Return of the Romans?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2

CJH RE:Return of the Romans? 4/10/2005 2:37:24 PM

I could be biased against the Greek (Byzantine)Empire. The weak seem to have been oppressed by the strong. The government seems to have been rigidly authoritarian. The church seems to have been more interested in advancing its own authority than the Kingdom of God. But it's a shame that this empire which was the custodian of classical civilization couldn't have found a way to spread prosperity, peace and civilization to its neighbors.

Quote Reply

Constantine XI RE:Return of the Romans? 4/10/2005 7:45:31 PM

I would have to disagree with such a view. It is rather convenient that we in the west give our Roman parents full credit and look to them for inspiration, while to our Byzantine uncle of who we are not cultural decendents we slander. This is due mostly to the literature stemming from Edward Gibbon. While the man himself was brilliantly eloquent his summary was also deeply flawed. As a result for the past 200 years Byzantium has endured an atrocious press. Byzantine government was authoritarian, but such organisation was viewed as necessary to mobilize every resource possible to resist an Islamic threat which could field vastly more resources than the Byzantines themselves. In the early 8th century the taxes brought in by the Byzantine government was only one tenth that brought in by the Abassid Caliphate. Any emperor who chose to relax too long or let his people take it easy faced the prospect of being unprepared for what was a very real threat to the Empire's survival. The threats Byzantium faced were so tough that it took only a decade of weak leadership to reverse centuries of hard work. You need only look at Emperors Phocas, the Emperors of 705-717, Constantine VI and Irene, the Emperors of 1041-67 and Alexius III to see evidence of this. In much of the laws from the 7th to 11th centuries the Emperors tried genuinely hard to preserve the freedoms and prosperity of their less advantaged subjects and actually did a pretty decent job of it. We forget that in the early 9th through to early 11th centuries Byzantium underwent a regeneration and resurgence, its history is not one of continuous decline at all. As for the role of the church it would also be wrong to say it was interested only in its own advancement. On a number of occasions Patriarchs who felt the moral decisions of the Emperor to be wrong resigned in protest (look at the Arsenite split of the 13th century). In many areas of life the church genuinely performed charitable deeds and helped the disadvantaged in society. Is the Western church any better? Well if the Papacy of the 9-10th centuries is anything to go by, with Popes who regularly used torture, practiced sexual perversity etc then probably not. The Papacy throughout the middle ages was always steeped in power politics and manipulation, the 9-10th centuries were so bad in particular that this period of Papal activity is known to history as the "pornocracy". It would also be wrong to say Byzantium left no useful legacies to the world. For us in the West we had a nation which stubbornly resisted the advance of eastern threats for over a thousand years so that by the time Byzantium did collapse the West had recorved sufficiently to defend itself. You ignore the fact that Byzantine learning provided massive impetus for the Renaissance which led western civilization to gain an edge it still enjoys today. Meanwhile Byzantium had a hugely beneficial impact in the eastern world. To the Balkan and Slavic peoples Byzantium gave an alphabet, Christianisation, contact with classical civilization which they, unlike us in the west, had been deprived of. One can righly speak of a sort of Byzantine commonwealth in eastern Europe, a group of nations which heroicly had to defend itself from Turkish and Mongol onslaughts from the East and in doing so left the West free to develop itself. It is also wrong to say Rome just brought peace and prosperity where ever it went. To many areas it did. But remember that Rome was massively powered by a huge slave economy which helped ensure a prosperous society which could take an aggressive attitude to the world it lived in. Why is it we do not see any Byzantine Spartacuses? Because Byzantium was a nation which could not rely on slavery but for much of its history fought hard to defend the interests of a small-holding peasant class from which it obtained its prosperity and manpower. In this instance it appears it was the Romans who used and abused the weak and Byzantium which defended its poorer citizens. These are just a few of my thoughts and I am sure everyone will have plenty to say on the topic. naturally for something this big I have left out alot and there is plenty of room for further discussion. Basically what I am saying is look a bit more carefully at the facts behind the literature, as we in our Western society are naturally told things which make us take pride, even elitism, in our own history and identity.

Quote Reply

timon_phocas RE:Return of the Romans? 4/10/2005 11:06:37 PM

>>But it's a shame that this empire which was the custodian of classical civilization couldn't have found a way to spread prosperity, peace and civilization to its neighbors.<< It did. The Bugerians, Romanians, Serbs and Russians all became literate through the work of Orthodox missionaries. They all absorbed technology from Byzantium. The Eastern Empire was not as ruthless as Julius Caesar, who pacified Gaul after killing over a million of its Celtic inhabitants.

Quote Reply

CJH RE:Return of the Romans? 4/15/2005 6:15:46 PM

I did not mean to compare the Rome of Julius Caesar or the Roman Empire with the Byzantines. I meant to compare the Roman republic with them. After Rome came into contact with Greek culture and after it became hugely wealthy it started to become corrupt. That all occurred in the second century BC and before the Julius Caesar was born. Slavery didn't become big until the final period of the republic. Before that, the households of the wealthiest families in Rome had no more than around three slaves. Slavery was common in the Mediterranean world at that time and slavery only died out with the spread of Christianity. The Byzantines were already formally Christian and therefore I don't believe their relationship to slavery is rightly comparable to that of pre-Christian Rome. Oh, I left out that the Romans also brought law which even more than peace and administration or even construction engineering has to be the greatest of their contributions. As for the Byzantines. I am sure they made positive contributions. But look at Poland which inherited the legacy of Rome and compare it in it's heyday (circa 1596 AD) with the Dukes of Moscovy or the czars in theirs or any of those in the east who inherited the legacy of the Greeks. Is it a coincidence that Peter the Great changed Russia by looking outside itself to the Roman west? Look at the history of eastern Europe as compared with that of western Europe. In which end of Europe did the Renaissance take root? But go to Krakow to Wavel and see one of the best extant examples of Renaissance architecture outside of Italy. I think that as an explanation for the Byzantine Empire to have been in retreat throughout most of its history, what Gibbon said fits. I can't vouch for Gibbon's intellectual honesty or lack of same. But look at the evidence.

Quote Reply

timon_phocas RE:Heritage of the Romans and Byzantines 4/16/2005 5:09:57 PM

>>look at Poland which inherited the legacy of Rome and compare it in it's heyday (circa 1596 AD) with the Dukes of Moscovy<< I would not ascribe the tyranny of Muscovy solely to its inheritance from the Byzantines. The fact that they had to wrest their independence from the Khanate of the Golden horde after centuries of foreign domination might have something to do with it as well. And the fact that their independence was precarious for canturies after. Only strong leaders made independence possible. The Russian Orthodox Church still believes that an emperor is a more "God Ordained" style of government than a democracy. But that was Catholic doctrine as well for many centuries. They both believed that earthly government should be a mirror of the divine order in heavan. God, king of the universe, should be modelled by the Tsar, king of all the Russias.

Quote Reply

Constantine XI RE:Return of the Romans? 4/17/2005 10:17:29 PM

OK I am seeing what you are saying about this CJH and I do understand that this sort of philosophy came to form the basis of a good deal of what many Westerners consider their moral superiority. Yet the argument presented here has a range of flaws. Firstly you will find that any society which becomes wealthy almost invariably becomes more sophisticated, urbane, settled and less aggressive. Perhaps the increasing prosperity of the Romans was entirely the reason they became like this, not foreign influence.The growth of a more materialist culture seems to be a sufficient reason for corruption to occur, yet I don't see how anyone can substantiate corruption due to Greek influence. The Romans brought law eh? Well that makes things seem all fine and great on the surface. But let me pose a question. Maybe all the societies that Rome invaded ALL READY POSSESSED THEIR OWN LAWS AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE. Rome didn't bring law, Rome brought ROMAN LAW to foreign cultures. If I may pose a modern equivilent, what if France invaded the USA, conquered it after having killed or enslaved much of its population then claimed it was justified in doing so because the French brought law to those lands. Every society which Rome conquered already had a fairly advanced and long established legal system stretching back centuries, in a number of cases older than Rome's. Next comes the example of the Renaissance and I have particular pleasure in examining this, having had the joy of studying it last semester at university. It is fair enough that CJH claims Republican Rome of the period 509-220 BC is the model for virtuous advancement of the human race and should serve us as an example of moral rectitude and perseverence. I am happy to admit the achievement of Republican Rome slowly and steadily rising in power is a fascinating tale from which many lessons may be learned. But attributing Republican Rome to the glory of the Renaissance is totally flawed. Republican Rome did not inspire the Renaissance. The Renaissance was mostly inspired by the redicovery of Greek learning and Rome post-200BC. Before 200BC Rome was an insular, rustic state which produced little of cultural brilliance in comparison to other cultures, especially the Greek. Rome's most productive cultural period can be rightly set at the mid 2nd century BC to the early 2nd century AD if we decide to be charitable in length (really it was from the early 1st century BC til the late 1st century AD). Anyone with a good education would know (and CJH readily admits) that Rome by this stage was already heavily influenced by the culturally more vibrant Greeks and made many attempts to adapt and emulate their achievements. The Renaissance drew on the best of Greek, as well as Late Republican and early Imperial Roman culture; really the basis for progress and vibrance that cultures who enjoyed the Renaissance can be drawn from Greek or Greek derived culture. And let us not also forget that the reason the Renaissance occured: it is no coincidence that ancient learning and culture enlightened the West at the same time as thousands of Byzantine refugees fled to Italy. No westerner suddenly cracked open an ancient tomb and went "oh my, look, I have found a heap of ancient texts!". Instead it was the Greek world which first nurtured and later preserved such works with loving care. The western nations don't owe the Renaissance or cultural progress to early republican Rome; that Rome did not inspire the Renaissance and that Rome only controlled Italy, about one quarter of Spain and very little else before it became heavily Greek inspired after the rise of the Scipios. Instead it is to the Greek world that we owe such credit. Compare the number of great works attached to Greek and late republican/early imperial Roman authors, artists, thinkers etc and the number of such people from the Republic during its early days seems very quiant and insignificant indeed. On the basis of that perhaps the Poles were really drawing on variously packaged forms of Greek or Greek derived culture. At this point even though I'd like to say more I will save it for my thesis and I think I've made a good refutation of some earlier arguments. Also Timon, sorry bout any misunderstandings with my earlier reference to Emperor Phocas. I was referring to Emperor Phocas (602-610) who was a disaster in all respects, not to the highly commendable and capable Nicephorus Phocas (963-969) who is fully worthy of high praise. Peace out.

Quote Reply

CJH RE:Return of the Romans? 4/24/2005 8:54:20 PM

Do you remember why it is we are including Rome, Rome of the Republic, in this discussion? It is because it was during the republic that Rome built its empire. And it is on the basis of suitability to build an empire that we were comparing Rome of the republic with the Byzantines of the period following the collapse of the west empire. And the purpose was to demonstrate that although Rome proved itself capable of building an empire when it did, the Byzantine Empire was incapable of conquering one in the 6th century or later. And because it could not, the Byzantines would have been wise to just accept the barbarians in the West and build constructive relationships with them. "OK I am seeing what you are saying about this CJH and I do understand that this sort of philosophy came to form the basis of a good deal of what many Westerners consider their moral superiority." I really have to object to your reference to Westerners' "moral superiority". You have not cited any basis for believing that Westerners believe themselves morally superior. disingenuous of you to attribute an attitude of moral superiority to me personally by such an implication. You should not have injected genetic stock before and now you shouldn?t inject condescension. "Firstly you will find that any society which becomes wealthy almost invariably becomes more sophisticated, urbane, settled and less aggressive." I agree that wealth was a factor in Rome's decline especially in that wealth enabled Rome to employ slave labor on a huge scale and the importation of slaves was a factor in its decline. "Perhaps the increasing prosperity of the Romans was entirely the reason they became like this, not foreign influence." You will find that serious historians will shy away from theories like this. Attributing the decline of an empire over a number of centuries to such a simple and single cause is very unlikely. "yet I don't see how anyone can substantiate corruption due to Greek influence." Well Marcus Porcius Cato did believe Greek influence was corrupting the Rome of his day which was in the 3rd and 2nd century BC. Cato stated something I won't repeat here. Apparently Roman virtue departed at the same time Greek customs were arriving. "The Romans brought law eh?" Yes they did. Our contract law in the West is essentially as the Romans wrote it two thousand years ago. "Maybe all the societies that Rome invaded ALL READY POSSESSED THEIR OWN LAWS AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE." I am sure that they all did. So did the societies conquered by Alexander the Great. Only Alexander's empire did not last as long as Rome?s. The Romans brought uniformity there. "If I may pose a modern equivalent, what if France invaded the USA, conquered it after having killed or enslaved much of its population then claimed it was justified in doing so because the French brought law to those lands." I have already made the point that Rome amassed its empire conquer for other reasons than on the sole justification of bringing law. Of course Rome brought more. It brought peace, administration, roads, aqueducts, civic buildings, etc. France brings French superiority. "Every society which Rome conquered already had a fairly advanced and long established legal system stretching back centuries, in a number of cases older than Rome's." Not true. The Gauls were not advanced comparative to the Mediterranean countries. Neither were the Germans the Romans subjugated. "Republican Rome did not inspire the Renaissance." But of course I did not say this at all. And just as Western Europeans imported the classical learning they benefited from so I?m sure were the Greeks inspired in their turn. I don?t believe any one people can take credit. "The western nations don't owe the Renaissance or cultural progress to early republican Rome; that Rome did not inspire the Renaissance and that Rome only controlled Italy, about one quarter of Spain and very little else before it became heavily Greek inspired after the rise of the Scipios." I didn't say Rome did inspire the Renaissance of course. What I said was to indicate that it was only that part of Europe which inherited the legacy of Rome rather than that which inherited the legacy of Byzantium which was receptive to the Renaissance. Polybius was a Greek who lived from about 200 BC to about 118 BC. He was a historian as well as a soldier and statesman. When he was in exile in Italy by order of the Senate, he became friends with the Cornelii in Rome. He became part of their household. He also traveled to sites important in the Second Punic War. He interviewed people who had been commanders in that war. He wrote his "Universal History" and in it he devoted a great deal of it to demonstrate to his fellow Greeks that Rome had subjugated the Greek states not because it was favored by the Fates as they said but because it was of a superior virtue. He demonstrated that in comparison with his contemporary Greeks, Rome had a superior political constitution, a military tradition which produced braver soldiers, civic traditions that produced more dedicated public men, superior ethics, etc. By the way, what is the name of your university?

Quote Reply

CJH RE:Heritage of the Romans and Byzantines 4/24/2005 10:00:51 PM

I get your point about the Muscovites. And I at least can now say I can understand the Greek Orthodox Church's interpretation of God's plan for earthly government. I listen to J. Vernon McGee and when he was in Daniel and he was covering the vision of Nebacudnezzar, McGee related the symbolic meaning of the golden head as referring to the rule of or type of rule of Nebacudnezzar which rule is descended from that of Adam whom God had intended to rule the earth in this way, the way the Greek Church seems to advocate. McGee's analysis was that sinful man made God's original plan for earthly rule inoperative as was thoroughly demonstrated by King Nebacudnezzar. McGee may have said and I believe it is at least probable that this "God Ordained" government you refer to will not be seen this side of the next dispensation, the Kingdom Dispensation which follows the Dispensation of Grace.

Quote Reply

Constantine XI RE:Return of the Romans? 4/26/2005 10:51:11 PM

Firstly sorry if you misunderstood me CJH but I am not attributing anything to you personally in this discussion. I want to make it very clear I am grateful to have an open forum for civilized discussion of history and that in any comments I make I am not having a dig at anyone, I am simply here to learn, discuss and hopefully contribute some perspectives and insights of use once in a while. I think it is still the case that many Westerners take great pride in their culture's advancements and achievements and in some cases this spills over into a belief that the economic, technological and military dominance of the West over the course of the past several centuries is a result of a moral superiority which they can trace back as far as to the time of the Romans. If this makes a Westerner feel good about themself then great, though I consider it to be improper to attribute the failures of other civilizations to a lack of moral fibre as some authors are prone to do. CJH, inspite of my name which I realize is misleading I myself am Australian yet decended entirely from British and Germans. I did not imply in any way I thought you shared such a perspective of Western civilization vis a vis the wider world. The reason I brought up genetic stock before was simply because I thought you had brought it up yourself: " Michael Grant pointed to a great change in the character of the Roman over the generations which occurred as mentally sharp but devious slaves brought in from the Asian provinces were manumitted and climbed the ladder of Roman society. As the original leading Roman families had been wasted by the proscriptions, civil war and other causes the freedmen and descendants of freedmen became the core of patrician society." "So the Romans of the third and later centuries were different people from the Romans of the republic and the beginning of the empire. This would seem to make sense. We see dominant civilzations begun by peoples who are good at taming hostile environments. They improve their societies and physical environments making them habitable for a wider range of peoples. The new environment changes the rules as to which types of people can do best in the top tier of society and the original people are pushed out over time and replaced by those who followed them." Perhaps I was wrong, but from that information it seemed like the issue had been introduced already and I thought it an improper contention to make. My main point here is that I do not think it correct to simply sideline Greek achievements in comparison to Roman ones. Western history has a tendency to be rather biased when it claims its lineage and attributes causes to its own success. While Western scholarship seems more than happy to embrace the Greece of Miltiades, Leonidas, Pericles and Alexander (who were all either heroic or successful), Byzantium is either derided or more usually simply ignored (perhaps Western historians do not like the idea of a member of their collectively successful group of nations being a failure). In their own great (roughly 500-323 BC) the Hellenic people brought vast contributions which by the standards of their time were roughly equivilent to what the Romans contributed at the peak of their power. No one can think of periods of democratic rule in Athens or the heroic stand at Thermopylae without admiration and the realization of how crucial this was to the West. Yes, the Greeks did eventually lose prominence after their time in the sun, just as Rome does. This simply demonstrate's every nation which rises also has a decline of some type. The same is true of Britain today, yet no historian seriously considers that Britain lost its Empire due to vice and moral decline. I look over much of what I read in the history books and they are a continual source of good moral instruction even on an individual level. But I think it critical the economics of the time cannot be ignored and that we cannot expect the superhuman deeds done in Republican Rome to be continuously repeated for ever. The Roman recovery, persistance and conduct in the Second Punic War is indeed truly admirable, yet to expect such feats to be continually repeated may be a bit much to ask. I quite enjoy making the comparison between modern history and that of the long gone past. Reading between the lines gives me a great deal of pleasure in historical documents. Marcus Porcius Cato, as I am sure you are aware, was a deeply conservative man. He makes me think of modern members of some of my own elite :deeply conservative, afraid of foreign influences, and attributing all of society's ills to a decline in moral standards and traditions. Many of the wealthy Anglo elite in my own country don't particularly like South East Asian influence with their chopsticks, obsessions with mobile phones and the import of foreign languages that aren't even European but this doesn't mean Australia itself will become impoverished and unfeebled as a result of these foreigners. I think of the old and somewhat bigoted and deeply conservative members of the Australian elite and then htink of Cato, truly such a parallel leads me to believe that some things never change. Each nation has its height and inevitably declines. Certainly Republican Rome contains many brilliant examples of moral rectitude. Byzantium was the continuation of the Roman Empire, the only nation which had a clear line of succession going all the way back to Augustus. Yet it existed in a world of vastly different external circumstances compared to the Roman period. In such a world it tried to live up to the ideals of ancient times and it failed. After this failure it became pragmatic, adapted and fought against severe odds to not only survive but prosper. To get back on topic I that Byzantium could well have recovered much (though not all) of the west after its adaption to the world around it and its highly successful creation of the thematic organisation. The demise of the Byzantine theme organisation was the actual cause of their destruction and so having failed to provide a sufficient administrative substitute to utilize the resources of their Empire the Byzantines increasingly went into retreat from the mid 11th century onwards. I believe if Byzantium had made its organisational adaptations earlier and maintained such a structure then a reconquest of much of the West would have been not only possible but also to their long term advantage. But with each rise comes a fall, and however sad it may seem nothing is static and lasts forever in an exact form.

Quote Reply

Constantine XI RE:Return of the Romans? 4/27/2005 12:34:39 AM

Oh also I am a second year student at Monash University, Clayton campus in Australia. I am doing Arts/Commerce.

Quote Reply

timon_phocas RE:Heritage of the Romans and Byzantines 4/29/2005 5:02:55 PM

>>McGee may have said and I believe it is at least probable that this "God Ordained" government you refer to will not be seen this side of the next dispensation, the Kingdom Dispensation which follows the Dispensation of Grace.<< I do not personally believe believe that kingship is more "God Ordained" than other forms of government. I think that the mixed tribal confederation portrayed in the books of Judges and Ruth of the Old Testament bears a passing resemblence to a republic. No central authority, diffuse power and local autonomy and decision making. There are meny passages in the Pentateuch that warn against kingship. In the book of 1st Samuel, when a king is finally annointed by the prophet/judge, Samuel repeats these warnings and says that God only acceded reluctantly to the people's unanimous demand. This is hardly a ringing endorsement of royaly. I think that the Orthodox Church grew up under a emperial system. They assumed, like we all do, that their own situation was God's best and highest purpose for all mankind. The Catholic Church, having inherited the shambles of the Western Empire, worked for 4 to 5 centuries to find an emperor to protect them (finally settling on Charlemagne). They then spent the next 800 years trying to protect themselves from the emperor they created. Watch what you pray for? At any rate, I heard the Orthodox Church's position on kingship in a series of catechism tapes that an Russian Orthodox friend loaned to me. I think you're right on just when kingship will work. My personal eschatology is that the Messiah will descend from heaven onto the Mount of Olives (just like Zechariah says). Then He'll walk across the valley to the Temple Mount and put up an enormous sign that says, "Under New Management"

	News As History - November 25, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us