What have the Romans ever done for us

Coillte_Bhoy

stoneill

Sanitation?

brevity

Aqueduct

begbysback

Marcus Aurelius

colm_mcm

Got Chelsea a good few trophies.

completedit

Provided inspiration for a rhetorical question

Graces7

Saint Patrick.. indirectly

killanena

Connected their empire with roads, some of which are still used today.
Spread Christianity to Europe. Up to you if that's a good or bad thing.
They didn't invent but mastered concrete, even for underwater use.
Romans invented books, prior people used tablets or scrolls.
We still use the caladener Julius Caeser introduced today.

Goodshape

Brought peace?

Harry Palmr

Literally nothing directly in Ireland, what did they called this land - Infectum Hibernia? Frigus Insula ?

Stevieluvsye

Graces7 wrote: »

Saint Patrick.. indirectly

Very good Grace

And i wonder do most know that we (Ireland) in theory saved Britannia in the dark ages by introducing Christianity against that horrid paganism the Saxons brought along

Coillte_Bhoy

How the hell do you embed a youtube video on here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOfffyn4SWI&feature=youtu.be

Harry Palmr

[youtvbe]copy and paste the collection of alpha-numeric characters here[/youtube]

Coillte_Bhoy

Harry Palmr wrote: »

[youtvbe]copy and paste the collection of alpha-numeric characters here[/youtube]

I did that. Got this message



Cant post an image now either. I put this between the img tags but nothing showing up

https://imgur.com/a/l2CXdDl

begbysback

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

How the hell do you embed a youtube video on here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOfffyn4SWI&feature=youtu.be

Don’t think you can give the romans credit for embedding videos

Skylinehead

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

I did that. Got this message



Cant post an image now either. I put this between the img tags but nothing showing up

https://imgur.com/a/l2CXdDl

Fixed it, took the full URL without the feature thing.

beertons

A Roman walks into a pub, holds up 2 fingers, and says to the barman, 5 pints please.

Wibbs

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

And i wonder do most know that we (Ireland) in theory saved Britannia in the dark ages by introducing Christianity against that horrid paganism the Saxons brought along

Well... Christianity was already in England. Patrick's dad was a deacon and his uncle or grandfather, can't recall which was a priest of bishop. Where do people think he got the faith from in the first place? Christianity was already in Ireland before Patrick too. There are even clear records of an earlier pope sending a lad called Palladus(sp?) to the Irish believers(which suggests there were already a few believers in the place). Some of Patrick's life could be mixed up with the earlier guy.

In England Christianity gets an even later "official" start with Augustine. He's the boyo that supposedly brought Christianity to England, yet he was at least two hundred years too late. There had been small pockets of Christianity when the Romans finally left the place. Patrick later on shows it stuck. Then there was the massive influence of the Irish church in the northern parts(which British history likes to play down). Augustine's real purpose was to take "official" Roman Christianity to the place and cut the influence of the Celtic church which had its own way of doing things, often to the consternation of Rome.

corner of hells

Noses and candles.

Stevieluvsye

Wibbs wrote: »

Well... Christianity was already in England. Patrick's dad was a deacon and his uncle or grandfather, can't recall which was a priest of bishop. Where do people think he got the faith from in the first place? Christianity was already in Ireland before Patrick too. There are even clear records of an earlier pope sending a lad called Palladus(sp?) to the Irish believers(which suggests there were already a few believers in the place). Some of Patrick's life could be mixed up with the earlier guy.

In England Christianity gets an even later "official" start with Augustine. He's the boyo that supposedly brought Christianity to England, yet he was at least two hundred years too late. There had been small pockets of Christianity when the Romans finally left the place. Patrick later on shows it stuck. Then there was the massive influence of the Irish church in the northern parts(which British history likes to play down). Augustine's real purpose was to take "official" Roman Christianity to the place and cut the influence of the Celtic church which had its own way of doing things, often to the consternation of Rome.

I was of the opinion that Patrick converted the pagans to Christianity, now that's not to say there were not pockets of Christians in Ireland but listen i'm getting my knowledge from dan Snow doc i watch the other night!

Graces7

Wibbs wrote: »

Well... Christianity was already in England. Patrick's dad was a deacon and his uncle or grandfather, can't recall which was a priest of bishop. Where do people think he got the faith from in the first place? Christianity was already in Ireland before Patrick too. There are even clear records of an earlier pope sending a lad called Palladus(sp?) to the Irish believers(which suggests there were already a few believers in the place). Some of Patrick's life could be mixed up with the earlier guy.

In England Christianity gets an even later "official" start with Augustine. He's the boyo that supposedly brought Christianity to England, yet he was at least two hundred years too late. There had been small pockets of Christianity when the Romans finally left the place. Patrick later on shows it stuck. Then there was the massive influence of the Irish church in the northern parts(which British history likes to play down). Augustine's real purpose was to take "official" Roman Christianity to the place and cut the influence of the Celtic church which had its own way of doing things, often to the consternation of Rome.

which was a disaster regretted to this day. Rome and all its …..the celtic church was pure and strong.

Wibbs

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

I was of the opinion that Patrick converted the pagans to Christianity, now that's not to say there were not pockets of Christians in Ireland but listen i'm getting my knowledge from dan Snow doc i watch the other night!

Which being English in origin tended to follow the same narratives. Reality was more complex than that. He had a larger effect than earlier Christian missionaries and groups and converted more alright, but Christianity itself would have been an already known entity when he showed up. Just as it was in England Wales and Scotland long before the official potted history tells us. Like I said Patrick's English family were Christians. If it was the much later Augustine or even the Celtic Church that brought the religion to England they couldn't have been.

Ireland was unsual in that it was one of the very few places where the religion was in play outside what had been the Roman empire. Patrick's mission was also unusual in that it was again one outside those older borders, though as I say there had been an earlier missionary sent here by Rome.

topper75

Good show on PBS last night coincidentally about their involvement in Scotland. Many of us, and indeed many Brits, think it all stopped at Hadrian's wall.

But it all spanned out over 3 emperors in fact, one of whom was of course the bould Hadrian. Antoninus built another well into modern day Scotland's central belt. At one stage they almost got up to Aberdeen or thereabouts, but never really penetrated the highlands. Too tricky for moving huge numbers of soldiers in an asymmetric war! Sniff of South Armagh off the place!

What ultimately stopped their total domination of the island (it was expressly written down and admitted as a desire) it seems was legions being called away at key times to more pressing action (suppressing rebellions in Romania and the eastern empire).

I think it is was this Roman problem that might have ultimately spared Ireland.

Wibbs

Graces7 wrote: »

Rome and all its …..the celtic church was pure and strong.

Well it was subtly different. More monastic and church power resided more with Abbots and Abbesses rather than bishops and the Roman hierarchy. This didn't go down well with Rome, particularly having women in such positions of church power. The date of Easter was also different which had Rome irritated. The Celtic church was also anti slavery, something the Roman church avoided dealing with entirely. Patrick having been a slave directly addressed and condemned the practice, one of the first in European history to do so. Doubly so as the Irish were famous for being slavers and slave owners. Indeed Augustine was sent to England after the pope saw two Anglo children for sale in the Roman slave market. He made a lame latin joke about how these Angles looked like Angels* and must be brought to Christ. What is not said is of some import. The pope was swanning around slave markets. Slave markets which would have been under his control as de facto ruler of the city. He didn't free the two kids and no comment was made about the morality of the practice. Some of the clerics were married too, though this was common even in the Roman church in isolated communities.




*maybe that's where facebook posts get it from..

Your Face

For centuries they kept Europe safe from the Germans and other barbarians.
They knew, they knew what was up.

Markcheese

https://youtu.be/ptfmAY6M6aA

Its probably been seen before loads, but it always has me in stitches...

Montage of Feck

Goodshape wrote: »

Brought peace?

Pax Romana

Graces7

Wibbs wrote: »

Well it was subtly different. More monastic and church power resided more with Abbots and Abbesses rather than bishops and the Roman hierarchy. This didn't go down well with Rome, particularly having women in such positions of church power. The date of Easter was also different which had Rome irritated. The Celtic church was also anti slavery, something the Roman church avoided dealing with entirely. Patrick having been a slave directly addressed and condemned the practice, one of the first in European history to do so. Doubly so as the Irish were famous for being slavers and slave owners. Indeed Augustine was sent to England after the pope saw two Anglo children for sale in the Roman slave market. He made a lame latin joke about how these Angles looked like Angels* and must be brought to Christ. What is not said is of some import. The pope was swanning around slave markets. Slave markets which would have been under his control as de facto ruler of the city. He didn't free the two kids and no comment was made about the morality of the practice. Some of the clerics were married too, though this was common even in the Roman church in isolated communities.

Anecdotes ! Stories!

The Celtic Church was Celtic, not set on world oppression as Rome has been. I am a monastic historian with special focus on Ireland

Rome killed a great and sincere faith. For political power.

Celtic Christianity is undergoing a meaningful revival .

Go to Skellig Michael, m Riesk, DIngle peninsula or High Island off Claddaghduff and see the work of the Celtic Church who lived in beehive huts among the people they served and taught. Far nearer to Jesus Christ.

Over and out from me on this. After the last century of Rome in Ireland... No more

topper75

Graces7 wrote: »

Anecdotes ! Stories!

The Celtic Church was Celtic

The church in Ireland before the imposition of Roman orthodoxy was more likely Coptic than anything else.

There is no such thing as Celtic anything.

The term was plucked from obscurity in recent centuries and used by people with either separatist agendas against centralised London government (or even negatively as part of an anti-Gaelic/Welsh agenda by that same government) as a descriptor of anyone in Britain or Ireland that was there prior to Romanisation. The La Tène culture is also called Celtic but they are no more related to the modern Irish people genetically than say Basques or Poles. Caeser referred to Celts in Gaul but he was no historian, merely a rampaging warlord seeking to impress political backers back home with his campaign reports. The La Tène folks may have the same patterns on shields/vessels/broaches as those unearthed here. But patterns are easily copied. I live in Ireland - born and bred. I imagine with the absolute dominance of Gaelic surnames on both sides of my family as far as I can trace back that I have a strong claim to Irishness. I would never see myself as Celtic.
It is a vague and inaccurate term; I would discourage its use.

Ipso

It’s a useful modern term used to group people based on broad language and cultural similarities, just no one back then saw themself as part of a monolithic group doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use it in an appropriate context.

Say my name

A bit about the Celtic church not being oppressors. Well I'd say they oppressed the druids (snakes, Sun and moon worshippers) fairly well.

What did the Romans do for Ireland?
They pushed out the last druids from Wales into Ireland or killed them on the spot.

Pherekydes

Caesar salad! :pac:

The Pale.

Wibbs

topper75 wrote: »

The church in Ireland before the imposition of Roman orthodoxy was more likely Coptic than anything else.

Well it certainly shared similarities, the monastic for one, the sage in the wilderness apart for another. There may well have been some contact as papyrus has been found here from the period, which would have to travel a long way to get here. Then again Lapis was used as a colour and that originated in Afghanistan.

There is no such thing as Celtic anything.

The term was plucked from obscurity in recent centuries and used by people with either separatist agendas against centralised London government (or even negatively as part of an anti-Gaelic/Welsh agenda by that same government) as a descriptor of anyone in Britain or Ireland that was there prior to Romanisation. The La T culture is also called Celtic but they are no more related to the modern Irish people genetically than say Basques or Poles. Caeser referred to Celts in Gaul but he was no historian, merely a rampaging warlord seeking to impress political backers back home with his campaign reports. The La T folks may have the same patterns on shields/vessels/broaches as those unearthed here. But patterns are easily copied. I live in Ireland - born and bred. I imagine with the absolute dominance of Gaelic surnames on both sides of my family as far as I can trace back that I have a strong claim to Irishness. I would never see myself as Celtic.
It is a vague and inaccurate term; I would discourage its use.

Aye it's far too broad. Even the La Tene patterns are subtly different to the local ones here and what evolved here at the high point of "celtic" art in metalwork, stone and parchment is pretty unique, likely because it was left alone for longer. Never mind that a group like the Saxons not seen as "Celts" have very similar "celtic" artistic styles. As did the Scandinavians. That swirly knotted very complex patterns seen across Europe and for a very long time can only really be differentiated overall(naturally there are some stylistic differences locally and across time) by not being of the Classical world in nature.

Which might be partly why we mark it out as one type. Western/European culture has always looked to the Classical world as one whole(it wasn't) and the source with it and needed a counterpart for the rest of the place that could wear a simple hat of identity. Even then it was western European in nature. Take Rome itself. The Fall of Rome is seen as a huge deal and then the so called Dark Ages and then the very slow return, renaissance to the classical world anew. Only problem with that is only the western empire fell. Rome continued on in Byzantium for the guts of a thousand years more thanks very much and they even called themselves "Romans" right to the end(never mind the "Rome" survived on in many ways in the Roman Catholic church). In most folks minds in western Europe and her colonies Byzantium is barely a footnote in the chronology of Europe. Christianity followed a similar schism along east/west lines too, with Orthodoxy in the East and the Roman Church in the West.

Wibbs

Say my name wrote: »

A bit about the Celtic church not being oppressors. Well I'd say they oppressed the druids (snakes, Sun and moon worshippers) fairly well.

Well, not really, or the annals are fairly thin in oppression of the previous faiths. There was certainly no early version of the inquisition that's for sure. They did replace it for the most part, though brought much of the old traditions into the new, some of which we see down to today or very recently. Things like "holy" wells and trees. The bardic tradition certainly kept going, only it turned from oral to the written. The culture went from almost entirely oral tradition to literal in not much more than a couple of generations. Even from the fragments that have survived it's clear they had the force of first love for writing considering their output and what they were writing down. Including "Pagan" works, both local and Classical. Again something the Roman church wasn't too happy about. When John Scottus(the baldy lad on the old fiver) showed up in Italy the pope's expert on Greek was astonished and not a little pissed off that this "barbarian" from the ends of the earth knew more Greek than he did. Interesting chap was oul John. And all around mad bastid. Brunhilda, the fat lass in Wagner operas put a price on his head because of some insult or other. He wrote a book on philosophy that was initially welcomed until someone sat down and actually read it and went WTF!! and was promptly banned by the Roman Church.

How did they replace the old religins? By converting local leaders to the new faith, by bringing literacy, which helped in education and commerce, which made people wealthier. As did the settelments that grew around the new monasteries. The Irish church was also know for free education. If you made it to a monastery you would be fed, watered and educated. Something the Roman church also wasn't too keen on. They did similar when they went to Scotland. One effect of that was the extinction of the Pictish language(s), replaced by Irish/Scots Gaelic.

Say my name

Wibbs wrote: »

Well, not really, or the annals are fairly thin in oppression of the previous faiths. There was certainly no early version of the inquisition that's for sure. They did replace it for the most part, though brought much of the old traditions into the new, some of which we see down to today or very recently. Things like "holy" wells and trees. The bardic tradition certainly kept going, only it turned from oral to the written. The culture went from almost entirely oral tradition to literal in not much more than a couple of generations. Even from the fragments that have survived it's clear they had the force of first love for writing considering their output and what they were writing down. Including "Pagan" works, both local and Classical. Again something the Roman church wasn't too happy about. When John Scottus(the baldy lad on the old fiver) showed up in Italy the pope's expert on Greek was astonished and not a little pissed off that this "barbarian" from the ends of the earth knew more Greek than he did. Interesting chap was oul John. And all around mad bastid. Brunhilda, the fat lass in Wagner operas put a price on his head because of some insult or other. He wrote a book on philosophy that was initially welcomed until someone sat down and actually read it and went WTF!! and was promptly banned by the Roman Church.

How did they replace the old religins? By converting local leaders to the new faith, by bringing literacy, which helped in education and commerce, which made people wealthier. As did the settelments that grew around the new monasteries. The Irish church was also know for free education. If you made it to a monastery you would be fed, watered and educated. Something the Roman church also wasn't too keen on. They did similar when they went to Scotland. One effect of that was the extinction of the Pictish language(s), replaced by Irish/Scots Gaelic.

I'd say there had to be some sort of resistance from the druidic class. Maybe there was some amalgamation and conversion of druids I couldn't tell you I wasn't around then.
But here's a tale from a tourism blog might interest you. :pac:

http://www.outdoorsireland.com/blog/uncategorized/saints-skelligs/

Beanntraigheach

Wibbs wrote: »

Which being English in origin tended to follow the same narratives. Reality was more complex than that. He had a larger effect than earlier Christian missionaries and groups and converted more alright, but Christianity itself would have been an already known entity when he showed up. Just as it was in England Wales and Scotland long before the official potted history tells us. Like I said Patrick's English family were Christians. If it was the much later Augustine or even the Celtic Church that brought the religion to England they couldn't have been.

Ireland was unsual in that it was one of the very few places where the religion was in play outside what had been the Roman empire. Patrick's mission was also unusual in that it was again one outside those older borders, though as I say there had been an earlier missionary sent here by Rome.

Patrick was of a Romano-British background.
"England" didn't exist in his time.

ILoveYourVibes

Brilliant.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

topper75 wrote: »

The church in Ireland before the imposition of Roman orthodoxy was more likely Coptic than anything else.

There is no such thing as Celtic anything.

The term was plucked from obscurity in recent centuries and used by people with either separatist agendas against centralised London government (or even negatively as part of an anti-Gaelic/Welsh agenda by that same government) as a descriptor of anyone in Britain or Ireland that was there prior to Romanisation. The La Tène culture is also called Celtic but they are no more related to the modern Irish people genetically than say Basques or Poles. Caeser referred to Celts in Gaul but he was no historian, merely a rampaging warlord seeking to impress political backers back home with his campaign reports. The La Tène folks may have the same patterns on shields/vessels/broaches as those unearthed here. But patterns are easily copied. I live in Ireland - born and bred. I imagine with the absolute dominance of Gaelic surnames on both sides of my family as far as I can trace back that I have a strong claim to Irishness. I would never see myself as Celtic.
It is a vague and inaccurate term; I would discourage its use.

Plenty of historians still use it to describe the people of these islands and Central Europe and it was used back then by actual historians, long prior to Caesar.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Say my name wrote: »

A bit about the Celtic church not being oppressors. Well I'd say they oppressed the druids (snakes, Sun and moon worshippers) fairly well.

What did the Romans do for Ireland?
They pushed out the last druids from Wales into Ireland or killed them on the spot.

The Romans’ did that prior to Christianity of course.

The Celtic church seems to have been adopted with little fuss in Ireland - partly because it brought literacy with it, partly because it was suppported by kings, partly because it was syncretic and partly because it clearly had ideologies that appealed.

Wibbs

Beanntraigheach wrote: »

Patrick was of a Romano-British background.
"England" didn't exist in his time.

Well that's as much the "hated engerlish" we don't want to acknowledge where he was likely from thing going on. I've even seen folks claim he was French, just to distance him from perfidious Albion. Which I can well understand tbh, but..

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Plenty of historians still use it to describe the people of these islands and Central Europe and it was used back then by actual historians, long prior to Caesar.

To be fair F "actual historians" from before Caesar would be lambasted in the first week of a current history degree for being inaccurate and biased. To those classical historians and general commentators the "other" was massively in play. The Greeks were the worst of it, but the Romans weren't much better. They even saw the Greeks as the "other" and recorded them accordingly. Even the word "barbarian" which was a Greek word, they took unto themselves and redefined it in Roman/Latin terms. IE Barbus = Bearded. Rus = Culchie. "Keltoi" was always a blanket term for a particular type of the "other". Even back then folks like Pliny and Tacitus regularly questioned the "history" as it was perceived, which for the times I tip my hat to them for.

Beanntraigheach

Wibbs wrote: »

Well that's as much the "hated engerlish" we don't want to acknowledge where he was likely from thing going on. I've even seen folks claim he was French, just to distance him from perfidious Albion. Which I can well understand tbh, but..

It's a simple fact that the man wasn't English/Anglo-Saxon. I've never encountered a claim to the contrary.
That the area he was most likely from became, several centuries after Patrick's life, a part of England has no bearing on his identity.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Beanntraigheach wrote: »

It's a simple fact that the man wasn't English/Anglo-Saxon. I've never encountered a claim to the contrary.
That the area he was most likely from became, several centuries after Patrick's life, a part of England has no bearing on his identity.

Not without a time machine. I think wibbs is saying he might have come from what is now England.

topper75

We don't know where, but if he was put to work as a swineherd in Antrim, coastline between the Clyde and the Mersey is as good a guess as anywhere. It was under solid Roman rule definitely by 84AD and possibly up to the early 400s and beyond - Patricius's own time. Hard to say because Roman rule didn't break down all of a shot - it wasn't like the Brits lowering the flag in the barracks here in 1922.
Similarly, the Germanic tribes didn't arrive all of a shot. Many of them immigrated to Britain whilst the Romans were very much still holding sway and some even became Romanised working as mercenaries for the emperor. It would have been a gradual withdrawal villa by villa town by town over a protracted time period and Roman power gradually decreased to create local power vacuums, seized upon by eastern raiders who came to settle and eventually dominate all (if you disregard the Danelaw) of modern-day England from the Lizard to the Forth as a warrior elite right up to 1066.