Ancient and Archaeology听 permalink
THE ROMANS - THE FINAL VERDICT
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.听
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Sunday, 18th December 2011
As the boards are about to close I have put my wig on and appointed myself judge of the Ancient Romans.
VERDICT : they were fascist thugs who brought Europe from the Greek enlightenment into the Dark Ages, delaying humanity's progress for 1000 years. -
Message 2
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Sunday, 18th December 2011
Then why not continue the discussion on www.englistory.com or www.historum.com with the rest of us, fascinating?
-
Message 3
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Sunday, 18th December 2011
Because I have made my final decision, and there is nothing to discuss. I am right, and that's that.
See you at historum!
-
Message 4
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 18th December 2011
fascinating
To some extent that is like comparing mid-Victorian Britain of "The Workshop of the World" with the prospect of world peace through things being achieved peacefully on a human scale with the continental reality of the late Nineteenth Century, when the English/British example of being able to use freedom to access the world had been shared with and extended across North America and Europe, and eventually right across Asia.
And that in turn comes forward to Mr Cameron leading a Conservative Party that can look back to the Disaraelian Conservatism of that mid-Victorian Age using his veto as France and Germany tried to push Europe into its own continental system.
When people talk of Greece they often think of Athens. For a while Athens was the emporium of the world with Greeks sailing all over the know world. But then the known world found its way to Athens- and that was a whole new challenge.
Cass -
Message 5
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 19th December 2011
Cass, if you don't mind I will put some punctuation in your first paragraph so that readers can more easily understand it.
"To some extent that is like comparing mid-Victorian Britain ("The Workshop of the World" with the prospect of world peace through things being achieved peacefully on a human scale) with the continental reality of the late Nineteenth Century, ( when the English/British example of being able to use freedom to access the world had been shared with and extended across North America and Europe, and eventually right across Asia.)
"When people talk of Greece they often think of Athens"
I think of the great intellects of the Greek-speaking world, particularly the scientists, eg Thales (of Miletus), Democritus (of Adbera), Euclid (of Alexandria), Aristarchus (of Samos) and Archimedes (of Syrene). I am not thinking of Athens, I am actually thinking of the Hellenistic world.
"And that in turn comes forward to Mr Cameron leading a Conservative Party that can look back to the Disaraelian Conservatism of that mid-Victorian Age using his veto as France and Germany tried to push Europe into its own continental system. "
What has that got to do with the Romans? -
Message 6
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 19th December 2011
facinating
What that has got to do with the Romans is that they created an order with a central authority powerful enough to impose security in a difficult world..
And within that security (as an integral part) they created the means by which an economic system could develop.. It was within this system incidentally that Jesus and Christianity emerged-- Jesus telling people "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"-- in other words, if you use the Roman money system and profit from the economy that underpins it , then you must accept your side of the bargain/contract.
Greece- as we think of it- did not solve the problem of "The Pass of Thermopylae".. that is the Great threat of the more mighty powers like Persia nb of the Middle East.. Of course once Macedonia was counted as Greece too and Philip was succeeded by Alexander the Great the Greeks were able to harness military power and create a huge Empire. If it had endured for as long as the Roman one it too might have had time to "decline and fall"..
Except- of course- Greece became part of the Roman Empire, and its decline and fall was "Byzantine"...
Western Civilization grew up upon the Roman structures informed by Greek thought and inspired by the spiritual impulse from the Middle East. It would be nice to see like Albert Camus that Hellenism is the way of the future. But in the late Nineteenth Century it seemed that this could only be within a "Pax Romanum" -- and recent history (e.g. Libya) suggests that this is still the case.
And what we think of as "Greek Civilization" was essentially that of the prosperous elite who were citizens.
Cass -
Message 7
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 19th December 2011
You are correct that, for the first century or so of the Roman Empire, the imposition of security by force does seem to have facilitated trade and economic growth. But in the second century the growth began to fizzle out, and after that there was a painful slump (the age of "iron and rust") which they never got out of. The reason is quite clear to see, oppression meant that most people were not really free to make and keep wealth. Science and innovation withered, probably because people were not free to think and say what they wanted (for example, until the time of Hadrian the chairmen of the schools of Athens had to be Roman citizens).
A situation in which you have numerous small states, sometimes at war, is not ideal, but I now think that is better than having one state impose their will on them all, taking away their independence,and taxing them so that an army can be maintained, and so that the mega-rich canb become hyper-rich.
I am now of the opinion that Christianity emerged because of oppression. Like a little boy who is bullied at school, who will say that his big brother will come and get his assailant, the people of Israel, who were "utterly incapable of resisting the Romans" (so said a Jewish leader in Acts of the Apostles), looked fervently for a messiah who would come and sort out their opprsessors. It is no wonder that the oppressed, whose life expectancy was less than 30, looked to the next life for the fulfillment of their wishes, as they had little hope of doing so in their natural lives. -
Message 8
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 19th December 2011
fascinating
I think that it is very difficult (at least for me) to separate our understanding of Roman History from the modern history that was so heavily shaped by the way that Roman History was portrayed.
T.B. Macaulay wrote a piece for the Edinburgh Review c1828 in which he bemoaned the way that the French Revolutionaries- having discovered once the Old Regime had been pulled down that the way of the Noble Savage was worse not better- decided to model a new France and Europe on what it perceived as the Roman Republican model. Macaulay contrasted the veneration of alleged greatness of Roman Antiquity against the very real traditions of English constitutional development- Magna Carta, the Westminster Parliament.
But the Napoleonic Republican and Revolutionary Models had an enduring legacy on the development of Europe, especially on the emergence of Germany. Napoleon III's imperialism and militarism was at least a great "selling point" for Bismarck and his rise of Prussia.
The initial Prussian recovery after defeat that saw the Prussians combine with the British at Waterloo was heavily based upon the "English Lessons" introduced by the historian Niebuhr.. But subsequently a great era of German scholarship- notably Von Ranke and Mommsen- produced detailed studies of the relationship between Teuton and Roman, and of the Medieval "Holy Roman Empire"..
By 1815 Great Britain had emerged from the wars of 1793-1815 with great military prestige, which was largely deployed against both Revolution and Reaction: and the mid-Victorian period could appear to be an Age of Enlightenment and progress. Burckhardt introduced the world to the idea of the Re-Birth of Classical Civilization, with a particular emphasis on the superority of Hellenism and Greek Culture generally..
Matthew Arnold, brought up by his eminent father Thomas Arnold, a Roman scholar of European repute, dared to believe that Hellenism had a little more "sweetness and light" , freedom and optimism than the grim Roman ideas of duty, especially filial, that had been drummed into him.
But by the late eighteen-sixtees, with Darwinism amongst other new strains of thought and discovery opening an abyss of uncertainty, amidst a world of increasing violence and eventually militarism, the Roman or at least Romanesque model seemed to be appropriate to a new realization that life is all about the Struggle for the Survival of the Fittest.
This was to lead through increaed militarism to the two world wars and what Hobsbawm called "The Age of Catastrophe 1914-1945"..
The attempt to return to an age of peace and disarmament in the Twenties was judged to have failed. And since 1945, as Niall Ferguson has made very clear in his study" Colossus. The Rise and Fall of the American Empire", we have had a US dominated world order based upon militarism and a dumbed down civilization of the common man..
The fundamental flaw is that- eventually such a culture/civilization has nothing real to offer to the world in return for all of the wealth that supports its power.. This is at the heart of the crisis of 2011 as we go in to 2012. Western consumers have become accustomed to a standard of living- individually and as citizens- that is beyond the value of what the West produces. Even post-war Europe was constructed on the Anglo-Saxon model- which European polititicians and bureaucrats have tried to modify and adapt much as those French Revolutionaries tried to adapt the ideas of Republican Rome..
In fact- as I have just been writing the last couple of days- countries that are rooted in the Mediterranean Ancient World understand that there is a long-term economic virtue in the City-state, which was pushed to a classic extreme in Athenian Greece. It was said that other people invented things, but it was the Greeks who perfected them and then were able to trade them to the rest of the world.
The triumph of the Anglo-Saxon economies- of the GB and the USA- has just been to find ways of making substitute goods and materials in order to produce things for which there was an existing market more cheaply- in part because production could be scaled up.
Unlike my wife's France/Burgundy that has been producing wines fit for Kings and Emperors for a couple of thousand years, the UK and the USA has no particular world class speciality that really only they can make a living producing, and which, therefore, Britons and "Yanks" for generations to come will still make a point of become expert at doing or producing.. Except perhaps weapons and warfare. Cerainly not the sports that we gave to the world, it seems.
But we are where we are.. and there is a long history of voices crying in the wilderness for a change of direction..
Cass -
Message 9
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 19th December 2011
I think it would be best if we merely look at the facts of the case with regard to the Romans, rather than how the Romans were perceived in the last couple of hundred years.
Nations which have adopted what they consider to be Roman laws, customs and institutions have sometimes prospered and sometimes not. Where they have copied Roman imperialism (eg Napoleonic France, Fascist Italy) they may have themselves prospered, but to the detriment of others; imperialism is bad.
What may be called the Anglo-Saxon model has been the most successful and inventive thus far. Most of the important inventions that have made the world what it is (ie the most prosperous and populous world ever known) have been produced by the British. For a time the British considered the Roman Empire to be the prime example of civilisation which fell through moral decadence, so the British view was to maintain moral propriety and maintain their own Empire. But the whole idea of equating imperialism with civilisation is now seen as flawed, self-determination and independence are what people really need, so Britain divested itself of its colonies.
You can pretend that the US is imperialistic but it always pulls its troops out in the end, something that ancient empires never did except under duress. In the modern world, most places can maintain their independence, and that is the most important point - each people must be able to choose its own path (even if the choice is to subsume its own identity to be part of a larger organisatioin). Freedom of action, among individuals and nations, is the major pre-requisite of development. -
Message 10
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 19th December 2011
Hi fascinating,
"What may be called the Anglo-Saxon model has been the most successful and inventive thus far".
No quarrels there.
Regards,
TP -
Message 11
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 19th December 2011
fascinating
(a) re the Romans I am not sure that modern historians are capable of totally looking beyond the amazing work of people like von Ranke, who basically set out to provide and organise all existing documentary evidence for the Romans.. In my experience historians have become either "reactionary" with interpretations that really presume the work of older historians in their work of "revisionism"-- or in fact react against the "great" historians who wanted to guide the present and future by basically say nothing of any use.
(b) re British inventiveness: As I have said the vast majority of those great inventions were just improved ways of doing things for which there was an existing demand- and in doing so opportunistically taking advantage of our own natural resources and those around the world that we were more successful in getting access to than any other country. In another domain I believe that more or less all the storylines used by Shakespeare were either drawn from English/British history or from European books of stories.
But the British inventiveness is largely associated with the industrial and technological revolution which has had an undeniable impact in that for about 200 years we have been able to rapidly increase humanity's capacity to use up the windfall bonus of the one Earth that we have got- and in so doing, and spreading our disharmonious economic system to other countries who look like accelerating that process even further..
And perhaps you are not old enough to remember that Western Civilization- in its Capitalist and Communist forms- was quite prepared to effectively destroy all life of Earth in a nuclear holocaust- if need be.
But once the inventiveness became really cutting edge it really was a question of England importing what it needed- initially from Scotland and then from the continent. Isambard Kingdom Brunel and his father brought a whole new level of inventiveness from first principles anticipating a future and its needs rather than just trying to satisfy tried and trusted demand. By the last decades of the nineteenth century "cutting edge" invention was in Germany, France and the USA because the English had no educational system to produce inventors with a grasp of the new technologies.
(c) Niall Ferguson has his own post-revisionist revionist view of Empire. His work on the USA took up the theme of his earlier "Empire. How Britain Made the Modern World"-- in other words by spreading common things around the world and making interchange between people possible.
I recently read a 1970's German study on Imperialism which rejected that simple Marxist view of Imperialism as being the only- or even historically the most common form of Imperialism.. The Holy Roman Empire- for example- had no actual army, and the Chinese Empire lack of that "Roman" kind of military basis is evident from, for example, the conquest of China - and yet its continuance under foreign rule, which will probably be the tale this time as well. As Tas tells us the Indian Empire too survived conquest- and reconquered its conquerors over time.
But you write:
"But the whole idea of equating imperialism with civilisation is now seen as flawed, self-determination and independence are what people really need, so Britain divested itself of its colonies."
This was in part the mistake of the Treaty of Versailles. Back then the US influence- articulated by Woodrow Wilson- favoured small states, self-determination and the fall of Empires. And the result was the World Chaos of 1932 and following, of which we heard little until 2008. Now it comes up repeatedly with talk of "the abyss" if we do not sort out our problems through rediscovering some over-arching support structure that can coordinate all of our efforts- in other words something like an Empire- without an Emperor, in other words a "world order".
Since 1945 the global economy has been managed by US "Imperial power" with an organised stabilised monetary system and likewise trade. But, as you say, the Americans do not stay behind to help countries on their journey to join in and contribute to world civilization.
But surely this is because "they" seem to have no real hunger or appreciation for Civilization, neither that of the West, nor that of the other countries. Matthew Arnold feared the consequence of a gradual "Americanization" in which people get inordinately praised for just achieving the average- and the cult is one of "The Common People". They leave places with ancient civilizations as despised barbarians with nothing to offer but their dumbing down and consumerism.. I am not sure whether or not I have ever really watched John Wayne's "The Barbarian and the Geisha".
I have met very few people in Britain or Europe who feel that very many Americans can be expected to teach us anything. And the experience of Arthur Miller- of whom I have a high regard- merely seems to me to exemplify the tragedy of someone who was a voice of civilization crying in the wilderness.
But since 1945 the USA has been committed to providing a consumerist society as a kind of "Opium for the masses" to wean them away from political extremism of left and right as long as they get their daily fixes of Coca Cola, fast food, and in fact other drugs.
That is they did until Communism fell. Then it was possible to allow the "natural order " of things to re-emerge with a widening gap between rich and poor, and an alienation and anger that is a very real threat to the prospects for 2012.
Cass -
Message 12
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 19th December 2011
(a) re the Romans I am not sure that modern historians are capable of totally looking beyond the amazing work of people like von Ranke听
Never mind about von Ranke and modern historians, I have put forth my verdict about the Romans. Do you agree with me? If not, why not?
The boards are closing in a couple of days, We don't have time to discuss British inventiveness, the catastrophic depression and world wars, or nuclear war, or communism or consumerism. -
Message 13
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 19th December 2011
fascinating
Well you wrote:
"VERDICT : they were fascist thugs who brought Europe from the Greek enlightenment into the Dark Ages, delaying humanity's progress for 1000 years."
Now as I understand it the Greek outreach did post colonies in the South of Italy and on the coast of Spain, and Burgundian tales link the wine trade that far up the Rhone-Saone to the Cote d'Or..
So Greek enightenment did not really get too far or too deep into what we would call Europe..
But, as the economic/trade system expanded westwards along the Mediterranean ,the more Westerly Saharan trade routes began to have some importance and Phoenician wealth and power gave away to Carthage and a whole new power struggle across the neck of the Mediterranean- as the significance of routes up into Northern and North-Western Europe began to be more important.
As for the Eastern Mediterranean Hellenism surely was crucially linked to the Greek period of power in the Nile Delta region and was very directly connected to the particular nature of Egyptian Civilization, which was essentially as a conduit for trade from the wealth of sub-Saharan Africa up this most natural trade route. Egypt was set astride land-routes much as England was later astride the sea routes that opened up the world. And Egypt was able to exploit its position so that a real problem was what to do with all the wealth and treasure it could get in order to maintain its scarcity value.. Burying vast treasures in tombs for the use of Pharoah's in the after life was one way to avoid "flooding the market".
But even Egypt was subject to conquest, in spite of its desert setting, and the much more open nature of the countryside of the Italian coastal strip and France and the Lowlands and the German plain meant that the kind of security that had been possible for some Middle Eastern and North African countries was much more difficult to achieve. The absence of Natural Frontiers made security something that could only be achieved by combinations of diplomacy and war, and in the event of both the inclusion of regions within an economic, political, and military system. This lack of really clear natural frontiers has been a eternal factor in European life- for, even in England, it is a case of "nearly not quite".
But the Romans created manageable provinces and effective borders - and certainly the early Roman soldiers were not mere "fascist thugs", but as much builders and craftsmen as soldiers.
The Romans did not enslave the conquered people to build the roads, and the forts and the harbours- though no doubt like later British teams that built the railways of the world they set the uneducated locals to work to do the labouring. A recent Time team excavation revealed a Roman Castle up in Scotland which seemed really much too large for purpose. But "when in Rome". If the Romans were going to build a castle in desolate Scotland they might as well make it a big one, and impress the natives while keeping fit and honing their skills. Building things seems to have been one of the ways that Roman soldiers were expected to keep fit, and of course in so doing they spread a knowledge of engineering far into what eventually became Europe.
In short it was the Romans who brought Greek Civilization to Europe- and in so doing in fact made it seem so attractive to those who they sought to exclude that the pressure from the outside to get in, allied to the decline in Roman ownership of the virtues that had made people look up to the Romans, brought the Empire down..
Previte Orton's History of Medieval Europe (1916) says:鈥淭he Roman Empire..had summed up the progress made round the shores of the Mediterranean Sea during many preceding centuries. Greece had brought to the account her thought and art and literature, Rome her law and government, the Near East the Christian religion鈥.
I think that puts it nicely.. And the Romans brought that Civilization right up to establish it in Ireland and in Britain, and right up into Southern Germany.. And those to the north of its frontier forts who rushed down into the former Empire also had an image of Rome and its Civilization as something glorious, part of a Golden Age of the Ancients that might never come again- but which might yet shed its light upon the life of Europeans.
And those British inventors probably owed more to Roman construction methods and practical devices than to Greek pure science.. The scientific age of invention was really the work of the French and Germans- or those belonging to their worlds (e.g. the Polish Mme Curie)
But of course in that age of Social Darwinism it suited both Fascists and Nazis to see the Romans as their forebears. On the other hand those in British Imperial service saw themselves as the kind of Romans who could live like the District Officers in the British Raj, just outposts and sources of justice and law and order for tens of thousands of people. A common tribute to those men of sterling duty and self-sacrifice for the good of others was "he was a true Roman". Eric Blair (George Orwell) could not "stick it" in between the wars when he was a Raj Officer in Burma.. But the ICS was often for poorer boys who had their way to make in life than perhaps Old Etonians like Blair.
But as you say people- especially in the West- now decry the efforts of such men who, according to Indian historians, were fundamental to the Hindu Revival and the re-birth of India.
Cass -
Message 14
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 19th December 2011
Now that is really quite interesting Cass, you managed (mostly) to stick to the point under discussion. I like the idea that the Romans spread Greek civilisation into the whole of Europe.
But I find it hard to agree. If Greek learning really had been spread through Europe, you would see an increase in innovation during the time when the Romans ruled. But science, art and literature declined throughout the time of Roman rule (after a brief flowering in the first 120 years or so). Before the Romans a genius like Archimedes might arise; he was killed by the Romans (a symbolic moment), and while clever people like Hero of Alexandria arose on occasion, nobody of outstanding genious in science, technology or art arose after about 150. -
Message 15
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 20th December 2011
Fascinating
But the Romans had to innovate in other ways since- as I tried to explain- the challenges they faced were very different from those faced by the Greeks.. I believe that the Romans are generally credited with creating systems and mechanisms of government- including the military, civil engineering, financial and judicial innovations necessary to run a huge Empire as one entity.
We think of the Greeks as people whose culture was based on the City State principle where all citizens were expected to be able to fit into the assemblies, to participate and make useful contributions to discussion, and then to participate in the execution of the general will be it in building work or military. Ideally the people were the government and the State, and the centre of the cities was often a place of lively debate and 鈥淪ocratic dialogue鈥.
The Romans had to operate on a totally different scale requiring more long-distance communication and practices like working through delegates- people who have their hands tied in discussion because of pre-arranged non-negotiable points [like David Cameron at the EU].. This all started though with the need to create a secure base in at Rome in a potentially prosperous region that was prone to the wild incursions of the majestic and magnificent Gauls, who the Romans could not match 鈥榤an to man鈥.
This all meant the development of collective strength and a much greater effort at producing codes of law and all those kinds of systems and mechanisms that mean that the legal practices can be rolled out all across the Empire.. By this time the Chinese already had their own 鈥淚nstitutes of Government鈥 that laid down exactly how provinces were to be run, and this really was essential in any true Empire- which by definition is a federal State in which certain over-arching structures help various smaller states to work successfully together. And I recall from my primary school days that the Romans invented the keystone and therefore the arch. That led on to all kinds of things like the great aqueducts and systems of water-management, leading perhaps to hot-air management and central-heating.
But the kind of innovation that you have described is that kind of 鈥減ure鈥 rather than 鈥渁pplied鈥 innovation that became so much in vogue in Modern Europe and in particular among what one might call the intellectual classes, or which I often call that middle class which based its position and status on the possession of intellectual capital, and enjoyed the luxury of power without responsibility- a phrase commonly used for journalists..
Someone like Descartes could say 鈥淚 think therefore I am鈥 because he truly lived only by, and for, thinking. And such people created this idea that History is all about the development of human thought.
As I have written recently this was really taken to great heights in France of the Enlightenment when the separation of French Government and removing of the responsibilities of state from Paris to Versailles, left Paris to house/host the great 鈥渟alons鈥. Here the great minds of the day could speculate and discourse, free from the actual responsibilities of government.
Something of that spirit came through a recent programme on French TV about the 鈥渢rial鈥 of |Louis Ferdinand Celine, now argued by many -on this programme- to have been the greatest French writer of the twentieth century. Celine churned up the French language into something unrecognisable from the 鈥減roper鈥 French of the Academie Francais and wrote works full of the monstrosity, hatred, bile and anger of the Age of Catastrophe, including plays and pamphlets full of vicious attacks on Jews. In late 1944 he escaped into Germany because he knew that he was on 鈥渢he list鈥 as a collaborator. Eventually he was returned to France and stood trial. In his interviews, however, he said that he had done nothing. As an artist he had held up to France the monstrous reality that other people were creating. He himself had done nothing but write what he saw, and therefore it was people who put thought into action who were guilty.
But Andre Gide, who was almost of the same generation, in his books 鈥淣ourritures Terrestres鈥 and 鈥淣ourritures Nouveau鈥- expanded on Descartes. Descartes may have thought that he lived to think, but other people live to do other things, and some people live to live. Paul Tillich wrote about 鈥淭he Courage to be鈥--
All that Age of Reason was a reaction, and a distancing from the horrors of European History almost as actively as the emigration of others to the American wilderness. But that French Enlightenment owed its right just to think to the fact that Louis XIV had created a France that he stretched to its 鈥淣atural Frontiers鈥 and fortified by the genius of Vauban. And he had distanced Paris from the centre stage- unlike London and its Royal Courts and the Courts of Westminster.. English thought had to be 鈥淩eal鈥 and 鈥渁pplied鈥, not theoretical and abstract.
But coming back to Rome- I was intrigued looking again at T.R. Glover鈥檚 鈥淭he Ancient World鈥 not long ago to see his description of the significance of the accession of Caesar Augustus, and its whole emphasis on something more Hellenistic, apparently just around the time that Jesus of Nazareth would have started his brief ministry around AD 27, and Christianity was of course was taken up and spread especially by the Roman Saul/Paul.
Mark Tully鈥檚 鈥淟ives of Jesus鈥 brings out many strands of research into what kind of person and what kind of background went into the education of Jesus, but it is a fact that he was a product of the Roman Civilization as was Christianity.. And as you have inferred- the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire, as in Nineteenth Century India, appealed especially to the slave/ untouchable classes who grasped on to this message that all people are equal in the eyes of the Christian God.. It was a concept like the more modern concept of Human Rights that could only really emerge within a culture in which a power capable of a universal and all-encompassing legal code was conceivable.
Rome supported the idea of a God of justice and order and authority.. The Greeks saw themselves as the playthings of the Gods, and like the Gods had a right to be playful in their turn- a great comfort to Goldie and his friends among the Cambridge Apostles.
Glover begins his section on the Peace of Augustus with a quote from Milton鈥檚 鈥淥de on the Morning of Christ鈥檚 Nativity鈥:
No war, or battle sound,
Was heard the world around;
The idle-spear and shield were high-up hung;
The hooked chariot stood
Unstain鈥檇 with hostile blood;
The trumpet spake not to the armed throng;
And kings sat still with awful eye
As if they surely knew their Sovran Lord was by.
Regards
Cass -
Message 16
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 20th December 2011
Further to us all being subject to the playfulness of the Gods and a Greek idea of pure "thought-adventure":
This was perhaps reflected in Brian Cox's interview about the exciting "new frontier" that Cerne has just opened up.
As the latest TV "salesman" for the great adventure of Science, who has made a career at presenting us with a scientific view of our Universe, he can cheerfully say that, if they really are getting close to testing the Higgs molecule hypothesis, it is really exciting because quite possibly the whole of existing scientific understanding of matter and our universe may be destroyed.
With such "great minds" we mere mortals may well feel like we are playthings of the Gods.
I rather think that this was a factor in our daughters experience of pursuing Physics up to Masters level.. When she first discovered a laboritary at the age of 9 she was immediately engrossed by the fact that science provided answers that explained mundane reality- but in fact the higher you go the more it is all questons and hypotheses- which is fine for a Ulysses when he is able to voyage and explore the world- but exploration is ultimately meaningless when there is no familar and certain "主播大秀" in the end.
Cass -
Message 17
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Tuesday, 20th December 2011
But the Romans had to innovate in other ways since- as I tried to explain- the challenges they faced were very different from those faced by the Greeks.. I believe that the Romans are generally credited with creating systems and mechanisms of government- including the military, civil engineering, financial and judicial innovations necessary to run a huge Empire as one entity.
听
But they didn't have to run a huge empire, they could have given the nations their independence. Their mechanisms of government were seriously flawed, they were not democratic, it was basically government for the rich, though the soldiers could exert great influence, which, I suppose, is what remained of democratic institutions, once the Assembly was abolished under Tiberius. Financially, they were not successful; again I must say that the situation in the first century was mostly good (though there were some financial crises), but in the 2nd century devaluation of the coinage began and inflation and economic slump took hold. Judicially they were seriously flawed, with evidence being gained by putting slaves under torture, provincials unable to expect a fair hearing, punishments of vile cruelty etc. For their civil engineering, I grant, that is remarkable, but again it is mostly a feature of the first 2 centuries. -
Message 18
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Tuesday, 20th December 2011
The greatest - possibly the only enduring - legacy that Rome left was the Roman Catholic church, which, through the medium of the Latin language, gave European scholars a route into each others thinking and discoveries.
-
Message 19
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 20th December 2011
Well said Gil.
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 20
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 20th December 2011
fascinating
Within an Empire nations can be given quite a lot of autononomy- And the research of Von Ranke was important- among other things- in showing in great detail how the life of Teutonic provinces carried on quite successfully and quite independently of the "headline news" and "headline histories" of what was happening in Rome itself. Administrations dealt with their local problems "according to the book".
And, as I said before, the idea of self-governing nations wthout any over-arching supervision and control proved disastrous during the Twenties and Thirties.. So since 1945 the global economy has only worked because of systems of overall management that were favoured by:
(a) the rather simple way-ahead that was dictated by the overwheming need for post-war construction
and (b) the dominant role of the two superpowers within the competing economic systems... They were two Imperial systems.
So The World Trade Organisation has fullfilled the vital role that was anticipated in an article by Julian Huxley during the war, which argued that recent interventions like buying up and destroying "surplus produce"- that made it impossible for producers to earn a living- would have to be made systematic and global..
And it is interesting that "the world" has forgotten that with all those new and independent little countries after 1919 and the flght away from large-scale military life to the simple life on the land (even the Kibbutz) the world economy was destroyed by over-production of food, raw materials and commodities.
This was previously the kind of thing that could be dealt with by Empires.
But as for being "governed for the rich" that is of course as it should be because the rich should be those elevated by the people and made rich as those with the merits and qualities necessary to elevate the whole level of the society and the economy.. [Of course to some extent this was all "blown out of the water" by Adam Smith]
Any group needs leadership and the Greeks understood this as well as anyone. I always think of the Greek City-state as being in the minds-eye of the Greeks just like a very large ship at sea. There can only be one person in charge at any one time if you hope to successfully navigate towards your goal, and any capable captain know his "Bridge-team" and his crew, and what they all have to offer to the overall venture... And the Greeks knew and understood the role of genius, and its deserved rewards [ As in the Herodotus version of "King Rhampsinitus and the Thief" ]
Unfortunately the crises of the two cycles of European Civilization have seen the question of wealth being misused and misunderstood. For when things begin to stall and falter questions of fair shares and rights to wealth, rather than duties to work become more important.
Generally across the world peope create wealth in order to access and harness the potential of those with much greater powers than themselves- either Gods, or demi-gods, or those worthy of respect for their regal, noble, pious and other qualities- in the hope that they will be "on our side".
"What can I give him, poor as I am
If I were a shepherd I would bring a lamb
If I were a rich man I would do my part
What I have I give him
Give my heart"
From the point of view of someone from "the working class" this is not the least because the wealth thus concentrated gives him or her the opportunity to make things that are "fit for the Gods" or the next best thing.
This year one of the greatest horlologists in the world died in Britain. He was in his eighties and was still working 80 hour days right to the last- for it was a labour of love. He had found his first watch in the street aged c14 and had become fascinated. He took it to pieces and re-assembled it. Eventually he became the worlds greatest genius in the production of watches, inventing incredible new mechanisms and devices, with each one of his watches being a work of art. He could only to this because there are collectors in the world who would pay c拢100,000 for one of his watches. Only in this way could he afford to spend so much time making watches that will join the ranks of the great masterpieces. But a country that produces masterpieces benefits from the way that it is internationally respected and can enjoy self-respect.
But as you have said - and as was argued by nineteenth century historians who looked at "The Natural History of Civilizations"- there does seem to be something like a "life cycle" .
A period of growth, energy and creativity makes the public feel that the "leading people" are taking everyone forward together in a great "caravan". It is spring and early summer. [When that April with her showers sweet has pierced to the root of March..then men are wont to want to go on Pilgrimages]. But high summer hits a period of when the rate of growth has peaked, with autumn to follow and then winter.
In decline the whole question of the thrust that the people have given to those they have empowered can create a mood of resentment if the harvest has not been what was expected, and the prospects for growth of all kinds do not look so good. Then people begin to question whether there should not be a redistribution of wealth and power, whether they should not have to work so hard and should also have a greater share of the wealth. [This happened at the time of the Black Death in Europe's Medieval Civilzation and during the Age of Revolution in the Modern Age]
But working less for a larger % of the National Income means Gross National Productivity declines and moreover more wealth his spent and resources dedicated to supplying the leisure and mundane articles that come within the increased purchasing power of the masses who must be uneducated, because they no longer accept that those who might teach them have possession of knowledge etc worth learning.
This is moving towards the end game when leadership, direction, and meaningful invention all collapse and the society/economy has little or nothing to offer the rest of the world, for other countries can quite quickly learn how to make cheap and cheerful goods.
Arnold Toynbee's great study of 20 Civilizations in the Thirties suggested that Civilizations were not necessarily doomed to decay..
But I think that it is unfair to try to compare the Roman effort to create a physical Empire in the way that they did ( and tried to maintain over the centuries- in the East right down to 1453) with Greek history. Greek history was really fragmented and never really (from my understanding) solved the problem of war and conflict. I argee with you (as a thinker) that Hellenism is attractive, but (again as I understand it) it was a state of mind, an attitude and a spirit. So I think that it did presuppose a certain level of development and a realisation that all parties would be likely to lose more than they might gain from war and conflict. That might have been allright in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, but I am not sure that it worked for the Western Mediterranean and points North up into Europe.
Eventually the Nineteenth Century "Eastern Question" saw the situation totally reversed and it is maintained in this age of the suicide bomber.
Cass -
Message 21
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 21st December 2011
Always on the look out for "rather like" comparisons.... Comparing Greece to Rome is a bit like comparing the Netherlands to Great Britain.. In many ways the Modern World was "invented" by the Dutch Renaissance. Briefly the Dutch were the great alternative imperial power to the Spanish and Portuguese, just as the Greeks were to for example Persia.
Cass -
Message 22
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 21st December 2011
"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven".
Cass
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 听to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
主播大秀 iD
主播大秀 navigation
主播大秀 links
主播大秀 漏 2014 The 主播大秀 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.