Diminishment of Roman Civilization?

I don't understand what's going on...

Lately all I've been noticing is a played down and diminished role of the Roman Empire in history.

That is, people are playing down the significance of this wonderful civilization and what it's done to the world.

I mean, all that I hear of late is:

- Rome is nonsense, it's only a copy of Greece

- Rome is not original in anything

- Rome wasn't that important to world history, China was

I mean, I just don't understand it. Even in my AP History class, the impact of the Roman Empire has been played down immensely. My history book, for instance, tells a few words about the Roman Empire and that's it. It mostly echoes most of what was bulleted above. It just astonishes me that Rome has been so diminished by these people.

How do you respond to this? Do any of you hear or read any of this?

Could you give us more details? who are the people who are supposly diminishing the glory of Rome?

Could you give us more details? who are the people who are supposly diminishing the glory of Rome?

Well, the book itself does entirely. In fact, it refers to the period of Rome not as the Roman Empire, but merges Greece and Rome and calls it "Mediterranean civilization."

My history teacher too, he really hasn't said much - next-to-nothing - on Rome.

Perhaps I don't know any famous people so far who have said that....but it's frustrating.

I mean, all that I hear of late is:

 

- Rome is nonsense, it's only a copy of Greece

- Rome is not original in anything

- Rome wasn't that important to world history, China was

Salve, RI!

(At this very moment):Board Statistics

Our members have made a total of 71753 posts

We have 2361 registered members

Most users ever online was 1988 on Jun 26 2007, 03:07 PM

I think that speaks by itself.

Anyway, I can say nothing about your teacher's nor your book's statements without knowing exactly what they say and on what context.

(Teaching History has never been easy; every professional is entitled to try his/her own skills and methods).

In a way they right, Rome did absord many cultural aspects from Greece however it's would be too simple just saying they were nothing more than that.

Without Roman influence on the subjected people there be no European culture (at least not as we know of) no Christianity, etc.

(At this very moment):Board Statistics

Our members have made a total of 71753 posts

We have 2361 registered members

Most users ever online was 1988 on Jun 26 2007, 03:07 PM

 

I think that speaks by itself.

With all due respect to this forum, it doesn't. UNRV is really small, though I prefer it that way.

As for the original question, the Greece > Rome idea has been around for a long time, though I'm surprised to see it in actual history books. Sounds like some bias we could do without.

I think I know what you mean.

Recently I read that Rome's civilisation was only one among many and that the dark ages started not because Rome fell but because they had wiped out any civilisations they regarded as competition before the fall, hence Rome was the only show in town and it all ended with their downfall.

The article went on to imply that Rome had actually done more to depress progress than promote it.

I feel much of these theories are due to Eurocentric guilt. Afterall why should we praise the Romans for conquering the world when we can study the ecologically sound tribes of where ever who leave no carbon footprint by walking round bollock naked and eating grubs from behind the bark of tree's?

Its fashionable to attempt to turn accepted knowledge upside down by manipulation of the facts.

Greece was to Rome what England is to America. Would it be realistic to say that American culture and history was simply an extension of Britain's own history?

I don't understand what's going on...

 

Lately all I've been noticing is a played down and diminished role of the Roman Empire in history.

 

That is, people are playing down the significance of this wonderful civilization and what it's done to the world.

(At this very moment):Board Statistics

I think that speaks by itself.

With all due respect to this forum, it doesn't. UNRV is really small, though I prefer it that way.

Salve iterum, Amici.

I think there's no contradiction.

The fact that we are merely a tiny fraction of the romanophiles even strengthens my original point.

As for the original question, the Greece > Rome idea has been around for a long time, though I'm surprised to see it in actual history books. Sounds like some bias we could do without.

It seems like T. Livius agreed with you (Ab Urbe Condita, Liber IX, Ch. XVIII):

"quod leuissimi ex Graecis qui Parthorum quoque contra nomen Romanum gloriae fauent dictitare solent,

But then, as is frequently repeated by the silliest of the Greeks, who are fond of exalting the reputation, even of the Parthians, at the expense of the Roman name,"

I think I know what you mean.

 

Recently I read that Rome's civilisation was only one among many and that the dark ages started not because Rome fell but because they had wiped out any civilisations they regarded as competition before the fall, hence Rome was the only show in town and it all ended with their downfall.

The article went on to imply that Rome had actually done more to depress progress than promote it.

Which is exactly what I'm referring to. The history book I have goes on to state how the Chinese and Indians were so notable for their innovations and extent of culture, but that the Greeks and the Romans were simply not as good, did not develop as extensive and valuable civilizations (all while merely grouping them together into a single "Mediterranean Civilization", which really annoys me), and basically that they did not contribute as much.

Unfortunately, my history book reads a lot like your article. And it honestly mentions the "spread of Greek civilization" as Rome's achievement, and that "Mediterranean civilization" mostly served simply to spread civilization and agriculture. That really astonished me.

I feel much of these theories are due to Eurocentric guilt. Afterall why should we praise the Romans for conquering the world when we can study the ecologically sound tribes of where ever who leave no carbon footprint by walking round bollock naked and eating grubs from behind the bark of tree's?

 

Its fashionable to attempt to turn accepted knowledge upside down by manipulation of the facts.

It all has to do with the disgusting politically correct society we live in. In order to maintain a "balanced" view of foreign cultures, it downplays what has really been the cornerstone of our society today - Rome. I'm not saying that Rome was a perfect society or that modern day Europe is, but I find unacceptable that nowadays we of Western civilization have to feel that we need to be ashamed of our past, and indeed need to downplay it in the face of others. I personally consider that as one of the many faults of modern Western civilization. We're giving ourselves too much guilt that we really do not deserve. I'm sure that if you go to China, no one here will end up diminishing the impact of Chinese culture to the world - in fact, China is historically known for their cultural arrogance. And that's one example. If others don't diminish the emphasis of their cultures in order to promote international harmony, I really don't understand why should we.

Greece was to Rome what England is to America. Would it be realistic to say that American culture and history was simply an extension of Britain's own history?

I personally find the whole notion ridiculous. There is no fault in admitting that Rome was founded on a Greek base, or that Rome was influenced by Greece. It's natural for a civilization to be influenced by a predecessor and then develop its own culture and society. But I submit that Rome developed its own civilization and culture that is apart from Greece. All cultures and civilizations start off that way. Even Greece itself is essentially the product of immense influences from Mesopotamia and Egypt. No one seems to be criticize that, or bother with that.

The only real "original" civilizations are the first ones that developed after the agricultural revolution...

Greece was to Rome what England is to America. Would it be realistic to say that American culture and history was simply an extension of Britain's own history?

I find your analogy quite imperfect, to say the least.

At the beginning, American colonists were also British. 100%.

Romans were never Greek.

(They were eventually more or less hellenized, but that'a another story).

At the beginning, American colonists were also British. 100%.

 

Romans were never Greek.

 

(They were eventually more or less hellenized, but that'a another story).

I find your answer a little imperfect, to say the least.

American colonists were not 100% british. French and spanish populations were evident in other areas than the east coast, which also had german and dutch groups. Romans may never have been greek, and its true they detested greeks more often than not, but their culture was based on hellenistic principles before they dumped their royal court. They weren't eventually hellenised, the western empire diverged from the hellenistic ideal toward oriental influences, although I do admit that the romans built their own culture on top of hellenistic principles.

At the beginning, American colonists were also British. 100%.

 

Romans were never Greek.

 

(They were eventually more or less hellenized, but that'a another story).

I find your answer a little imperfect, to say the least.

 

American colonists were not 100% british. French and spanish populations were evident in other areas than the east coast, which also had german and dutch groups. Romans may never have been greek, and its true they detested greeks more often than not, but their culture was based on hellenistic principles before they dumped their royal court. They weren't eventually hellenised, the western empire diverged from the hellenistic ideal toward oriental influences, although I do admit that the romans built their own culture on top of hellenistic principles.

But that is what the Greeks did with the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians.... So I don't see why no one makes accusations towards Greece...

Personally I do think one does need to look at the confluence of cultural achievements. Mesopotamia and Egypt were the foundation cultures that started writing and basic math, not to mention monumental architecture. The Phoenicians developed the alphabet. The Greeks refined many sciences and started their own intellectual pursuits. And then comes Rome, whose chief contributions were in engineering, both in material and political/legal terms, an empire of three continents and the longest stretch of relative peace in Western history.

I too get annoyed at Western post-colonial guilt at its own heritage and the downplaying of the classics. It's a self-flagellation that needs to end. But I do agree that the legacy of Roman greatness did owe something to surrounding cultures who were there first.

American colonists were not 100% british. French and spanish populations were evident in other areas than the east coast, which also had german and dutch groups. Romans may never have been greek, and its true they detested greeks more often than not, but their culture was based on hellenistic principles before they dumped their royal court. They weren't eventually hellenised, the western empire diverged from the hellenistic ideal toward oriental influences, although I do admit that the romans built their own culture on top of hellenistic principles.

French and Spanish populations evident in other areas than the east coast were not American colonists, by definition.

The Dutch colonists at New Netherland were assimilated by the British colonists. Then, the same as later Dutch and German groups, they became immigrants to a British Colony. Any citizen of the Colonies was British by definition and was considered as such during the wars against the Frenchs. Period.

Aside from some evidently fake legends that try to relate the Latin/Sabine and Etruscan dynasties with Greek celebrities (ie, Numa with Pythagoras), I think you will find it hard to show evidence of "hellenistic principles" (I suppose you mean Hellenic) during the Royal period.

The Roman Empire was Hellenized to such degree, that the Greek language eventually replaced the Latin on the Eastern half (not to talk about the "Byzantine" period).

All that said, I still don't find useful the analogy quoted by Spittle (ie, the British as Greeks and the Americans as Romans). Up to this moment, I'm not sure if you disagree or not.