Do you feel some affinity for the Greco-Roman culture ?

[enter_tain]

I've been musing about your question as I've gone about my day.

I don't know where you're getting that "we often link Western Civilization with IE-speaking peoples".

Who is the "We" in that sentence? When I was in university, and a good one if I may say so, the Indo-Europeans were barely mentioned in the year long required Western Civilization course. As a major in European history they were barely mentioned in the other courses I took too, usually only in reference to language and the sky gods etc.

It was very much a niche subject, very much relegated to "anthropology" courses, where it was already in very bad odor as a relic of racist 19th century anthropologists and Nazism.

The emphasis was indeed on the invention of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent, the division of labor, city states, writing, the Babylonian Empire, jump to the Greek City States and Greek culture, and then Rome.

Even today, in the courses which still remain, you can see the Indo-Europeans are conspicuous by their absence.

This is just the first syllabus which popped up.
https://sasn.rutgers.edu/sites/defa...-files/Western Civ 1 syllabus fall 2021_0.pdf

The first mention of them I heard was through a psychology class which assigned a paper by Cavalli-Sforza on in-breeding. The professor happened to be a believer in genetics as an element in IQ. (He'd be fired now!) I went on to read other papers Cavalli-Sforza had written and fell down the rabbit hole. I then took a course in Greek mythology, read Frazier, Marija Gimbutas, and so on.

If people pick up their European history from discussions on anthrofora, they can get a very warped view of how it was taught and the conclusions which were drawn. So far as I was taught and knew: "ex oriente lux", or light comes from the east. Other, as I said, than for language and religion, "Western Civilization" was formed by the absorption of the advancements which first took place in the Near East, and later on in Greece and Rome.

I will acknowledge that once you know the signs to look for, there are Indo-European elements to ancient Greek culture, for example in the glorification of the warrior and the horse, and in the religion, but that was not something which was ever taught in Western Civ classes. To the best of my recollection it wasn't even taught in Greek history classes. You had to take specific courses on Bronze Age Europe perhaps. I honestly don't know.

Prior to the Indo-European invasions, there was no concept of "Europe" so to speak. They were the unifying force that contributed to this notion of Western Civilization. We often speak of these Mesolithic/Neolithic groups in terms of genetics, but they likely didn't see themselves as such. Languages such as Basque, Etruscan, Minoan, etc... even if they go back to a unified EEF-language, were so different that they were essentially unrecognizable from one another, not just to the average person, but to linguists.

Before cultural hegemony is established, oftentimes there is a period of struggle in which similarly cultured people fight with one another. Examples include the Warring States period in China that led to the Qin dynasty hegemony, Ancient Greek states fighting for hegemony until Alexander's ascension and the development of the Koine Greek language and Hellenistic period. Or the wars that took place in Western Europe from the Renaissance to the end of WW2 when America established hegemony.

The history of Europe is essentially the struggle of patriarchal, IE-speaking, horse riding, bronze/iron weapon using, peoples fighting each other until Julius Caesar unified Western Celtic Europe culturally, while Alexander did so with the Eastern Mediterranean. This created the Greek East/Latin West flanks of the multi-ethnic Roman Empire.

 

[enter_tain]

I've observed certain phenomena in recorded history that might have analogues in prehistory. Constantinople existed for over 1000 years before the Turks took it over or even came to Europe. So did Ankara. London was the capital of Britain hundreds of years before the Anglo-Saxon invasions of England.

Invaders don't necessarily just destroy everything they find. Oftentimes they leverage the pre-existing structures of the invaded country to their advantage. I have feeling "Old Europe" as Marija Gimbutas described were very advanced societies, but their sedentary cultures made them ripe for invasion. The Palace of Knossos and some of the cities in Cucuteni Tripolye are mind blowing for their time.

Imo, IE peoples were to Old Europe what Germanic/Slavic/Turkic people were to the Romans/Greeks during the Middle Ages. The Romans/Greeks had grown corrupt, sedentary, and were on the verge of collapse. Germanic/Slavic/Turkic people brought energy with their invasion, but instead of a period of pure destruction, they leveraged the culture/knowledge of the Latin/Greek people for themselves to create the Ottoman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, etc...

 

[Angela]

Prior to the Indo-European invasions, there was no concept of "Europe" so to speak. They were the unifying force that contributed to this notion of Western Civilization. We often speak of these Mesolithic/Neolithic groups in terms of genetics, but they likely didn't see themselves as such. Languages such as Basque, Etruscan, Minoan, etc... even if they go back to a unified EEF-language, were so different that they were essentially unrecognizable from one another, not just to the average person, but to linguists.

Before cultural hegemony is established, oftentimes there is a period of struggle in which similarly cultured people fight with one another. Examples include the Warring States period in China that led to the Qin dynasty hegemony, Ancient Greek states fighting for hegemony until Alexander's ascension and the development of the Koine Greek language and Hellenistic period. Or the wars that took place in Western Europe from the Renaissance to the end of WW2 when America established hegemony.

The history of Europe is essentially the struggle of patriarchal, IE-speaking, horse riding, bronze/iron weapon using, peoples fighting each other until Julius Caesar unified Western Celtic Europe culturally, while Alexander did so with the Eastern Mediterranean. This created the Greek East/Latin West flanks of the multi-ethnic Roman Empire.

Sorry, none of that makes any sense. The whole concept of "Europe" is a relatively new one, developed by the Greeks.

This is the scholarship on the topic:
"The first recorded usage of Eurṓpē as a geographic term is in the Homeric Hymn to Delian Apollo, in reference to the western shore of the Aegean Sea. As a name for a part of the known world, it is first used in the 6th century BCE by Anaximander and Hecataeus. Anaximander placed the boundary between Asia and Europe along the Phasis River (the modern Rioni River on the territory of Georgia) in the Caucasus, a convention still followed by Herodotus in the 5th century BCE.^[28]Herodotus mentioned that the world had been divided by unknown persons into three parts, Europe, Asia and Libya (Africa), with the Nile and the Phasis forming their boundaries—though he also states that some considered the River Don, rather than the Phasis, as the boundary between Europe and Asia.^[29] Europe's eastern frontier was defined in the 1st century by geographer Strabo at the River Don.^[30] The Book of Jubilees described the continents as the lands given by Noah to his three sons; Europe was defined as stretching from the Pillars of Hercules at the Strait of Gibraltar, separating it from Northwest Africa, to the Don, separating it from Asia.^[31]The convention received by the Middle Ages and surviving into modern usage is that of the Roman era used by Roman-era authors such as Posidonius,^[32] Strabo^[33] and Ptolemy,^[34] who took the Tanais (the modern Don River) as the boundary.
The term "Europe" is first used for a cultural sphere in the Carolingian Renaissance of the 9th century. From that time, the term designated the sphere of influence of the Western Church, as opposed to both the Eastern Orthodox churches and to the Islamic world.]"
I don't know where you get the idea that there was still some struggle going on between the farmers of "OldEurope" and the Indo-Europeans past about the time of the Middle Bronze Age at the latest. I know of no evidence for that Plus, you seem unaware that there were no "pure" Indo-Europeans by that time. The Germans, if you missed it, are in some models about half EEF. That's certainly true of the French.

The people of the Iron Age hadn't the foggiest notion that they were at least partly descended from "Indo-Europeans" who had come from the steppe. By the Iron Age the tribes which inhabited Europe had long ago lost any such knowledge, or even that that there was any such group known as the Indo-Europeans. Those are constructs created much closer to our own time. Their languages, such as Latin and German, or even Latin and Celtic, were unintelligible to each other. All that was left in some of them were some vague ideas about having come from somewhere in the far "north".

The empires of Alexander, of the Carthaginians, the Etrurians, the Romans, were created, as always before in the Near East and Egypt, and as empires after them, for power and money, money which was heavily dependent on the control of trade, whatever gloss they might put on it.

 

[Angela]

I've observed certain phenomena in recorded history that might have analogues in prehistory. Constantinople existed for over 1000 years before the Turks took it over or even came to Europe. So did Ankara. London was the capital of Britain hundreds of years before the Anglo-Saxon invasions of England.

Invaders don't necessarily just destroy everything they find. Oftentimes they leverage the pre-existing structures of the invaded country to their advantage. I have feeling "Old Europe" as Marija Gimbutas described were very advanced societies, but their sedentary cultures made them ripe for invasion. The Palace of Knossos and some of the cities in Cucuteni Tripolye are mind blowing for their time.

Imo, IE peoples were to Old Europe what Germanic/Slavic/Turkic people were to the Romans/Greeks during the Middle Ages. The Romans/Greeks had grown corrupt, sedentary, and were on the verge of collapse. Germanic/Slavic/Turkic people brought energy with their invasion, but instead of a period of pure destruction, they leveraged the culture/knowledge of the Latin/Greek people for themselves to create the Ottoman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, etc...

The destruction was "pure" and almost total. It plunged Europe into a period rightly known as the "Dark Ages" for hundreds of years.

You really should read: The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization by Bryan Ward-Perkins, based on archaeology more than anything else, and not theories to suit one's preferences. Razib Khan constantly touts it, and he's right to do so. Everyone should read it.

 

[enter_tain]

Sorry, none of that makes any sense. The whole concept of "Europe" is a relatively new one, developed by the Greeks.

This is the scholarship on the topic:
"The first recorded usage of Eurṓpē as a geographic term is in the Homeric Hymn to Delian Apollo, in reference to the western shore of the Aegean Sea. As a name for a part of the known world, it is first used in the 6th century BCE by Anaximander and Hecataeus. Anaximander placed the boundary between Asia and Europe along the Phasis River (the modern Rioni River on the territory of Georgia) in the Caucasus, a convention still followed by Herodotus in the 5th century BCE.^[28]Herodotus mentioned that the world had been divided by unknown persons into three parts, Europe, Asia and Libya (Africa), with the Nile and the Phasis forming their boundaries—though he also states that some considered the River Don, rather than the Phasis, as the boundary between Europe and Asia.^[29] Europe's eastern frontier was defined in the 1st century by geographer Strabo at the River Don.^[30] The Book of Jubilees described the continents as the lands given by Noah to his three sons; Europe was defined as stretching from the Pillars of Hercules at the Strait of Gibraltar, separating it from Northwest Africa, to the Don, separating it from Asia.^[31]The convention received by the Middle Ages and surviving into modern usage is that of the Roman era used by Roman-era authors such as Posidonius,^[32] Strabo^[33] and Ptolemy,^[34] who took the Tanais (the modern Don River) as the boundary.
The term "Europe" is first used for a cultural sphere in the Carolingian Renaissance of the 9th century. From that time, the term designated the sphere of influence of the Western Church, as opposed to both the Eastern Orthodox churches and to the Islamic world.]"
I don't know where you get the idea that there was still some struggle going on between the farmers of "OldEurope" and the Indo-Europeans past about the time of the Middle Bronze Age at the latest. I know of no evidence for that Plus, you seem unaware that there were no "pure" Indo-Europeans by that time. The Germans, if you missed it, are in some models about half EEF. That's certainly true of the French.

The people of the Iron Age hadn't the foggiest notion that they were at least partly descended from "Indo-Europeans" who had come from the steppe. By the Iron Age the tribes which inhabited Europe had long ago lost any such knowledge, or even that that there was any such group known as the Indo-Europeans. Those are constructs created much closer to our own time. Their languages, such as Latin and German, or even Latin and Celtic, were unintelligible to each other. All that was left in some of them were some vague ideas about having come from somewhere in the far "north".

The empires of Alexander, of the Carthaginians, the Etrurians, the Romans, were created, as always before in the Near East and Egypt, and as empires after them, for power and money, money which was heavily dependent on the control of trade, whatever gloss they might put on it.

It truly doesn't matter if the IE-speaking people were not aware of a common ancestry. Their cultures were very similar. You don't see horse-riding bronze/iron weapon wielding warrior cultures in North America, Polynesia, Sub-saharan Africa, etc... in those periods. They were heavily to tied to IE-speaking peoples (and I'm including Persians here) or people that contact with the Eurasian steppes.


Yes, the concept of Europe came around the time of the Greeks, hence my "when Alexander and Julius Caesar established hegemony" comment. Western Civilization was created when the Romans and Greeks became the hegemons of almost all IE-speaking people after a period of 2000 years.

 

[enter_tain]

The destruction was "pure" and almost total. It plunged Europe into a period rightly known as the "Dark Ages" for hundreds of years.

You really should read: The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization by Bryan Ward-Perkins, based on archaeology more than anything else, and not theories to suit one's preferences. Razib Khan constantly touts it, and he's right to do so. Everyone should read it.

This is total and complete garbage. The Roman Empire didn't "fall" until the Turks seized Constantinople. The Byzantine Empire had wealth, riches, high culture. The Kievan Rus was a client state of the Byzantines, and that eventually led to Russia's ascendancy into a world superpower. The Russians got their script, religion, art, architecture, flag from the Byzantines.

Even in Western Europe, Charlamagne kept his empire close to the Papacy (like his own father) for a reason. He knew there was value in being associated with the Roman sphere of influence.

 

[Angela]

This is total and complete garbage. The Roman Empire didn't "fall" until the Turks seized Constantinople. The Byzantine Empire had wealth, riches, high culture. The Kievan Rus was a client state of the Byzantines, and that eventually led to Russia's ascendancy into a world superpower. The Russians got their script, religion, art, architecture, flag from the Byzantines.

Even in Western Europe, Charlamagne kept his empire close to the Papacy (like his own father) for a reason. He knew there was value in being associated with the Roman sphere of influence.

Keep it civil, or you're out of here.

It took hundreds of years for Europe to recover from the utter devastation; in some places the standard of living didn't recover until the 19th century.

Stop emoting and start reasoning from facts which are readily available to you.

READ the scholarship, starting with the Ward-Perkins book..

 

[enter_tain]

Keep it civil, or you're out of here.

It took hundreds of years for Europe to recover from the utter devastation; in some places the standard of living didn't recover until the 19th century.

Stop emoting and start reasoning from facts which are readily available to you.

READ the scholarship, starting with the Ward-Perkins book..

Catholicism is the proof that Rome still held massive power over Western Europe. The Protestant reforms happened because they thought the Pope had too much power. If it was completely destroyed, that wouldn't the case. The Middle Ages were a period of stagnation, but there is no such thing as "complete" destruction.

A lot of this "fall of Rome" doomsday stuff is peddled by anti-immigrant right wing people (like Steve Bannon and co) who want to tie the Goths vs. Romans to some contemporary immigration issue.

Rome "fell" as in they couldn't exert military influence anymore, but they still held a lot of religious/cultural power. This is when they wrote a letter to Britons for their withdrawal right before the Anglo-Saxons moved in. Like I mentioned, London was the capital of Britain hundreds of years before the Anglo-Saxons. Costantinople was the capital of Rome a thousand years before the Turks. These settlements weren't just destroyed.

 

[Angela]

Since you refuse to go to the book I'm forced to bring the book to you, or just put you on ignore.

"Historian Peter Brown would have you believe these invasions were really a peaceful accommodation between Romans and barbarians. This would have come as a surprise to the people directly affected by the chaos. The reality is the invasions were largely unpleasant and disruptive for those who lived through them. When Rome was besieged by the Goths in 410, the Romans turned to cannibalism to avoid starvation. The violence and devastation of barbarian conquest affected all areas of the empire, some more than others. In Gaul, the violence lasted for almost a century, only ending with the replacement of the Imperial government with Burgundian and Frankish kingdoms by the sixth century.[2]"

"The Dark Ages were not an isolated phenomenon; they affected most areas of the Roman Empire. However, not everywhere experienced decline at the same time or witnessed similar levels of decline. North Africa, North and Central Italy and Britain were in decline centuries before the Aegean World. In the case of Britain, the decline was particularly drastic. The Romano-Celtic civilization that had once flourished on the island virtually disappeared, returning its inhabitants to a prehistoric level of existence. By the seventh century, all territories formerly under Imperial administration, with the exception of Constantinople and the Levant (which continued to flourish under Arab Muslim rule), had experienced calamitous decline.[3]"

"The disappearance of considerable economic complexity, which resulted in the end of prosperity across the empire, is powerful evidence of widespread decline. This was the sophistication of Roman manufacture and distribution of high quality goods, which had benefited most of the empire’s inhabitants. During the fifth century, political infighting among Romans and barbarian invasion had virtually destroyed regional economies, putting an end to complexity.The disappearance of complexity was by no means uniform; there is some inter-regional variation. By 400 AD, this economic complexity had begun to recede in the West; by 600, the eastern Mediterranean was affected, with the exception of the Levant. Britain had experienced the most drastic decline in terms of economic complexity, sinking below the level of the pre-Roman Iron Age. Europe was not to see the same level of material sophistication that had existed in Roman times until sometime between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries, the period otherwise known as the Late Middle Ages.[4]"

"The most abundant evidence of Roman decline comes from study of pottery. There are three features of this pottery that were not to return again to the West until centuries later: these are its excellent quality and standardization, its production in massive quantities and its widespread geographical diffusion. High quality Roman pottery was not only found among the rich, but also among the poor. By the post-Roman period, these three features were no longer in evidence. All sophistication in the production and trading of pottery receded, virtually disappearing in Britain and parts of Spain. The overall quality of Roman pottery had declined, becoming more basic and impractical; the amount of pottery in circulation had decreased substantially and its geographical distribution from the great manufacturing centres, such as those of Roman North Africa, became increasingly restricted.[5]"

"Additional evidence of Roman decline comes from the study of housing. During Roman times, even the humblest dwellings were made of mortared stone and brick and had tiled roofing. In both urban and rural areas, houses with marble and mosaic flooring, underfloor heating and piped water were ubiquitous. In the post-Roman Mediterranean region, use of stone and brick to build dwellings had declined significantly. Most domestic housing was largely
made of perishable materials: timber walls, dirt floors and thatched roofing...

"all new buildings constructed during the fifth and sixth centuries in Britain were made of perishable materials. The church and monasteries of Jarrow and Monkwearmouth, built towards the end of the seventh century, are among the first stone structures in England since the Roman period. To build these structures, the Northumbrian abbot Benedict Biscop had to import artisans from Gaul because there was no one in Britain trained in masonry and glazing. "

" in post-Roman Italy, only kings and bishops continued to enjoy a Roman-level standard of living in terms of housing.[6]"

"Recent evidence from ice caps in Greenland reveals the presence of large-scale manufacturing operations in Roman times. By reconstructing the history of atmospheric pollution from ice cores, researchers have determined that lead, copper and silver smelting was actually quite widespread during antiquity. Research shows this metalworking declined significantly, returning to prehistoric levels in the post-Roman period. It was not to reach Roman levels again until the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries, which is around the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.[7]"

"During Roman times, coinage in gold, silver and copper was abundant. Its use as a medium of exchange was a common feature of daily life. Not only did the rich have access to coinage, the poor did so as well. By post-Roman times, the use of coinage had almost totally disappeared in Britain. Excavation of archaeological sites without Roman phases of occupation and settlement rarely uncover evidence of coin usage."

"In the western Mediterranean, the decline of coinage was less dramatic. From the fifth to seventh centuries, copper coins were rarely issued and circulated. The main exception to this pattern of decline was the city of Rome itself, where large numbers of copper coins were still in circulation. In the eastern Mediterranean, with the exception of Constantinople and the Levant, the use of coinage had become scarce by the seventh century.[8]"

The following is extremely important to me:

"Certain sectors of Roman society were heavily dependent on the written word. Reading and writing were common among members of the imperial bureaucracy and army. Things had to be labelled and counted, collected and distributed, making the ability to read and write virtually indispensable. Like Roman officials, aristocrats were also expected to be literate. Basic functional literacy was not enough; the aristocrat needed to be well-versed in Greek and Latin language and literature. Among the Roman upper classes, we can be certain illiteracy was rare.

"This state of affairs changed in the post-Roman period. In Anglo-Saxon Britain, literacy vanished completely. In the western Mediterranean, the numerous stamps, seals and inscriptions that had once characterized Roman commercial and military life almost disappeared. Casual writing, such as Phoebus’ graffiti (mentioned above), became rare. Because the world had become simpler, reading and writing were no longer needed in daily life."

"


I

 

[Angela]

"In contrast to the high literacy of the Roman aristocracy, it was not uncommon for rulers in the barbarian West to be illiterate. Even a great ruler like Charlemagne struggled to master the Latin alphabet. The clergy was the only segment of early medieval society with anything approaching a high degree of literacy.[9]"

"By 500 AD, copies of most Latin authors were still easily obtainable in Rome and other areas of the West, despite the ravages of war and the neglect and hostility of Christian intellectuals. However, by the post-Roman period, the transmission of pagan Latin manuscripts had virtually ceased. In their 1983 book Texts aSurvey of the Latin Classics, Reynolds and Marshall observe:
“The copying of classical texts tapered off to such an extent during the Dark Ages that the continuity of pagan culture came close to being severed”.

For the Greek East, most pagan literature was lost because of both economic factors and Christian hostility. In his 1991 book Kallimachos: The Alexandrian Library and the Origins of Bibliography, Classicist Rudolf Blum estimates that one percent of all classical Greek literature has come down to us.

The loss of ancient literature was both substantial and virtually unprecedented in the history of antiquity. Scholars estimate that between 1 to 10% of all ancient literature survived the Dark Ages.[10]

I could go on to cover the incredible decline in trade, the destruction of road systems, the dangers accompanying what travel took place because of the ubiquitous bandits on the road, the resulting isolation of the majority of the population on manors as serfs, the abandonment of the aqueducts and thus the scarcity of clean water, the disappearance of bathing, the substitution of trial by combat for the rule of law and on and on.

In Italy, we see what happened to the monumental architecture, the aqueducts, the baths; the ruins are all around us. That's one of the reasons the Renaissance began in Italy. It wasn't as easy to forget.

What also wasn't as easy to forget were the Lombard decrees making us second class citizens in our own land, reduced to serfdom whatever our prior status, our lives worth a fraction of that of Lombards if killed.

You want to tell me again that the Barbarian Invasions were no big whoops?

Of course Italians went into the Church; it was the only way left for intelligence to bring you advancement.

 

[enter_tain]

"In contrast to the high literacy of the Roman aristocracy, it was not uncommon for rulers in the barbarian West to be illiterate. Even a great ruler like Charlemagne struggled to master the Latin alphabet. The clergy was the only segment of early medieval society with anything approaching a high degree of literacy.[9]"

"By 500 AD, copies of most Latin authors were still easily obtainable in Rome and other areas of the West, despite the ravages of war and the neglect and hostility of Christian intellectuals. However, by the post-Roman period, the transmission of pagan Latin manuscripts had virtually ceased. In their 1983 book Texts aSurvey of the Latin Classics, Reynolds and Marshall observe:
“The copying of classical texts tapered off to such an extent during the Dark Ages that the continuity of pagan culture came close to being severed”.

For the Greek East, most pagan literature was lost because of both economic factors and Christian hostility. In his 1991 book Kallimachos: The Alexandrian Library and the Origins of Bibliography, Classicist Rudolf Blum estimates that one percent of all classical Greek literature has come down to us.

The loss of ancient literature was both substantial and virtually unprecedented in the history of antiquity. Scholars estimate that between 1 to 10% of all ancient literature survived the Dark Ages.[10]

I could go on to cover the incredible decline in trade, the destruction of road systems, the dangers accompanying what travel took place because of the ubiquitous bandits on the road, the resulting isolation of the majority of the population on manors as serfs, the abandonment of the aqueducts and thus the scarcity of clean water, the disappearance of bathing, the substitution of trial by combat for the rule of law and on and on.

In Italy, we see what happened to the monumental architecture, the aqueducts, the baths; the ruins are all around us. That's one of the reasons the Renaissance began in Italy. It wasn't as easy to forget.

What also wasn't as easy to forget were the Lombard decrees making us second class citizens in our own land, reduced to serfdom whatever our prior status, our lives worth a fraction of that of Lombards if killed.

You want to tell me again that the Barbarian Invasions were no big whoops?

Of course Italians went into the Church; it was the only way left for intelligence to bring you advancement.

My point wasn't that it wasn't a big whoops, nor that it didn't bring about destruction. My point was that there was no total destruction. That would mean an entire erasure of the pre-existing structures. Rome still maintained a large sway over Western Europe, while Constantinople over Eastern Europe/Mediterranean.

In fact, the point I made is that I compared Old Europe to the declining Roman Empire, which made it ripe for invasion. Just like Germanic people that took over Celtic/Roman areas, they still maintained cultural ties with those areas. Vikings, Franks and Saxons all converted to Christianity, adopted the Latin script for their own languages, and then there was this thing called the Crusades.

What do London, Manchester, York, etc... have in common? They were founded by Romans. The Anglo-Saxon invaders leveraged the existing native structures, even though they brought with them a new language.

 

[Jovialis]

The Greeks and Romans were an Indo-European speaking, and genetically admixed people, who were predominately descended from the non-Indo-European speaking neolithic groups. The origins of Western Civilization beings specifically with Greco-Roman civilization. Ergo, Western civilization was created by Indo-European speaking, and genetically admixed people, who were predominately descended from the non-Indo-European speaking neolithic groups.

Western civilization was not created directly by Indo-Europeans or neolithic farmers, but their admixed descendants.

 

[EV13SON]

I agree mostly with Jove it was a mixture of all these Indo European and Pre Indo European cultures and values, I think were Western Civilization is unique is in that a unique form of Government took shape in Greece which was Democracy and also a sense of Individualism which also was very much key to the Greek culture. I think those are the key qualities needed to call yourself Western civilized...Democracy where the citizens have a say and Individualism is a right to to pursue ones self interest both allow common citizens greater political and economical movement. Rome had the Republic the problem however is there's always going to be individuals who are very skilled and pursuing their own self interest and will find ways to amass great wealth not knocking it, its just reality, buy off Politicians and eventually the inequalities lead to the people crying out for a Caesar to save them...I do question whether a Democratic Monarchy like you have in some EU countries is more stable over the long run do we need a King or Caesar at the top in western society? Even if they are nothing more than a figurehead?

 

[Northener]

Do you feel affinity with your Greco-Roman cultural heritage as a Westerner ?

Yes I do I guess the footprint was big.... even in genetic sense. Even for a stocky inhabitant of the edge of Europe around the North Sea reminds my E-V22 most probably had a relation with the Romans. My family belonged for generations to a Roman Catholic minority population with even latinized Frisian names like 'Focas' in stead of Frisian 'Fokke' (means folk) etc etc.

And by the way without Greco Roman culture not a Germanic culture. Germanic culture was born vis a vis the Roman World.

In the late antique the Germanic foederati let not only to a militarization of the 'Germans' but also to a deep impact of Roman culture.

Especially along the Franks and the ruling Merovingian dynasty (that started as foederati and war lords) were eager to absorb Roman culture. Important Frankish cities as Cologne and Aachen were in fact founded by the Romans (so their populations). Until the eleventh century in certain area's (of former Germanic inferior) they spoke kind of vulgar Latin dialects.

Charlemagne even claimed to be the 'renewer of the Roman empire':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renovatio_imperii_Romanorum

So I guess the loss was not as big as it might seem like, of course the direct impact of the center of the Roman world, the city of Rome was diminished....but the cultural impact certainly not....

 

[Northener]

I do question whether a Democratic Monarchy like you have in some EU countries is more stable over the long run do we need a King or Caesar at the top in western society? Even if they are nothing more than a figurehead?

I live in such a democratic monarchy, they do represent a kind of 'unity' function but at the same time we must no overestimate it, it's mainly symbolic (not real power based).

And do we need new caesars ?....mmmm I guess the neo-caesar c.q. neo-czar (etymological the same!!!) is causing headaches enough.....

 

[Luso]

The Romans not only are the reason why our language is Latinized, we take influence in many other aspects as well. A big one is genetics. The Romans basically changed us iberians (aside from Basques) from IA Basque shifted people (all over the peninsula) to what we plot today. They had a larger genetic influence than people might think.

 

[Jovialis]

Yes, the Romans made a lot of colonies, particularly in the south of Iberia. The Iberian peninsula was also changed by other groups like Greeks as well, including people from the Eastern Mediterranean, and North Africa, according to the 2018 paper on Iberia.

 

[EV13SON]

I live in such a democratic monarchy, they do represent a kind of 'unity' function but at the same time we must no overestimate it, it's mainly symbolic (not real power based).

And do we need new caesars ?....mmmm I guess the neo-caesar c.q. neo-czar (etymological the same!!!) is causing headaches enough.....

Oh yes they only serve as a figurehead to enforce a sort of stable long term identity and culture for the masses to follow...God I'd hate to think America's figurehead would be a Trump but damn do we have a lot of Hillbilly Wrestling Nascar type folk in our Great Country maybe that is our damn culture

 

[Northener]

Oh yes they only serve as a figurehead to enforce a sort of stable long term identity and culture for the masses to follow...God I'd hate to think America's figurehead would be a Trump but damn do we have a lot of Hillbilly Wrestling Nascar type folk in our Great Country maybe that is our damn culture

Hahahahah and in the Dutch case this indeed a long time history, the oldest William of Orange was a kind of Zelenski the fighter against the big Spanish empire in the sixteenth century, with the Duke of Alba as a kind of Putin of the sixteenth century. His dynasty became associated with the Protestant believe and the Dutch patriae. Even outside see the orange walks in Northern Ireland.....

 

[EV13SON]

Hahahahah and in the Dutch case this indeed a long time history, the oldest William of Orange was a kind of Zelenski the fighter against the big Spanish empire in the sixteenth century, with the Duke of Alba as a kind of Putin of the sixteenth century. His dynasty became associated with the Protestant believe and the Dutch patriae. Even outside see the orange walks in Northern Ireland.....

Oh yes I've traced my father's line to Northern Ireland they were Orangemen... I have the transcript of an old letter dated 1879, where a relative of mine writes back to a cousin in N. Ireland...

It is gratifying to me to know that Protetestantism is still rising in the ascendancy above Popery. I was overjoyed on reading the statement contained in the Belfast news you sent me last year, of the universal and grand display made by the Orangemen, aided and graced with the presence and addresses of many of the most prominent and most influential men of the Land. Long may their royal orange Flag triumphantly wave undisturbed over the hearts of true Protestant Orangemen.

BTW I've had the pleasure of visiting Amsterdam lovely city much culture and damn I loved the Indonesian food they serve there at the bar What happens in Amsterdam stays in Amsterdam...:embarassed:

Well with that diversion out of the way... back to the Greco Roman talk