Tiberius Victrix
Dreamer
change my mind
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Rome is best civilization in history
- Thread starter Tiberius Victrix
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #2
Tiberius Victrix
Dreamer
Rome is best
CupofJoe
Myth Weaver
Define "best"...
British Empire. You change MY mind.
Dutch Empire. Don't even try me.
I'll send a fleet full of tall dutchmen in clogs if you do.
I'll send a fleet full of tall dutchmen in clogs if you do.
The easy answer would be the Greeks, because the Romans looked up to them and imitated them in so many ways. But let's not take the easy answer.
Which Rome do you mean? The Kingdom of Rome? The Republic? The early Empire? Or the Empire as re-made by Diocletian and Constantine? Then again, perhaps you mean the Rome of Justinian or yet again the Rome of the Macedonian dynasty. I'm pretty sure you don't mean the Holy Roman Empire.
Before we can do any convincing, we have to sort out the boundaries of the question.
Which Rome do you mean? The Kingdom of Rome? The Republic? The early Empire? Or the Empire as re-made by Diocletian and Constantine? Then again, perhaps you mean the Rome of Justinian or yet again the Rome of the Macedonian dynasty. I'm pretty sure you don't mean the Holy Roman Empire.
Before we can do any convincing, we have to sort out the boundaries of the question.
Gurkhal
Auror
No, the Greeks are the best. Rome is just a thug who jumped Greece in a backalley and ran off with Greece's keys and cards.
Gurkhal is of course speaking of the Greeks in Argos. Maybe Thebes. No? You say the real model is Athens? The one that keeps getting beat in wars? Or was it Hellenistic Greece that the Romans admired after all?
(sorry, couldn't resist extending my own theme (theme: n. a meme shared by only one person)
)
(sorry, couldn't resist extending my own theme (theme: n. a meme shared by only one person)
)
Gurkhal
Auror
Gurkhal is of course speaking of the Greeks in Argos. Maybe Thebes. No? You say the real model is Athens? The one that keeps getting beat in wars? Or was it Hellenistic Greece that the Romans admired after all?
(sorry, couldn't resist extending my own theme (theme: n. a meme shared by only one person)
All of them in their collective Hellenistic civilization from Iberia in the west to India in the east. The Hellens are the greatest!
Yeah, I'd go for the Hellenistic Greeks, though that phrase is roughly equivalent of saying "Europeans." There was a whole sea worth of difference between Marseilles and Alexandria. And they didn't get all that long to be "Hellenes" before the Romans came and put a spin to everything.
Those Greeks just needed a firm Macedonian hand to give them some character. ;-)
Those Greeks just needed a firm Macedonian hand to give them some character. ;-)
Insolent Lad
Maester
The ones I've made up myself are far preferable.
I note that the OP has not replied to any of this. Given that he asked us to convince him of something, I suspect ... well, let's call it disinterest.
No, he was having trouble posting before (you know the not-spam thread).
Ah, that one. OK. Has probably given up, then.
- Thread starter
- #16
Tiberius Victrix
Dreamer
Greeks despite their great achievements in realms of philosophy, natural sciences and arts have failed to create one thing that actually matters- the functioning unified state. You could argue that Greek world was far more enlightened than Roman one or that Egyptians were more eloquent, but none of them were safe. Alexander's conquest is a singular achievement of one great person and it spread Greek culture to as far as Pakistan (he founded a city there called Bucephala after his horse). But almost instantly after Alexanders death his empire imploded never to reunite again and Greek Culture went into slow and steady decline as it had nothing new to bring to the table. And let's not even talk about the logistics of building giant fucking triangles in middle of desert, how much money was wasted constructing these giant pointless coffins, they even barreled down entire treasury's worth of gold, which was later only stolen and dragged away by bandits.
Rome on other hand was undoubtedly part of Hellenistic world. Roman culture was a subset of Greek culture that eventually managed to outdo it's parent, as simple as that. Romans themselves believed this, to them Aeneid was historical document. What separates Rome from all these others states is that they were incredibly industrious and ferocious. They conquered rest of the world, not because they were stronger and more numerious, but because they were stubborn and cunning. Romans were engineers and they solved practical problems. Romans built aqueducts, roads, water pipes, latifundias. See monthy python "What have Romans ever done for us". And most of all Romans brought law, peace, stability and security, things that were virtually unknown to the world outside of their Empire. Entire provinces were free of all garrisons, because people were simply too happy to rebel. Average lifespan of conquered provinces doubled, roads became save and trade became ferocious. You could travel from Hadrians wall to Palmyra with a single passport. Fish caught in Gibraltar straights was packed and shipped to Britain where officers ate it. Size of Roman empire was 4.4 million square Km, size of entire Planet is 510 million square Km. And yet within Roman Borders 25% of all worlds population resided. A peasant boy could become Emperor(justinian, diocletian, Aurelian). A peregrin barbarian could take high office within Roman Empire (Stillicho, Flavius Aetius). It is true that many of things that Romans are famous for existed before them, like baths,roads, aqueducts and toilet. But they made it accessible for the masses. in 19th century France there were people who walked around with buckets and for a fee man could pee in that bucket. In Rome you just had to find any insulae and go to the toilet that was public and share a sponge. You wanna wash hands? The fresh water is right there streaming out of that pipe. And before you say that Roman Law was a facade, Apostle Paul survived crucifixion due to the fact that he was a Roman Citizen. He was untouchable.
Rome on other hand was undoubtedly part of Hellenistic world. Roman culture was a subset of Greek culture that eventually managed to outdo it's parent, as simple as that. Romans themselves believed this, to them Aeneid was historical document. What separates Rome from all these others states is that they were incredibly industrious and ferocious. They conquered rest of the world, not because they were stronger and more numerious, but because they were stubborn and cunning. Romans were engineers and they solved practical problems. Romans built aqueducts, roads, water pipes, latifundias. See monthy python "What have Romans ever done for us". And most of all Romans brought law, peace, stability and security, things that were virtually unknown to the world outside of their Empire. Entire provinces were free of all garrisons, because people were simply too happy to rebel. Average lifespan of conquered provinces doubled, roads became save and trade became ferocious. You could travel from Hadrians wall to Palmyra with a single passport. Fish caught in Gibraltar straights was packed and shipped to Britain where officers ate it. Size of Roman empire was 4.4 million square Km, size of entire Planet is 510 million square Km. And yet within Roman Borders 25% of all worlds population resided. A peasant boy could become Emperor(justinian, diocletian, Aurelian). A peregrin barbarian could take high office within Roman Empire (Stillicho, Flavius Aetius). It is true that many of things that Romans are famous for existed before them, like baths,roads, aqueducts and toilet. But they made it accessible for the masses. in 19th century France there were people who walked around with buckets and for a fee man could pee in that bucket. In Rome you just had to find any insulae and go to the toilet that was public and share a sponge. You wanna wash hands? The fresh water is right there streaming out of that pipe. And before you say that Roman Law was a facade, Apostle Paul survived crucifixion due to the fact that he was a Roman Citizen. He was untouchable.
- Thread starter
- #17
Tiberius Victrix
Dreamer
And almost forgot. European Empires like British and French are essentially updated versions of Roman one. Their achievements were brought by progress of technology and semi-successful attempts to imitate Romans, they however remained barbarians in their hearts well into the mid 20th century. ( see world war 1&2)
>failed to create one thing that actually matters- the functioning unified state.
Here you set up a condition to measure success which you already declare the Greeks did not meet. That's a logical fallacy. Without going down that road, though, let's consider the proposition of a unified (leave aside "functioning" as a non-functioning state pretty much doesn't exist) state. You said the Greeks failed to do this.
I suggest that, on the contrary, they succeeded multiple times over. There is failure only if you decide that "Greece" should somehow conform to the modern nation-state. In fact, Hellas consisted of a large number of states, some of which lasted far longer than the U.S. (no comment here on our prospects for longevity). You may want to reconsider your measuring standard here.
>[Rome] conquered rest of the world
You probably do not mean to include China or Australia, but even within the parameters of the "known" Roman world Rome did not conquer all of it. The geographic details of that are easily discovered. Rome conquered a large area. That is sufficient, without hyperbole. But is greatness really going to be measured by geographic extent?
>Romans built aqueducts, roads, water pipes, latifundias.
Just a point of pedantry here. Latifundia merely means a large estate. It's not an object like an aqueduct or road. I'm sure you know this; I bring it up so other readers are not misled.
>Romans brought law, peace, stability and security, things that were virtually unknown to the world outside of their Empire.
Truly? No other civilization knew peace? All others were unstable? Whether Rome could be called stable is another question open for discussion. In any case, for a good many peoples, Rome brought fire and sword and subjugation. One really has to consider individual cases.
>Average lifespan of conquered provinces doubled,
I would be interested to see the source for this. As a medievalist, I'm well aware of how very thin is our demographic information.
>But they made it accessible for the masses.
Again, sources?
>Apostle Paul survived crucifixion due to the fact that he was a Roman Citizen
I may misunderstand the wording here. He was crucified and survived? Source for that? I tend to go with Eusebius, who said Nero had him decapitated.
To close, I return to the questions I posed earlier. Which Rome do you mean? The Kingdom? The Republic? The Empire? For that matter, which Romans? There was a time when only those born in Latium were considered "Roman." That was extended in various ways, but there were Romans by citizenship who were sneered at as little more than barbarians by more "pure" Romans. If we are going to claim some sort of genetic superiority, we need to be clear as to which gene pool we mean.
Here you set up a condition to measure success which you already declare the Greeks did not meet. That's a logical fallacy. Without going down that road, though, let's consider the proposition of a unified (leave aside "functioning" as a non-functioning state pretty much doesn't exist) state. You said the Greeks failed to do this.
I suggest that, on the contrary, they succeeded multiple times over. There is failure only if you decide that "Greece" should somehow conform to the modern nation-state. In fact, Hellas consisted of a large number of states, some of which lasted far longer than the U.S. (no comment here on our prospects for longevity). You may want to reconsider your measuring standard here.
>[Rome] conquered rest of the world
You probably do not mean to include China or Australia, but even within the parameters of the "known" Roman world Rome did not conquer all of it. The geographic details of that are easily discovered. Rome conquered a large area. That is sufficient, without hyperbole. But is greatness really going to be measured by geographic extent?
>Romans built aqueducts, roads, water pipes, latifundias.
Just a point of pedantry here. Latifundia merely means a large estate. It's not an object like an aqueduct or road. I'm sure you know this; I bring it up so other readers are not misled.
>Romans brought law, peace, stability and security, things that were virtually unknown to the world outside of their Empire.
Truly? No other civilization knew peace? All others were unstable? Whether Rome could be called stable is another question open for discussion. In any case, for a good many peoples, Rome brought fire and sword and subjugation. One really has to consider individual cases.
>Average lifespan of conquered provinces doubled,
I would be interested to see the source for this. As a medievalist, I'm well aware of how very thin is our demographic information.
>But they made it accessible for the masses.
Again, sources?
>Apostle Paul survived crucifixion due to the fact that he was a Roman Citizen
I may misunderstand the wording here. He was crucified and survived? Source for that? I tend to go with Eusebius, who said Nero had him decapitated.
To close, I return to the questions I posed earlier. Which Rome do you mean? The Kingdom? The Republic? The Empire? For that matter, which Romans? There was a time when only those born in Latium were considered "Roman." That was extended in various ways, but there were Romans by citizenship who were sneered at as little more than barbarians by more "pure" Romans. If we are going to claim some sort of genetic superiority, we need to be clear as to which gene pool we mean.
- Thread starter
- #19
Tiberius Victrix
Dreamer
- I think that is a standard of state that anything can conform to. Anyone who built a walled settlement and declared themselves independent becomes a state in the same sense that Roman Empire is state. I think it's unfair to Rome. You speak of modern notion of nation state, yet this very notion was achieved 2000 years ago by Rome and nobody else up until modern times. I think that is a pretty big achievement.
- I mentioned that Rome controlled a fraction of earth's territory and yet housed 25% of population at the time. It was greatest empire of it's time. That is what I meant by world domination. If we measure greatness by geographic extent the winner is British Empire, not Roman one. So I cannot take that measurement, I'd be factually wrong. But Roman Empire was around for nearly 1500 years. The state of Rome itself far longer 753 BC-1453 AD. I do not think that any other state can boast such longevity, despite monstrous adversities the Empire faced.
-The latifundia (Latin: latus, "spacious" and fundus, "farm, estate. The latifundia were the closest approximation to industrialized agriculture in Antiquity, and their economics depended upon slavery.
Quote is from Wikipedia.
-Google Pax Romana. I do not think that any other period except for last 70 years of our modern world can compare to it. Opinions differ on the matter among modern scholars, but I am not in the minority camp.
-I have heard that notion in Mike Duncan's podcast of Ancient Rome and few other places. I have found no written articles supporting my claim, nothing that can serve as concrete proof. Neither can I recall the exact videos I have watched on the subject. But once I find them I will be sure to give you the sources. I won't forget trust me.
- For the source on this one you should google "sanitation in ancient Rome", wikipedia and read it. But I personally read it in book called "Wissen Erleben Das Alte Rom" in german. I could provide link but it doesn't allow me. Haven't met the requirements. You can google, it's on amazon. It has Hadrian on cover on red background.
-He survived crucifixion and was released few times prior to his last arrest precisely because he was Roman citizen. Jesus was crucified, Paul was not, he was beheaded and he was apprehended in Jerusalem and later shipped to Rome because he appealed as citizen of Rome to be judged by Caesar.There are mentions that he appealed as citizen in wikipedia. I would go on more about this topic but I can't find the exact passage in my books where it is precisely mentioned, except for my really old children's book where it is merely stated. I am busy reading through my books and once I find the concrete passage I will link you the book and the page. Right now you have to be satisfied with what Wikipedia says.
-Well I am speaking about the imperial period. Mainly from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius. Those are most distinguished.
- I mentioned that Rome controlled a fraction of earth's territory and yet housed 25% of population at the time. It was greatest empire of it's time. That is what I meant by world domination. If we measure greatness by geographic extent the winner is British Empire, not Roman one. So I cannot take that measurement, I'd be factually wrong. But Roman Empire was around for nearly 1500 years. The state of Rome itself far longer 753 BC-1453 AD. I do not think that any other state can boast such longevity, despite monstrous adversities the Empire faced.
-The latifundia (Latin: latus, "spacious" and fundus, "farm, estate. The latifundia were the closest approximation to industrialized agriculture in Antiquity, and their economics depended upon slavery.
Quote is from Wikipedia.
-Google Pax Romana. I do not think that any other period except for last 70 years of our modern world can compare to it. Opinions differ on the matter among modern scholars, but I am not in the minority camp.
-I have heard that notion in Mike Duncan's podcast of Ancient Rome and few other places. I have found no written articles supporting my claim, nothing that can serve as concrete proof. Neither can I recall the exact videos I have watched on the subject. But once I find them I will be sure to give you the sources. I won't forget trust me.
- For the source on this one you should google "sanitation in ancient Rome", wikipedia and read it. But I personally read it in book called "Wissen Erleben Das Alte Rom" in german. I could provide link but it doesn't allow me. Haven't met the requirements. You can google, it's on amazon. It has Hadrian on cover on red background.
-He survived crucifixion and was released few times prior to his last arrest precisely because he was Roman citizen. Jesus was crucified, Paul was not, he was beheaded and he was apprehended in Jerusalem and later shipped to Rome because he appealed as citizen of Rome to be judged by Caesar.There are mentions that he appealed as citizen in wikipedia. I would go on more about this topic but I can't find the exact passage in my books where it is precisely mentioned, except for my really old children's book where it is merely stated. I am busy reading through my books and once I find the concrete passage I will link you the book and the page. Right now you have to be satisfied with what Wikipedia says.
-Well I am speaking about the imperial period. Mainly from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius. Those are most distinguished.
Last edited:
Just one more post and then I think I'm bowing out on this one. I disagree with the original premise. "Greatest" is a fundamentally ahistorical evaluation. Other people are welcome to discuss the issue, but saying one civilization (a problematic term in itself) is greater than another is much like saying one person is greater than another. Even if a case can be made, it doesn't get us much of anywhere.
I love Roman history, though I prefer the Republic to the Empire. As a medievalist I can't claim to be any more than an amateur in the field, but I'll certainly argue that it's a topic that will well repay anyone's study of it. Beyond that, I'll leave value judgments to others.
I love Roman history, though I prefer the Republic to the Empire. As a medievalist I can't claim to be any more than an amateur in the field, but I'll certainly argue that it's a topic that will well repay anyone's study of it. Beyond that, I'll leave value judgments to others.
