Hellenization Of Rome

Cato the Censor was a notorious opponent of Hellenic influences on Roman culture. Yet, as far as I can tell, the importation of Greek ideas was wholly beneficial--far from being weakened by Greek influences, Rome was made more prosperous and more self-aware. Can anyone point to a single Greek influence that hurt Rome?

Well the love of luxury was quite high on his list was it not? And, whilst I am personally in favour of luxury, it might be seen as a detriment to the good of society. Did the wealth of the Hellenized East not sap the spirit of the previously hardy and frugal Romans? I'm not certain it did myself, but I can see the argument.

A more insidious influence might be the notion of the Hellenistic warrior-monarch. Pompey after all modelled himself on Alexander. Perhaps it might have been better if Camillus had been his role model?

It's kind of clutching at straws this I know. I actually agree with you- he was bonkers. But the above are the best I can do.

I actually agree with Cato the Elder that Greek philosophy could be quite annoying, but I can hardly label it as harmful. Otherwise I'm also quite hard pressed to find a single overwhelmingly bad result.

Like Furius, I also considered the Hellenistic warrior-monarch model, and I like the idea of Romans taking Camillus (or Cincinnatus) as their preferred model, but (also like Furius) I think this is a bit of a strectch.

Maybe the worship of Dinoysus caused something bad? Again, I'm stretching to find something.

Like Furius, I also considered the Hellenistic warrior-monarch model, and I like the idea of Romans taking Camillus (or Cincinnatus) as their preferred model, but (also like Furius) I think this is a bit of a strectch.

 

Maybe the worship of Dinoysus caused something bad? Again, I'm stretching to find something.

Looking for a stretch... how about the bastardization of the olympic games by Nero? Along those lines though perhaps the incorporation of theatre, musicians, singers etc. undermined the concept of Roman glory above personal pleasure or indulgence, by providing distracting leisure? Obviously this is quite the stretch, as the Romans were hardly a Spartanesque military society prior to Hellenic influences and its not as if the Romans became complacent peace worshippers =P

Did combat sports originate in Greece? Maybe the gladiatorial contests can be blamed on the Greeks...

Maybe the worship of Dinoysus caused something bad? Again, I'm stretching to find something.

Well which version of Dionysos? The one of him being the god of the vine and of the free sprirt, letting go of all inibition and self-control, (I can see the reason for hatrd by Cato), or the Hellenic version of Neos Dionysos, which was used by Diadochi following Alexander to legitimize thier rule since this version was of a travelling warrior who went East, (along with Heracles), and went to new lands and conqueored peoples, I would think this version would be more positive? But then maybe this is tying into the warrior-monarch ideal...

Did combat sports originate in Greece? Maybe the gladiatorial contests can be blamed on the Greeks...

But would Romans view this as a bad thing? As far as I can tell, gladitorial events was a Roman aspect, since personally I cannot see the Roman plebs all crowding to see a play by Euripides or Aristophanes...

Did combat sports originate in Greece? Maybe the gladiatorial contests can be blamed on the Greeks...

I don't think you can really say anyone. Relying on a philosophical view, as the first weapons were made, you can totally expect humanity to take advantage of what they have, and ingenuity, whether bad or good, will happen.

I believe the Old Testament of the Bible might have some instances of combat sport. Sodom and Gomorrah?

It's pretty old is the point.

I believe the Old Testament of the Bible might have some instances of combat sport. Sodom and Gomorrah?

What was the sport? The pankration? Or is there really no evidence of such combat sports in Sodom or Gomorrah?

I've always been a bit perplexed how people can admire Greek philosophy but scorn Christianity. A good bit of Platonism and Stoicism went into the Christian mix. Greek philosophy was an intellectual link between the Pagan and Christian worlds.

I do admire traditional Hellenic culture - aesthetically pleasing, an emphasis on arete, especially warrior arete, and duty to the state. But our Greek philosophers who told us to scorn the glories of the world were, from the standpoint of traditional Greek and Roman values, rather counter-culture at the time. Many of them were also rather hypocritical, if I do say so. Perhaps from that perspective, it was harmful.

Actually, the Etruscans had the gladiatorial games first, if I recall correctly.

The Greek culture that Cato lambasted was the decadence, hedonism, and opulence that religious and pious Romans did not like. Nudity, excessive feasts, lavish decorations, the Dionysian theatre. The Romans were very prudent.

I've always been a bit perplexed how people can admire Greek philosophy but scorn Christianity. A good bit of Platonism and Stoicism went into the Christian mix. Greek philosophy was an intellectual link between the Pagan and Christian worlds.

It's very easy - I scorn Platonism and laud Stoicism and Stoic/Ascetic aspects of Christianity. I don't think you will find many people who dislike Christianity wholly, but certainly it doesn't seem far-fetched to not like the anti-intellectual, the theistic, the evangelical, the apocalyptic, the xenophobic sides of Christianity?

I can appreciate Christianity is evangelical whereas Greek philosophy is not. However, they are still intellectual cousins so to speak, with something of an indifference to the wordly glories that made Rome what it was.

Intellectual cousins? I've never been fond of using familiar terms to describe complex relationships. Agreed that there is some remnant of Greek philosophy in Christianity, but that says nothing of itself. More specifically, Christianity is descends from Judaism with an emphasis on its mystical side, which was later transformed into its current Orthodox state of pseudo-Judaic christology by Platonism. Despite this, there is still a resilient strain of asceticism left over from ascetic Judaism (not Stoicism) but this is downplayed heavily.

I can appreciate Christianity is evangelical whereas Greek philosophy is not. However, they are still intellectual cousins so to speak, with something of an indifference to the wordly glories that made Rome what it was.

There is a world of difference between the Platonist, other-worldly philosophers who influenced Christianity and the Aristotelian, this-worldly philosophy that was at least as popular in the classical world. Epikouros, for example, would have been horrified by Christianity, and the popularity of Epicureanism was so great in Rome that it appealed even to political rivals such as Memmius, Cassius and Caesar. Popular Greek philosophy (of the kind expressed directly in Artistotle's exoteric works and indirectly in speeches such as Perikles' funeral oration) and Greek culture--with its public nudity, sports, debating, theater, democracy, egoism, elitism, and eroticism--may be a cousin to Christianity, but it's such a distant cousin that it's like comparing humans and chimps. On this matter, I'm with Nietzsche.

***Actually, on second thought, I do see merit to Ursus' argument. His point, if I take it correctly, isn't that Greek philosophy and culture was dominantly other-worldly, but that it contained a virus of mysticism that had a negative influence on Roman society (via Stoicism). If that's the argument, I'm in agreement.

Actually, the Etruscans had the gladiatorial games first, if I recall correctly.

 

The Greek culture that Cato lambasted was the decadence, hedonism, and opulence that religious and pious Romans did not like. Nudity, excessive feasts, lavish decorations, the Dionysian theatre. The Romans were very prudent.

Stinks I'm coming in so late on this one...

The gladitorial contest evolved from funeral games from the earliest period and as QVS suggested was probably borrowed from the Etruscans. In Livy and/or Polybius they talk about how Scipio finally held funeral games in honor of his Father & Uncle in Carthago Novo in the fall of 206 BC (during the Armilustrium I believe). During those funeral games we learn of many folks (Iberians included) fighting to the death because they may have harbored a beef with each other during the campaign; furthermore, that was A-OK that they did so.

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?