M. Porcius Cato Posted April 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2006 As to the second part of QVS' statement, he took the words right out of my mouth; and in the long run, (after 200 years or so), was Cato not proved right to an extent??? Did the Roman moral fiber not unravel a wee bit? Yes, but was that due to Hellenization (as Cato the Elder maintained) or due to the ambition of Rome's leading men being sapped by the servility that the Imperial order demanded (as Tacitus maintained)? No surprise, I lean towards Tacitus' explanation. Within a given era, is there any correlation between corruption and Hellenization? I don't detect any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted April 21, 2006 Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 Within a given era, is there any correlation between corruption and Hellenization? Yes and it has to do with the change of thought from tribal cohesiveness to aquisitive individualism. The Hellenization of Rome brought greater emphasis to aquisitive individualism and corruption is an inevitable byproduct of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted April 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 Within a given era, is there any correlation between corruption and Hellenization? Yes and it has to do with the change of thought from tribal cohesiveness to aquisitive individualism. The Hellenization of Rome brought greater emphasis to aquisitive individualism and corruption is an inevitable byproduct of it. As a cheerleader for individualism against tribalism, I completely disagree. The link you make between corruption and individualism also strikes me wrong in fact and theory. In fact, tribalist and collectivist societies lose more to corrupt officials than individualist societies; in theory, the tribalist can always defend his pilfering my maintaining that his tribe's needs outweigh the rights of any individual. We'll probably never agree on this matter though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Valerius Scerio Posted April 21, 2006 Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 But is pilfering others corruption for the tribe? The Romans would disagree. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for individualism, but we have to look at it from the Romans' viewpoint. And Cato was a lot closer to the "crime" of hellenization that Tacitus was. By the time of the principate, hellenization had long ago occurred and was deeply seated within the society. Cato was old enough to be born in a time before the Greeks really had major influence in Rome, and yet lived to see its birth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted April 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 Yes, but at least since Hesiod, old men have been complaining about how the world is going to hell-in-a-handbasket because young people just don't respect the ways of their fathers. Isn't it possible that Hellenization was fabulous, and Cato was just cranky? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Valerius Scerio Posted April 21, 2006 Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 Yes, but I didn't think that was the point? Certainly Hellenization had some effect on Roman society, whether positive or negative, and it certainly wasn't the same afterwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julia C Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Corruption of society, indolence of youth, strange humanized religious practices with flawed gods, luxuries, the infamous "Greek love," the list goes on. Whether or not he was actually correct about these is debateable. On one hand, it did help Roman society progress and evolve, especially in foreign relations. On the other hand, they lost some of their steel, dedication, and piety. Julia would have strongly disagreed with Cato. Very strongly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullafelix Posted April 29, 2006 Report Share Posted April 29, 2006 I think Pliny the Elder had one or two things to say about the greeks as well. He blamed them for every depravity that the Roman empire was by then suffereing. The list goes on, but one of them OI sem to remember was selling the oil that was scraped from the bodies of successful athletes or something like that. Generally what we are talking about is decadnec adn I am with Cato on this one. The only foil to the personal ambition set of the Roman Republic was the personal austerity of the Romans themselves. Take that away and they and blood thirsty and sexualy debauched as well as being debauched whille eating lark's tongues and otters noses. Worst thing that happened to 'em the hellenization..take my word for it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rameses the Great Posted April 30, 2006 Report Share Posted April 30, 2006 I think Pliny the Elder had one or two things to say about the greeks as well. He blamed them for every depravity that the Roman empire was by then suffereing. The list goes on, but one of them OI sem to remember was selling the oil that was scraped from the bodies of successful athletes or something like that. Generally what we are talking about is decadnec adn I am with Cato on this one. The only foil to the personal ambition set of the Roman Republic was the personal austerity of the Romans themselves. Take that away and they and blood thirsty and sexualy debauched as well as being debauched whille eating lark's tongues and otters noses. Worst thing that happened to 'em the hellenization..take my word for it! Lets see the Roman 'Republic' society stand without Hellenezation. There is a saying that I like to say to myself, "Greece influenced Rome, more than Rome influenced itself." And in a good way ladys and gents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted April 30, 2006 Report Share Posted April 30, 2006 Relooking at this thread, I now know what my problem is with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted May 1, 2006 Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 Relooking at this thread, I now know what my problem is with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted May 1, 2006 Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 Well, yes, and I believe I did qualify that in my above post. But as I also stated, even there it's not a monolithic force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted May 1, 2006 Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 Well, yes, and I believe I did qualify that in my above post. But as I also stated, even there it's not a monolithic force. But in the sense that "Hellenism" in this regards represented the East-West amalgamation brought about by Alexander, it is somewhat of a monolithic force. It's not just 'Greek' culture Romans like Cato where worried about, it was the floodgates of other Eastern stimulus (Persian, Egyptian, Phoenician, etc...) that Hellenism brought with it by the 2nd Century BC. But its a double edged sword, it was post-Alexander Hellenism that made it possible for Rome (once Hellenized themselves) to conquer and hold the east. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted May 1, 2006 Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 I'm afraid I'll just have to disagree with you, Senator. Augustus allowed and even promoted certain strands of Hellenism which were useful and non-threatening, but tried to stem the tide of certain other Hellenistic forces as embodied by his foes at Actium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted May 1, 2006 Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 I'm afraid I'll just have to disagree with you, Senator. But I'm not putting up the argument that Hellenization as a whole was bad for Rome, I'm trying to give an answer that "No, Cato wasn't nuts" for reasons thus stated... Like I said, it was a double edged sword & Augustus may have been stong enough weed out the bad elements but on a whole, Roman gravitas did change. One must look at it from Cato the Censor's point of view, not with the benefit of the big picture as we have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.