Films & Series I, Caesar: The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire (1997)

Rome is essentially a fractured civilization-state post-mortem. The culture, the systems, etc live on, but are isolated to into smaller autonomous nation-states.

even if that was the case, it doesn't change how the romans are perceived in popular culture around here.

i don't agree with most of what real expert wrote about germany in another thread but he made an example with people not dressing up as germanics but mostly as romans. that has several reasons, not only that germanics are tied to national socialism. it is also because 1, romans were simply more advanced and you don't want to play the primitive barbarian 2 romans are seen as immigrants of a foreign culture beeing way better than the native one, it is the antithesis of the neo nazi germanic barbarian idol.
in that sense is might also be a form of self-critique, and the germans are extremely self-critical, to dress up as the invader, acknowledging that he was simply better, rather than what you perceive as your own ancestor.
 
Rome is essentially a fractured civilization-state post-mortem. The culture, the systems, etc live on, but are isolated to into smaller autonomous nation-states.

the Germanic invaders were illiterate nomadic warriors chasing each other
it doesn't mean they were stupid
or at least, it were only the smarter ones that could survive

it is said that the Franks were succesfull because they relied on 2 peoples :
in Gaul they relied on Romanised Gaulish scribes for administration and maintenance of the infrastructure and they recruited warriors from across the Rhine

England is different story
archeologists have surveyed the borderline between Britton and Anglo-Saxon farmers
they found very little evidence of violence and they came to a completely different conclusion than as suggested in the legends about king Arthur
the Anglo-Saxon 'invasion' was a mass immigration of farmers settling in England
this immigration had already started before the Roman legions had left England
of course, like everywhere there must also have been some warlords fighting for controll and hegemony

I think the main problem of the dark ages is that power and controll became very fractured resulting in endless struggles and wars
 
the Germanic invaders were illiterate nomadic warriors chasing each other
it doesn't mean they were stupid
or at least, it were only the smarter ones that could survive

it is said that the Franks were succesfull because they relied on 2 peoples :
in Gaul they relied on Romanised Gaulish scribes for administration and maintenance of the infrastructure and they recruited warriors from across the Rhine

England is different story
archeologists have surveyed the borderline between Britton and Anglo-Saxon farmers
they found very little evidence of violence and they came to a completely different conclusion than as suggested in the legends about king Arthur
the Anglo-Saxon 'invasion' was a mass immigration of farmers settling in England
this immigration had already started before the Roman legions had left England
of course, like everywhere there must also have been some warlords fighting for controll and hegemony

I think the main problem of the dark ages is that power and controll became very fractured resulting in endless struggles and wars

I don't think anyone is calling them stupid. They just didn't have the same technological exchanges with the Ancient Near Eastern civilizations, as Greece, and by way of Greece, the Etruscans did. Ultimately this helped give the Romans an edge, as well down the line. Eric Cline's 1177 BC is a good read on the topic of the interconnected trade that these early civilizations had. Sunken trade ships reveal just how much goods were being exchanged, and no doubt ideas.
 
Here is an interesting map about GDP per Capita by region in the Roman Empire. Despite the collapse and dark age that followed, the benefits of this legacy of early trade, and technological exchange are quite evident:


9mviWq2.jpg


The people behind the blog that created the map are legitimate professionals:
https://nephist.wordpress.com/eds/
https://nephist.wordpress.com/2014/...-the-contours-of-the-world-economy-1ad-today/
 
Here is an interesting map about GDP per Capita by region in the Roman Empire. Despite the collapse and dark age that followed, the benefits of this legacy of early trade, and technological exchange are quite evident:


9mviWq2.jpg


The people behind the blog that created the map are legitimate professionals:
https://nephist.wordpress.com/eds/
https://nephist.wordpress.com/2014/...-the-contours-of-the-world-economy-1ad-today/

it's what I told earlier on in this thread
the conquest of Gaul was not to the benefit of Rome, except that it created a boarder along the Rhine river
and it was foolish for Tiberius and Germanicus to spend a fortune on conquering Germania
Belgium remained underdevelopped under Rome, the infrastructure Rome built in Belgium was mainly to support the legions along the Rhine

after 1177 BC :

the bronze age collapse and the warlike Assyrians pushed the Phoenicians westward
the Greeks followed and became rivals
the whole Mediterranean became part of the eastern trade network
and the Romans became the dominant power
furthermore when the Chinese Han eliminated the Xiongnu tribes, and the Parthians established their empire, the silk road opened in the 1st cent BC

that's where Rome had it's main interest
they were not the traders themselves, but they were the regulators
 
I don't think that wokeness is to point out the massacres that the conquerors inflicted upon the conquered no matter who the conquerors were, whether it was the Greeks or the Romans or the colonists during the colonial period. Let's face it, it was the slaves that enabled the glory of Athens and Rome. Without leisure there cannot be philosophy or history or art. You need wealth and time to pursue those things. That is not trying to minimize the accomplishments of Greece and Rome but to recognize that there were some unsavory things about either that some people want to hide. Same thing about the United States and its treatment of the aborigines and the slaves. The US is was a great country but let's not hide the massacres. Same with China, same with Russia, etc.
 
I don't think that wokeness is to point out the massacres that the conquerors inflicted upon the conquered no matter who the conquerors were, whether it was the Greeks or the Romans or the colonists during the colonial period. Let's face it, it was the slaves that enabled the glory of Athens and Rome. Without leisure there cannot be philosophy or history or art. You need wealth and time to pursue those things. That is not trying to minimize the accomplishments of Greece and Rome but to recognize that there were some unsavory things about either that some people want to hide. Same thing about the United States and its treatment of the aborigines and the slaves. The US is was a great country but let's not hide the massacres. Same with China, same with Russia, etc.

I think slavery was actually a great determent to those societies, rather than enabling their glory. It was terrible for their economies, and everyone below the elite classes.

It is like trying to say great literary works are more credited to people that chopped down trees to make paper, rather than the authors who wrote it.
 
I think slavery was actually a great determent to those societies, rather than enabling their glory. It was terrible for their economies, and everyone below the elite classes.

It is like trying to say great literary works are more credited to people that chopped down trees to make paper, rather than the authors who wrote it.

If the collective efforts of lowest rung of society are credited with facilitating glory, than you have to concede that a great many of the servile class are worth just one of the visionary-master class, and hierarchy is inevitable in nature. After all you need both to create the glory. The exact same system has existed to this day, even if it is in a different form; many who serve the few. As a matter of fact, wealth and power is even more stratified than ever today.
 
If the collective efforts of lowest rung of society are credited with facilitating glory, than you have to concede that a great many of the servile class are worth just one of the visionary-master class, and hierarchy is inevitable in nature. After all you need both to create the glory. The exact same system has existed to this day, even if it is in a different form; many who serve the few. As a matter of fact, wealth and power is even more stratified than ever today.

What will become of the servile class when their utility is eliminated by automations? They will either become extinct, or drag humanity backwards for their own survival. If they are phased out, than only a small amount of people of higher quality will remain. That would probably be better for the planet, and the rest of nature.
 
The backwardness or primitivity of the Germanic tribes is very exaggerated. The thing is, that Germanic folks had a quite sophisticated language, building techniques (they built long houses in wood), social structures and sophisticated weapons. That said, compared to the Romans who were even for our modern standard, extremely advanced, the Germanic tribes were certainly not that advanced. So, the Germanic people likely had thriving, vibrant cultures of their own, were proficient at warfare and produced nice artifacts and works of artistry. But they didn't have the dense urban centers, advanced engineering, libraries of written materials, and unified political identities that Rome had at the time. Furthermore, it’s also not true that the Romans considered the Germanic Barbarians as wild brutes or savages only. In fact, some Roman historians wrote many flattering things about Germanic people and praised them for certain virtues. Other Roman writers wrote that the Gauls. for example, were the most noble of the Barbarians, with a noble spirit, etc. Anyway, the ancient Romans were biased toward Germanics/Celts, thus they had negative stereotypes about them. However, they had many positive stereotypes about them, too. On the internet you can read the assertion that a native Roman/Italic would feel closer to a Northern African, Punic or Egyptian/Syrian than to a German or Gaul. This is not true at all. It’s rather the case that a Roman would admire the cultural sophistry of the Eastern people, but at the same time he would still look down on them as decadent, effeminate and cowardly. In contrast to that, the Romans would admire the Germanic people or the Gauls for their physical built, tallness,bravery, and fierceness and warrior quality. On the other hand, they would frown on their lack of (self-)discipline, organization, and their lower living standard. Besides, people today, don’t understand, for instance, that in Roman times describing men from other nations as effeminate or lacking masculinity was a huge and strong insult. And the Romans accused Middle Easterners to be like that.
 
I think slavery was actually a great determent to those societies, rather than enabling their glory. It was terrible for their economies, and everyone below the elite classes.

It is like trying to say great literary works are more credited to people that chopped down trees to make paper, rather than the authors who wrote it.

I totally agree that it was bad for the lower classes but boy did it help the elite landowners, boat builders and other such businesses that used a lot of labor. Wealth enabled leisure and leisure enabled talent either by the elite or those it sponsored.
 
Besides, people today, don’t understand, for instance, that in Roman times describing men from other nations as effeminate or lacking masculinity was a huge and strong insult. And the Romans accused Middle Easterners to be like that.

the germanics accused the romans of the exact same. if i remember correctly the Suebi didn't allow drinking wine because they considered it something only women do. also didn't the romans accuse the celts of beeing a bunch of homosexuals who would rather sleep with other men than with their own women?
 
the germanics accused the romans of the exact same. if i remember correctly the Suebi didn't allow drinking wine because they considered it something only women do. also didn't the romans accuse the celts of beeing a bunch of homosexuals who would rather sleep with other men than with their own women?


If my memory serves me right, some Roman historians found it kinda revolting that among the Celts(Gauls?) men could show their homosexual tendency openly. With that being said, the Romans used a term for homosexuality and called it a “Greek habit. Thus it appears that in the period of the Roman Republic and early empire the Romans have perceived the Greek acceptance of male homosexuality as less than male and, hence, literally unvirtuous. In addition to that, a Roman term for effeminacy was “Graeculus”—“a little Greek!” Don‘t get me wrong, I don‘t want to bash the Ancient Greeks or Middle Easterners here. However, I want to bring some balance into the discussions where is fashionable to claim that the ancient Romans viewed Germanic or Celtic Barbarians merely as animals, primitive savages, or slaves while had only admiration for Near Easterners and Greek/Hellenized folks. Once again, the Romans bashed and admired Non-Romans alike regardless of whether they were Barbarians or had a high civilization.

 

This thread has been viewed 17974 times.

Back
Top