much Gaelic or Viking in them!

Fox_In_Socks

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Let's see: Romance languages are French, Spanish, Portugese, Italian. All descended from Latin. Not much Gaelic or Viking in them!

And Romanian, the most Roman of languages.:pac:

ScumLord

They gave us a particularly poor calendar too. There were much more accurate calendars throughout history that weren't based around mythical gods or vain emperors. The Barbarians to the north of Rome could much more accurately predict the movement of the planets. Their calendar had more in common with a computer program than a simple chart with the days and weeks on it.

Wibbs

ScumLord wrote: »

Every civilization had it's laws I think over all too much credit is given to the Romans simply because they wrote everything down.

Without codifying laws into texts they tend to die off.

It's true that the Romans in particular inspired that creative explosion but that's just because it was mostly Roman stuff left over and the Romans were taking a lot of inspiration from conquests rather than being creative themselves.

Actually they were very creative, especially in engineering. While roads existed before Rome, they were glorified dirt tracks for the most part. They established a paved road network with bridges and tunnels throughout Europe, some of which are still in use today. Concrete another invention of theirs and we didn't have it again until the 18th century.

They have but we could have had much more inspiration from the past if the Romans hadn't raised other cultures to the ground.

They didn't raze other cultures to the ground for the most part. Conquered yes, but often brought other cultures good ideas into the roman mindset. Religions for one, but also innovations. One interesting thing about Roman cities, Rome in particular was there were no ghettos along racial cultural lines. So long as you considered yourself Roman, you could have Greek, Jew, Ethiopian, Gaul and Italian living cheek by jowl on the same street. Few cities today or since could claim that. Quite the number of Caesars weren't Italian. Non racist imperials is a novel concept.

They did have a big impact but I think they've been overrated, other cultures were being just as advanced and perhaps more civilised by modern standards.

In Europe? Who? "Barbarians" were a mixed lot, mostly herders, some migratory. Yes they did have some serious cultural coolness, but if you were to go back in time Rome would feel far far more "modern" to you.

I know it's been the best part of 2000 years since the Romans were at their peak but I think we do have the leftovers from other European cultures in our society today and Europe got to go back to it's more natural state after the Roman empire collapsed.

Well that "natural" state didn't last long as a couple of centuries later people were trying to rebuild Rome again, Charlemagne one of the first.

their religions were abandoned completely.

Christianity is a Roman religion. Though started by Jews, it got washed through the GrecoRoman culture and became Roman. Hell it's called the Roman Catholic church for a reason. They even took the heirarchy and political thinking from their forebears. And one could well argue that Rome survived all the way down to the reformation as a shadow empire in the church. Without the church's nod kings weren't crowned, armies weren't blessed etc. The church was an empire without their own swords being used(mostly).

When you compare the different tribes around Europe at the same time as the Romans who had a much more equality, women had rights to divorce, sometimes becoming the leaders, children were given the same rights as religious leaders due to being innocent (the Romans literally threw unwanted babies on the rubbish tip), the elderly were looked after, the disabled were looked after (rather than also being thrown on the rubbish tip at birth).

Rome instituted one of the first tries at state welfare, including subsidised food and housing. The disgarded babies is a bit of hyperbole. The Greeks, in particular the Spartans were more active on that score. Indeed the alimenta acts were aimed at clothing and feeding orphans of Rome

Rather than all roads leading to Rome, the other cultures around Europe had a road network that just went places people needed to get to which shows they had important trade routes throughout Europe.

Eh no. The all roads lead to Rome is a metaphorical saying not a geographical one. They laid over 50,000 miles of road networks throughout their empire and they went all over the place. They also had a postal/messaging system running alongside that could get a letter from Hadrians wall in Scotland to Rome in under three weeks. The emperor knew of Pompeii going bang the afternoon it happened.

The art used in the celtic tribes is still in use today,

As is the Greek/Roman. More so as far as art history of Europe is concerned.

The fact we think of the rest of Europe as celtic shows that these separate tribes shared a lot of culture peacefully.

Problem is you can't as "celtic" means so many things. The Romans themselves couldn't seem to make up their mind as to where the Keltoi were from and where they lived.

If anything the Romans put a halt to culture and science in Europe, they did indeed spread culture throughout Europe but it was a horrible culture and once Europe got the chance it tried to revert back to a power system that was more spread out and representative of indigenous people.

As I pointed out not quite. Many attempts have been made in the interim for a united Rome type Europe(one could argue we're still at it with the EU). All have failed. The other part you're missing is how many many people didn't require the point of a sword to nod the head to Rome. They saw how advantageous it was and embraced the culture lock stock and villa. This happened pretty much everywhere Rome went. Even the Roman army couldn't have contained such a huge empire is the majority didn't want to be Roman. As for science etc, when Rome fell we lost concrete, pottery stopped being made for a couple of centuries, laws fell away, building in stone tailed right off. That list is long.

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Let's see: Romance languages are French, Spanish, Portugese, Italian. All descended from Latin. Not much Gaelic or Viking in them!

Well you would say that.

ScumLord

Wibbs wrote: »

Without codifying laws into texts they tend to die off.

Or get wiped out when the Romans show up.

Actually they were very creative, especially in engineering. While roads existed before Rome, they were glorified dirt tracks for the most part. They established a paved road network with bridges and tunnels throughout Europe, some of which are still in use today. Concrete another invention of theirs and we didn't have it again until the 18th century.

The none Roman roads where a bit more than dirt tracks, they were raised timber roads designed to move wheeled vehicles across all kinds of terrain including bogland. True, Roman roads were more engineered but Roman roads weren't as wide and were for transporting troops more than anything else.

They didn't raze other cultures to the ground for the most part. Conquered yes, but often brought other cultures good ideas into the roman mindset.

Romans had the popular culture but they hunted down and eradicated anything they considered to be a treat to the Roman way of life, like the druids.

One interesting thing about Roman cities, Rome in particular was there were no ghettos along racial cultural lines. So long as you considered yourself Roman, you could have Greek, Jew, Ethiopian, Gaul and Italian living cheek by jowl on the same street. Few cities today or since could claim that. Quite the number of Caesars weren't Italian. Non racist imperials is a novel concept.

Yeah, you could easily be a pleb in Rome but that was about as far as you got. All these other cultures did have to be Roman first and could then do their other religion on their own time. That's what caused the conflict with the Christians, it's not that they disliked the Christians it's just the Christians broke Roman law by not sacrificing.

I don't know that it's completely fair to say they were accepting, they just took ownership of everything and didn't really care much about what the slaves and plebs did once they fell before Rome.

In Europe? Who? "Barbarians" were a mixed lot, mostly herders, some migratory. Yes they did have some serious cultural coolness, but if you were to go back in time Rome would feel far far more "modern" to you.

Some think the reason the Romans spent so much time attacking the Germans was because they wanted the Germans calendar, it was much more accurate and predicted most interstellar activity that was so important to ancient peoples.

Christianity is a Roman religion. Though started by Jews, it got washed through the GrecoRoman culture and became Roman.

They latched onto the new popular religion, there's no real evidence they believed or practiced any of it.

Rome instituted one of the first tries at state welfare, including subsidised food and housing.

You had welfare in most Celtic tribes too, children had rights, the lame had to be cared for by their families or have someone appointed as a guardian. Romes feed the plebs bread because those people had few other places access to food. The elite had everything tied up and used their charity to keep the plebs in line.

Problem is you can't as "celtic" means so many things. The Romans themselves couldn't seem to make up their mind as to where the Keltoi were from and where they lived.

Yes, the "celtic" people were all separate tribes that had freedom to act independently. People thought they were one people because they shared so much culture and art. But rather than this showing they were one people it instead shows they had a lot of trade happening between them. The roads you find in Ireland were very similar to the ones you find in Germany showing their trading everything from art to construction ideas. That's just like modern Europe, independant but on trading terms.

They saw how advantageous it was and embraced the culture lock stock and villa.

Just like the Irish kings saw the potential from siding with an English king. It doesn't mean the rest of the country wanted in. One noble could invite the Germans in to wipe out the competition and then act as the local leader with the power of Rome behind them.

As for science etc, when Rome fell we lost concrete, pottery stopped being made for a couple of centuries, laws fell away, building in stone tailed right off. That list is long.

In Europe, right next door in the middle east and further into China things were still progressing nicely. Europe essentially got cut of from the civilised world. Mostly down to Rome but I suppose if Rome hadn't been there we would have been conquered by the Muslims.

Rome was part of a huge progression at the time, they took influence from all around them, that was their strength in the beginning, as they progressed they stopped developing and became stagnant in their own grandeur and fought progress.

Victor

Wibbs wrote: »

One interesting thing about Roman cities, Rome in particular was there were no ghettos along racial cultural lines. So long as you considered yourself Roman, you could have Greek, Jew, Ethiopian, Gaul and Italian living cheek by jowl on the same street. Few cities today or since could claim that. Quite the number of Caesars weren't Italian. Non racist imperials is a novel concept.

'Racism' is a narrow concept. Think of it as a part of bigotry. Much modern racism in the west is bigotry against the weaker (and lesser so against the more powerful), who are often of a different socio-ethnic group.

In Roman times the bigotry was the wealthy -v- citizen -v- slave.

Wibbs

ScumLord wrote: »

Or get wiped out when the Romans show up.

Show an historical example of that?

The none Roman roads where a bit more than dirt tracks, they were raised timber roads designed to move wheeled vehicles across all kinds of terrain including bogland. True, Roman roads were more engineered but Roman roads weren't as wide and were for transporting troops more than anything else.

Yes there were examples of such raised roadways, but nothing close to the scale of the Roman enterprise. Yes the Roman roads meant military forces and messages could get through faster, but so could trade. Trade was incredibly important to Rome and Romans. The troops protected that as much as anything.

Romans had the popular culture but they hunted down and eradicated anything they considered to be a treat to the Roman way of life, like the druids.

Like the druids were saints. They were a very strong and powerful elite that kept the "not invented here" principle well protected.

Yeah, you could easily be a pleb in Rome but that was about as far as you got.

Eh no. Read your classical history. Tacitus noted(somewhat sniffily) that by the time of Nero, a large proportion of senators, generals, governers and higher ups came from freed slave stock, much of it recent, never mind plebian free Roman stock. At least one emperor, Pertinax, who succeeded(kicked out) Commodus was the first generation son of a freed slave. Slavery in the Roman world was not the simplistic, black and white social standing it had been before and later became. With hard work and guile and luck a "pleb" could rise from little to much in one generation and his or her heirs could rise even further. Roman society at many times in it's history was quite socially fluid.

All these other cultures did have to be Roman first and could then do their other religion on their own time.

Romans(until Christianity), weren't particularly interested in people's private religion. While Romans generally followed a Roman religion, nicked and fiddled with from the Greeks, it was far less the prescribed state thing it would later become(and even then a separation occurred unlike in the later Islam.

That's what caused the conflict with the Christians, it's not that they disliked the Christians it's just the Christians broke Roman law by not sacrificing.

Partially, or again not that simple. They also needed a scapegoat at the time and the weak in power weird beard Christians were a charm for it. The sacrifice thing was just one of the excuses. IIRC another was the spread rumour that they started the great fire of Rome.

They latched onto the new popular religion, there's no real evidence they believed or practiced any of it.

Eh no again. They made it the popular religion. Even by Constantines time it was a minority faith. Him latching onto it made it official and continued the Romanisation of the originally Jewish faith/sect, hence Christians aren't required to avoid pork or get bits of their mickeys lopped off. To the Greek/Roman world both would have been considered barbarous. Even today try getting bacon away from an Italian and prepare to get hurt.

You had welfare in most Celtic tribes too, children had rights, the lame had to be cared for by their families or have someone appointed as a guardian. Romes feed the plebs bread because those people had few other places access to food. The elite had everything tied up and used their charity to keep the plebs in line.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. The difference was in Rome(at various times) these were official government programmes written down as law.

Yes, the "celtic" people were all separate tribes that had freedom to act independently. People thought they were one people because they shared so much culture and art. But rather than this showing they were one people it instead shows they had a lot of trade happening between them. The roads you find in Ireland were very similar to the ones you find in Germany showing their trading everything from art to construction ideas. That's just like modern Europe, independant but on trading terms.

The Celts traded with Rome and the rest of the classical world too, in between battles and stuff. Quite a bit of the celtic art in or near Roman influence showed that influence in their art and later it went the other way when we in Ireland listening to the echoes of the classical world went to town on our art.

Just like the Irish kings saw the potential from siding with an English king. It doesn't mean the rest of the country wanted in. One noble could invite the Germans in to wipe out the competition and then act as the local leader with the power of Rome behind them.

Read up on Roman Britain after the invasion dust settled. The populace took to Roman ways with great vigour and as these things go added local spice to the pot.

In Europe, right next door in the middle east and further into China things were still progressing nicely. Europe essentially got cut of from the civilised world. Mostly down to Rome but I suppose if Rome hadn't been there we would have been conquered by the Muslims.

Again no. I think you're getting your timelines mixed up here. The middle east had yet to see Islam. Islam is a 7th/8th century innovation/culture/empire that happened long after the western Empire had fallen and Rome was mostly ruins. The Eastern empire was still going on in the guise of Byzantium, but that's another story. Secondly Rome had trade and cultural links with the east. That;s where the fancy types got their silk and even the plebs got their spices from. Roman Europe was not cut off. It would have been more cut off if it had been a rough collection of various warring tribes Celt or no.

Rome was part of a huge progression at the time, they took influence from all around them, that was their strength in the beginning, as they progressed they stopped developing and became stagnant in their own grandeur and fought progress.

Only towards their end.

Victor wrote: »

'Racism' is a narrow concept. Think of it as a part of bigotry. Much modern racism in the west is bigotry against the weaker (and lesser so against the more powerful), who are often of a different socio-ethnic group.

In Roman times the bigotry was the wealthy -v- citizen -v- slave.

Yes and no, but as I point out above those lines were quite blurred in Rome and advancement was achievable and often was achieved.

Hey I am NOT saying the Roman way was all sweetness and light, no bloody way, however the notion that it held Europe back or was backward compared to other European cultures is more than a bit of a stretch.

I would say that we should be very grateful Rome existed and bloody grateful it fell. Why the latter? If it hadn't we'd be more like China. China is less a country than an empire and empires like that do become mired in tradition and stagnant as they pass maturity and end up in old age. If they're not killed off at that stage you get centralised stagnation on a crazy scale, just like China was until the 20th century. When Europeans went in in any numbers they found a feudal near medieval society ever looking inward. Rome falling saved us from that, yet it's birth and growth has left us with the best tools to build the powerhouse of economics, culture and technology that Europe was to become(basically through internal competition).