What Did The Romans Ever Do For Us?

[caldrail]

My own view is that what makes the Romans significant is precisely the fact that they did act as a conduit for the spread of common ideas over a huge new area. The fact that they borrowed most of them from their neighbours is neither here nor there IMO.

 

 

In other words they provided the political, legal and physical infrastructure by which the Mediterranean and its hinterlands were furnished with a common meta-culture, bringing both subjectively good and bad elements, and laying the groundwork for the very idea of a universal empire that would inspire future generations?

 

Thats the problem. It doesn't inspire future generations, it inspires future dictators who rather like the idea of ruling a large empire. The opinions of the common people have little to do with it. Recent events in europe have proven that.

[Northern Neil]

Thats the problem. It doesn't inspire future generations, it inspires future dictators who rather like the idea of ruling a large empire. The opinions of the common people have little to do with it. Recent events in europe have proven that.

Maybe so, but the suggestion that the EU may be a manifestation of this I take some issue with, Calders. The EU is an organisation which makes daft rules about the shape of bananas (bad) and has introduced a currency which is universal over many European countries (jolly useful. Shame we are not in it). It hardly has pretentions to Empire, although it does have as one of its core values a cultural and economic unification of Europe. Europe does at a very basic level have a common culture fathered ultimately by the unification initially imposed by Rome. Countries such as Poland, the Baltic states and Finland joined the EU in part to distance themselves from domination by the only real imperialist country in Europe which is Russia, and to rejoin a world with which those countries have always identified with.

 

As one of the 'common people' alluded to I was too young to vote on the initial membership of the EU, but probably would have done so. More recently, the Irish electorate have voted against the treaty of Lisbon, a motion which has been acknowledged by the EU. More a legacy of Athenian democracy than Roman politics? Maybe. I do not see Ireland and Denmark being treated in exactly the same way as Postumus' separatist Gallic Empire. So, I would say that Culturally the idea of the EU certainly is a legacy of Rome - but I doubt very much it will adopt the policies of its Russian neighbour to enforce it.

[Ursus]

Thats the problem. It doesn't inspire future generations, it inspires future dictators who rather like the idea of ruling a large empire. The opinions of the common people have little to do with it. Recent events in europe have proven that.

 

 

For those that care about such things, it also inspired Republicanism.

 

 

The infamous Machiavelli was praising the virtues of Roman republicanism as early as the 1500s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourses_on_Livy

[ASCLEPIADES]

For those that care about such things, it also inspired Republicanism.

 

The infamous Machiavelli was praising the virtues of Roman republicanism as early as the 1500s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourses_on_Livy

Salve U; excellent reading indeed.

 

Even if Niccolo's object of study were T. Livius' first ten books, I think he had relied more on Polybius for his analysis.

For example, check on Book I, cp. V:

 

"To whom can the guardianship of Liberty more safely be confided, to the Nobles or to the People?... The

Laced

[caldrail]

Thats the problem. It doesn't inspire future generations, it inspires future dictators who rather like the idea of ruling a large empire. The opinions of the common people have little to do with it. Recent events in europe have proven that.

Maybe so, but the suggestion that the EU may be a manifestation of this I take some issue with, Calders.

The Treaty of Lisbon, the next step toward creation of the european superstate, requires all signatory nations to agree. France and Holland said no. Ireland had a referendum and said no. That means the treaty cannot proceed legally. Yet the Irish prime minister was given four months to turn his countries decision around, and our own government is to ratify the treaty without a promised referendum. Thats all about empire building in my book, about a higher level of government being imposed on us.

 

The EU is an organisation which makes daft rules about the shape of bananas (bad) and has introduced a currency which is universal over many European countries

You'll get no arguement there! However, when you have a standard system of measurement, a standard currency, a standard army, a standard governmental system - what else it than an empire of european countries ruled from Brussels? The people behind this move toward unification are moving as quickly as they dare without the individual nations pulling out, and they simply aren't going to accept a refusal. You wait. In the not too distant future all our counties will be swept away for new 'european' districts, and sooner or later the same will be applied to national borders. Its only a matter of time. One of the great problems with extended peace is that it doesn't allow an avenue of conquest. Such behaviour is part of the human psyche, and since dominant humans like to dominate others too, its in the nature of the beast to work toward aggrandisement.

 

It hardly has pretentions to Empire, although it does have as one of its core values a cultural and economic unification of Europe. Europe does at a very basic level have a common culture fathered ultimately by the unification initially imposed by Rome.

There are people in the EU bureaucracy who very much want such pretentions, and in the future you will find there's a great deal more imposition to come. Or were the Metric Martyrs wasting their time?

 

I would say that Culturally the idea of the EU certainly is a legacy of Rome - but I doubt very much it will adopt the policies of its Russian neighbour to enforce it.

Nothing to do with Rome at all. The roman idea of empire, and the power and glory that went with it, is not inspired by roman ideals but a part of human psychology that emerges periodically in individuals who want the same power and glory themselves and drag everyone into it whether they want it or not. Sooner or later we will have to adopt an ID card. What for? To oversee where people are and what they do, along with a large and invasive database of peoples private lives. Its in the planning stage in Britain now. The socialists of Europe want an empire to prove the credibility of their system as much as the personal profit derived from it. There are french and germans who want a european empire their country has always been denied. Rome might exist in the conciousness as an example of what they want to achieve (at least what they regard as the positive parts of it) but the motivation is personal, as empires are created by individuals exercising political power, not by the will of the people, who would probably prefer things left as they were. Like me.

[ASCLEPIADES]

I would say that Culturally the idea of the EU certainly is a legacy of Rome..

Nothing to do with Rome at all.

Salve, Amici. We agree, C.

 

Not every supranational entity is an Empire.

The egalitarian condition among the EU members makes their status analogous to that of many ancient cities' leagues (ie. in Greece or in Etruria); but hardly that of the Delian League, as it was an Athenian "empire".

Across all its long history, the proud Rome always considered itself equal to no one.

 

Previous to World War II, European history was a contest for ruling the World; any idea of European "unity" basically implied general conquest (ie, Napoleon). Now, that was an idea that would have been easily understood by any Roman.

 

The EU is fundamentally a by-product of the Cold War, once the ruling superpowers were European countries no more.

BTW, the EU egalitarian condition (In varietate concordia) precludes considering it as an Empire.

As far as I know, the EU members don't pretend their collective dominance over any other country.

Edited July 8, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

Previous to World War II, European history was a contest for ruling the World; any idea of European "unity" basically implied general conquest (ie, Napoleon). Now, that was an idea that would have been easily understood by any Roman.

The 20th century was a conflict of ideology, mostly concerned with domniation by facism/communism/democracy in a general sense, since its noticeable that like-minded nations allied themselves very easily. In any conquest, it has little to with the populations desires - it revolves around personal ambition, and since politics involves selling these ambitions to the population, they are nonetheless persuaded its a good idea.

 

The EU is fundamentally a by-product of the Cold War, once the ruling superpowers were European countries no more.

I would say its a by-product of human pshychology, since all cultures that wish to be viewed as 'great' require enlargement of their territory, and since conquest as such is not acceptable, then union is the alternative. This especially true of a manufactured empire that the EU aspires to, a 'peaceful' alternative to the regimes like the nazi's for instance, and bearing in mind the socialist agenda underneath it the EU is therefore a conformist society.

[Antiochus III]

The topic starter mentioned how future civilizations benefited from Roman farming techniques. I'm not quite refuting this argument, but i recently attended a lecture by an expert in the fall of Rome and its harshness on the environment. He mentioned that Roman farming techniques were responsible for the destruction of croplands and defertilization of the soil, as well as many other problems. (Did you know that entire Roman ports washed away because of deforestation, etc.??!). I just thought that mention of this might start up a good discussion. Were any of you guys at the lecture, by chance?

 

Antiochus III

[caldrail]

There was a guy on TV who claimed that silted-up harbours were responsible for the roman collapse in the west. I thought he was talking out of his rear at the time, given that he did not satisfactorily explain why silting was such a problem. After all, surely the romans would simply find another anchorage nearby? That said, I remember also a Time Team program that uncovered a roman boat moored against a bank to stop it eroding away (the river had since changed course). Now if roman farming was the cause, then perhaps the silting problem was worse than I imagined, but that said did no-one notice? Surely the romans would do something? They were quite capable of building ports - we know that from the work carried out at Ostia.

[ASCLEPIADES]

The topic starter mentioned how future civilizations benefited from Roman farming techniques. I'm not quite refuting this argument, but i recently attended a lecture by an expert in the fall of Rome and its harshness on the environment. He mentioned that Roman farming techniques were responsible for the destruction of croplands and defertilization of the soil, as well as many other problems. (Did you know that entire Roman ports washed away because of deforestation, etc.??!). I just thought that mention of this might start up a good discussion. Were any of you guys at the lecture, by chance?

 

Antiochus III

Not me, unfortunately. Rome's and Romanian Fall and decline is a quite complex issue that would get us out and far from this thread's original question. Briefly:

 

It's HUMAN farming (as a whole) which was and is responsible for the destruction of croplands and desertification of the soil, but also for feeding us all from the Neolithic on. There's a current trend among scholars to attribute ecological degradation a more important role in civilizations' collapse than previously thought; there are some nice threads on this same issue here at UNRV. Rapa Nui (Easter Island) should be the best example; Anasazi culture would be another. Ecological degradation was probably a major factor in the collapse of many cultures, from the Indus Valley to Mesoamerica.

 

Now, the problem with the Roman Fall & Decline is always the same; something "fell and declined", but exactly what? We should define this before selecting from the myriad potential explanations about the "how" to discuss on.

Edited July 9, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

Rapa Nui (Easter Island) should be the best example; Anasazi culture would be another. Ecological degradation was probably a major factor in the collapse of many cultures, from the Indus Valley to Mesoamerica.

Thats not a good example compared to roman agriculture. The degradation of Easter island ecology was due to deforestation, but that was driven by obsessive and overly proud tribal/religious competition, not farming.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Rapa Nui (Easter Island) should be the best example; Anasazi culture would be another. Ecological degradation was probably a major factor in the collapse of many cultures, from the Indus Valley to Mesoamerica.

Thats not a good example compared to roman agriculture. The degradation of Easter island ecology was due to deforestation, but that was driven by obsessive and overly proud tribal/religious competition, not farming.

Salve, C.

We agree.

I wasn't in any way comparing the Rapa Nui with the Romans.

 

I was just giving some examples of cultures where ecological degradation has been proposed as an important contributing factor for their collapse.

[TaylorS]

The concept of a "separation of powers" within the government, and an idealized conception of the Roman Republic, had a huge influence on American government. The US government is packed with Roman Republican symbolism, ranging from neo-classical architecture, the upper house of Congress being called the Senate, to notions of "republican virtue." There are even images of the fasces on the floor of the House!

[Northern Neil]

There are even images of the fasces on the floor of the House!

Does the Dime still carry this image? I have an example from th '50s which does

[ASCLEPIADES]

There are even images of the fasces on the floor of the House!

Does the Dime still carry this image? I have an example from th '50s which does

Salve, Amici.