View Full Version : Where were the slaves of ancient Romans from? Some anti-holliwood historical facts.
These are the nationalities of the slaves imported by Romans during the age of the Roman Empire (data found in the net):
Before "pax Romana" (slaves imported in Italy)
30.000 inhabitants from Taranto (Magna Grecia) in a.D. 209
many Sardianians in a.D 176
150.000 slaves from Epirus (Northern Greece/ Macedonia) in 167 a.D
50.000 Carthaginienses and 50.000 Corinthes in a.D. 146
between 150 and 100 entire peoples from Spain were slavized and sold as slaves
between 102 and 101 150.000 Cimbres and Teutons from Germany
from Siria and Palestina undreds of thousands of slaves between 66 and 62 after the Pompeus' wars
one million Gauls after the Caesar's campaign
During the "Pax Romana":
70 a.D - Destruction of Jerusalem and arrival at Rome of some thousands slave Jews
Traian's occupation of Dacia: arrival of 50.000 new slaves
SOME FAMOUS ROMAN SLAVES WERE:
Livio Andronico from Taranto, who translated the Odissea from Greek to Latin.
Cneo Nevio, war prisoner from Neaples.
Publio Terenzio called Afro, from Carthago, authors of comedies.
Polibius, Greek historician.
Spartacus, gladiator from Thracia, leader of the revolt of the slaves.
Marcia Aurelia Ceiona Demetrias, Italic, liberta, lover of the emperor Commodus.
Pope Callisto I.
CONDITION OF SLAVERY.
- causes of slavery:
birth from a slave mother;
haunt of an abandoned child, who could be taken and breeded as a slave;
foreign citizen caught by pirates or not able to demonster his/her identity or not able to pay his/her ransom;
people condemned for legal reasons to slavery;
people taken as war prisoners by Romans;
people not able to pay their debs became slaves of their debitors.
LAWS REGULATING SLAVERY:
-Lex Cornelia 82 b.C. : owners were not allowed anymore to kill their slaves without reasons.
- Lex Petronia: abolishment of the duty for the slave to fight in the circus if the lord desired it.
- Senatus Consultum Claudianum (52 a.D.): Sick slaves not treated by their lords but recovered in the temples of Esculapio became free. If the slave died without the lord had try to treat him/her, the lord could be declared.
what is holly woods perception of slavery in the old days
what is holly woods perception of slavery in the old days
Whip em, beat em, send em to the mines, the usual fare of overexaggerated nonsense.
well it shows the roman people were progressive threw out there history but still it shows evidence of evil acts,
really it depends on the slave master there were kind masters and evil cruel masters, same in Haitian culture and Jamaican there were noted slave masters who even after revoloutions and independence were allowed to stay and even allowed to have there land,
but the history books tell you they were all cruel evil men who raped and murdered all there slaves, but those types exsisted and slavery is always a nasty thing that costs life.
Whip em, beat em, send em to the mines, the usual fare of overexaggerated nonsense.
well it shows the roman people were progressive threw out there history but still it shows evidence of evil acts,
really it depends on the slave master there were kind masters and evil cruel masters, same in Haitian culture and Jamaican there were noted slave masters who even after revoloutions and independence were allowed to stay and even allowed to have there land,
but the history books tell you they were all cruel evil men who raped and murdered all there slaves, but those types exsisted and slavery is always a nasty thing that costs life.
I am not saying that slavery was good, but a thing to notice is that in Rome it has never been proclamed a law against slavery not it was fought a war for the abolishment of slavery (like in the U.S.). Slavery ended becouse Romans stopped to buy slaves as the new christian religion condamned slavery. But as the economic system of Rome was essentially based on slavery, Rome collapsed in few centuries.
Murphy
07-08-2010, 10:02 PM
Slavery ended becouse Romans stopped to buy slaves as the new christian religion condamned slavery.
Please do not propagate lies about Catholicism when you obviously know very little about it and are simply looking for an excuse to blame the fall of Rome on the Christian faith. One should keep in mind that the Golden Age of Latin society had already began to decline before Christ was even born..
But dealing with this lie, the Early Church did not condemn slavery. She spoke out against mistreatment of slaves and She spoke about the proper way a master must deal with his slaves, but that it is. There was divded opinions amongst the Early Church fathers on slavery. St Augustine for example supported the continued existance of slavery.
This is not to say I today condone slavery. Far from it. But I will not allow someone to again try and pin the blame of the fall of Rome on Christianity as if the sun shone from out of the pagans' arses.
But I will not allow someone to again try and pin the blame of the fall of Rome on Christianity as if the sun shone from out of the pagans' arses.
Some of them would blame their stomach aches on Christianity if they thought they could get away with it.
Murphy
07-08-2010, 10:13 PM
Some of them would blame their stomach aches on Christianity if they thought they could get away with it.
I know I tried to blame my toothache on Calvinism once, but it fell through after actually thinking about it :P!
Please do not propagate lies about Catholicism when you obviously know very little about it and are simply looking for an excuse to blame the fall of Rome on the Christian faith. One should keep in mind that the Golden Age of Latin society had already began to decline before Christ was even born..
But dealing with this lie, the Early Church did not condemn slavery. She spoke out against mistreatment of slaves and She spoke about the proper way a master must deal with his slaves, but that it is. There was divded opinions amongst the Early Church fathers on slavery. St Augustine for example supported the continued existance of slavery.
This is not to say I today condone slavery. Far from it. But I will not allow someone to again try and pin the blame of the fall of Rome on Christianity as if the sun shone from out of the pagans' arses.
So the long fall of Rome begun about 6bce, before the first emperor of Rome was even dead? Augustus had more than twenty years of life left when your Jew savior was supposedly born- and more than a century prior to the true golden age of the old Roman Empire- the rule of the Antonines.
As to blaming the fall of Rome on Christians, just look to the pious, deeds your heroes such as the dynasty of Constantine (had his wife and eldest son killed, what a saint), minus Julian, and that fanatic Theodosius. Wasn't it some fanatic who said "There is no crime for those who have Christ. The pagan emperors like Diocletian wanted to stabilize the dying empire, but your fanatic emperors were hell-bent on tearing it apart and converting it to the worship of a Jew.
Must be nice to be prematurely forgiven by an all-powerful Jew-on-stick, then you can hold any sort of idiot opinion or be the author of any sort of foul deed.
Murphy
07-08-2010, 10:28 PM
Must be nice to be prematurely forgiven by an all-powerful Jew-on-stick, then you can hold any sort of idiot opinion or be the author of any sort of foul deed.
Do you even want to be taken seriously? Clean up your posts, pseudo-pagan, and I may consent to dismantle your position for you.
Do you even want to be taken seriously? Clean up your posts, pseudo-pagan, and I may consent to dismantle your position for you.
*Yawn*
http://jesusneverexisted.com/
Murphy
07-08-2010, 10:31 PM
*Yawn*
http://jesusneverexisted.com/
Oh wow, so original.. :coffee:!
Oh wow, so original.. :coffee:!
I doubt you even bothered to open up the link. Typical of Christians, who heap the blame one everyone from Jews to pagans to ragheads to queers, yet can't stomach anyone blaming them.
*Yawns again*
pseudo-pagan
Pseudo is right. An American descendant of colonial Englishmen and Frenchmen paying home to Zeus.
Nice one, Pally. You'd fit right in back in the motherland - just as long as you stop putting bloke at the end of your sentences.
Ahhh, notice how the doofuses quickly lock shields to back each other up.
http://www.zgeek.com/forum/gallery/files/1/1/5/8/0/nelson_haha.gif
Murphy
07-08-2010, 10:40 PM
I doubt you even bothered to open up the link. Typical of Christians, who heap the blame one everyone from Jews to pagans to ragheads to queers, yet can't stomach anyone blaming them.
*Yawns again*
Of course I didn't waste my time opening a link that is thrown around left and right by men who cannot be bothered constructing an argument using their own words. I don't want a war-of-articles. I'm trading words with you after all.
Is that all then :icon_yawn:?
Of course I didn't waste my time opening a link that is thrown around left and right by men who cannot be bothered constructing an argument using their own words. I don't want a war-of-articles. I'm trading words with you after all.
Is that all then :icon_yawn:?
Given that all you can rely on to explain your faith is the Bible, catechism and the writings of the papist clerics, all I can say is (again):
http://www.zgeek.com/forum/gallery/files/1/1/5/8/0/nelson_haha.gif
Murphy
07-08-2010, 10:43 PM
Ahhh, notice how the doofuses quickly lock shields to back each other up.
Aah, feeling a little lonely? Well I am sure you may be able to find a religion with a couple more adherents than the dregs of internet forum communities.
Aah, feeling a little lonely? Well I am sure you may be able to find a religion with a couple more adherents than the dregs of internet forum communities.
Nice to see, as usual, Christians showing the love of Christ to the heathen dregs of the world.
Murphy
07-08-2010, 10:56 PM
Nice to see, as usual, Christians showing the love of Christ to the heathen dregs of the world.
Aah but sometimes a father needs to chastise a wayward son and strong language is sometimes necessarily employed.
However, I am still amused by the link you posted. I wonder if you expected me to fall off my chair, with my world crumbling around my eyes, wailing and weeping?
"Many fundamental parts of the universe, such as photons (discrete units of light), behave in some ways like particles and in other ways like waves. Radiators of photons, such as neon lights, have emission.."
"WRONG! THAT'S SO WRONG! I HAVE A LINK TO AN INTERNET WEBSITE! YOU ARE WRONG!"
You're a 33 year old man playing at dress-up, Pallamedes. Zeus? You missed him by a few centuries.
Aah but sometimes a father needs to chastise a wayward son and strong language is sometimes necessarily employed.
However, I am still amused by the link you posted. I wonder if you expected me to fall off my chair, with my world crumbling around my eyes, wailing and weeping?
Yes, Christians are all easily amused, it seems, and never really bother to pay any attention to anything at all except when it suits them to do so (usually when browbeating us mere Zeus worshippers :(). You've not even bothered to explore the JNE website, which I'm not surprised- the local Christian trolls don't even read the articles there, so I doubt you would either. Hence, you wouldn't even see the literary citations the webmaster used for his articles.
:thumb001:
there were many other reasons for the fall of rome christianity is not one of those reasons
I am not saying that slavery was good, but a thing to notice is that in Rome it has never been proclamed a law against slavery not it was fought a war for the abolishment of slavery (like in the U.S.). Slavery ended becouse Romans stopped to buy slaves as the new christian religion condamned slavery. But as the economic system of Rome was essentially based on slavery, Rome collapsed in few centuries.
Nodens
07-09-2010, 01:29 AM
there were many other reasons for the fall of rome christianity is not one of those reasons
Provided you avoid the error of equating Christianity with the Roman Catholic, Lutheran or Greek Orthodox Churches, it was indeed (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25717/25717-h/files/733/733-h/gib3-38.htm#2HCH0006) a principal cause.
no there were so many reasons why, and im sure you will be able to pin point them being i would guess you are more educated on the subject than me.
to scapegoat one group of people and religion is foolish.
if rome did not make so many other mistakes it would not of fallen do to Religion.
Provided you avoid the error of equating Christianity with the Roman Catholic, Lutheran or Greek Orthodox Churches, it was indeed (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25717/25717-h/files/733/733-h/gib3-38.htm#2HCH0006) a principal cause.
Nodens
07-09-2010, 02:27 AM
no there were so many reasons why, and im sure you will be able to pin point them being i would guess you are more educated on the subject than me.
to scapegoat one group of people and religion is foolish.
if rome did not make so many other mistakes it would not of fallen do to Religion.
Hence 'a principle cause' and not 'the principle cause'.
Christian shenanigans were merely one of the many causes that led to the fall of the western empire. The weakening of the military was another, which went hand-in-hand with weak borders and the dragooning of Germanic mercenaries into the Roman army- mercenaries who were often more loyal to their chieftains than the emperors (but the last western emperors were pretty pathetic anyways). Inflation, disease, corruption, etc.
ok granted but i would say the real problem was rome was so vast it had lost its power, same as in nature something can become so big it no longer has power and will crumble so all of these little problems could not be manged,
i would say religious tensions were an issue along with the thousands of other issues
Hence 'a principle cause' and not 'the principle cause'.
One area where the Christians are guilty was of burgling monies that could've gone into other areas, such as beefing up fortifications, recruiting and paying for soldiers, etc. Building churches, having endless councils to argue over doctrine, treasure-hunting expeditions to Palestine, etc. all drained money- in addition to the frumpery of the last wretches who wore the purple.
The churches also became a refuge for sissies who didn't want to fight to defend the empire, hence the practice of these wimps cutting their thumbs off to avoid service. The aristocratic class that once saw its members go into politics and the military, instead, saw its members go largely into the clergy.
oh hogwash christians were no stranger to a fight in those days.
there were many christian warriors that knew the sword and knew the knife.
are you forgetting the pagan leaders like Nero who wasted money on some of the most silly things and wasted resources in the most insane ways.
the problem was with rome not christians,
Empires always crumble, england, spain, rome, and now the usa,
the wheels will always turn nothing lasts for ever but trying to blame one group of people and focus all the fault on them is something many people try to do. Its a political trick people have frustration and anger when things do not go right so a leader finds someone or something to blame.
make the masses focus there rage and hate towards it.
I think Rome is a lesson think local and clean up your own backyard
One area where the Christians are guilty was of burgling monies that could've gone into other areas, such as beefing up fortifications, recruiting and paying for soldiers, etc. Building churches, having endless councils to argue over doctrine, treasure-hunting expeditions to Palestine, etc. all drained money- in addition to the frumpery of the last wretches who wore the purple.
The churches also became a refuge for sissies who didn't want to fight to defend the empire, hence the practice of these wimps cutting their thumbs off to avoid service. The aristocratic class that once saw its members go into politics and the military, instead, saw its members go largely into the clergy.
I don't think you know much about Roman military matters, blan. The soldiers swore an oath to the deities of Rome (the state cult with its various deities, like Sol Invictus, who was universally regarded as the imperial savior before the advent of Christ), the standards, and the divinity of the emperor, which no [good] Christian would've done.
One way the Romans made Christians recant, supposedly, was to have the Christian renounce Christ and spit on or otherwise desecrate a Christian emblem- but I've got my doubts since this yarn comes secondhand from the same sorts that said Christians died by the thousands and tens of thousands in massive genocides (i.e. the Christians themselves).
Nero was one douche, his uncle Caligula was also a douche, but the other three emperors of that dynasty were: Augustus, the founder of the principate himself, Tiberius, and Claudius. None of these men had excessive tastes, unless you believe that Tiberius was a dirty old coot that lived in idle pleasure on Capri and swam with naked boys or that Claudius loved to gamble and go to the games more than most Romans. Tiberius was a miser who left the treasury larger than he inherited it from Augustus, and Caligula frittered it all away on whimsy-flimsy after Tiberius' death/murder. Nero and Little Boots were a sorry pair, but were they any sorrier than, say, the Christian emperor Honorius and his gaggle of chickens?
The pagans, overall, had more to work with because they weren't funding a massive state cult with a parasitic state clergy like the Christian monarchs were (Sassanian Persia was like this, save it was a Zoroastrian theocracy rather than a Christian one- here's a clue as to why the Arabs took over as easy as they did: the rivalry between Christian Byzantium and Zoroastrian Persia had largely ruined large areas of the Middle East). Rather, there were numerous temples and shrines with no connection to each other, very few of which existed on grandiose scales- excepting the temples at places like Ephesus and Olympia or the temple of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva on the Capitol.
Well if you make good points and i agree that Rome had many good leaders and i would never discount the great that rome did and the awe of such a place in such primitive times.
but if I can not convince you that christianity is not to blame then all i have to say is it must be a damn good religion because it caused such a powerful place and empire to crumble.
if its that powerful then i would say Christianity is greater than Rome
I don't think you know much about Roman military matters, blan. The soldiers swore an oath to the deities of Rome (the state cult with its various deities, like Sol Invictus, who was universally regarded as the imperial savior before the advent of Christ), the standards, and the divinity of the emperor, which no [good] Christian would've done.
One way the Romans made Christians recant, supposedly, was to have the Christian renounce Christ and spit on or otherwise desecrate a Christian emblem- but I've got my doubts since this yarn comes secondhand from the same sorts that said Christians died by the thousands and tens of thousands in massive genocides (i.e. the Christians themselves).
Nero was one douche, his uncle Caligula was also a douche, but the other three emperors of that dynasty were: Augustus, the founder of the principate himself, Tiberius, and Claudius. None of these men had excessive tastes, unless you believe that Tiberius was a dirty old coot that lived in idle pleasure on Capri and swam with naked boys or that Claudius loved to gamble and go to the games more than most Romans. Tiberius was a miser who left the trasury larger than he inherited it from Augustus, and Caligula frittered it all away on whimsy-flimsy after Tiberius' death/murder. Nero and Little Boots were a sorry pair, but were they any sorrier than, say, the Christian emperor Honorius and his gaggle of chickens?
The pagans, overall, had more to work with because they weren't funding a massive state cult with a parasitic state clergy like the Christian monarchs were (Sassanian Persia was like this, save it was a Zoroastrian theocracy rather than a Christian one). Rather, there were numerous temples and shrines with no connection to each other, very few of which existed on grandiose scales- excepting the temples at places like Ephesus and Olympia or the temple of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva on the Capitol.
The one Christian Roman who should've been emperor but wasn't was Aetius. Aetius beat Atilla's mangy horde but was assassinated by that halfwit Valentinian. The Christian emperors were just as shabby as their pagan forebearers, with, maybe a few, brief bright spots here and there (Valens, for example).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavius_Aetius
Nodens
07-09-2010, 03:33 AM
but if I can not convince you that christianity is not to blame then all i have to say is it must be a damn good religion because it caused such a powerful place and empire to crumble.
Herein lies the fundamental disconnect.
Please do not propagate lies about Catholicism when you obviously know very little about it and are simply looking for an excuse to blame the fall of Rome on the Christian faith. One should keep in mind that the Golden Age of Latin society had already began to decline before Christ was even born..
But dealing with this lie, the Early Church did not condemn slavery. She spoke out against mistreatment of slaves and She spoke about the proper way a master must deal with his slaves, but that it is. There was divded opinions amongst the Early Church fathers on slavery. St Augustine for example supported the continued existance of slavery.
This is not to say I today condone slavery. Far from it. But I will not allow someone to again try and pin the blame of the fall of Rome on Christianity as if the sun shone from out of the pagans' arses.
Rome fell for various causes: economic, political, social, etc.
Politically Rome was too big and had been receiving pressures on the borders by "barbars" for centuries, so Romans before left Great Brittany (England) to use the troops there to protect the other borders. Then Rome was divided in four parts and then in two and the eastern Roman empire lived until the fall of Costantinopolis, happened in Middle Age.
Socially, Rome had became a cosmopolitic and very rich country, people had [B]lost their strenght due to many factors, including the fact that the christianism led new values very different from the pagan ones (Nietzsche docet). Armies included many "not-Romans" elements.
Economically, the gradual abandonment of slavery did led to a mutation in the economical and social structure.
Romans were forced to convert to Christianity by some emperors. The harshest persecutions were made by Giustiniano who also proclamed the destruction of Hellenism and of the school of Athens.
Giustiniano anyway was from Dyraho (Durazzo, Albania) so NOT Italian not Roman.
Roman nobles were pagans. Caesar called himself as descendent of Venus.
Indeed the first thing that Romans did after the conversion was a scission between Roman catholic and orthodoxes and in the Roman catholic abbeys monks continued to copy and spread old Latin and Greek book through the whole western Europe.
Groenewolf
07-09-2010, 04:11 PM
Slavery ended becouse Romans stopped to buy slaves as the new christian religion condamned slavery. But as the economic system of Rome was essentially based on slavery, Rome collapsed in few centuries.
It is probably more correct to say that there was not enough inflow of new slaves, because the military expansion had stagnated. And sales coming from outside the empire where not enough. Problem for the Roman economy was more that the technology was not ready yet for a large scale economy not with some basis in slavery/forced labor.
The fall of the Roman Empire in the west mirrors the near-collapse of the Roman Republic save that the western empire had no figure akin to Augustus. In both cases, ceaseless warfare, at home and abroad, and political infighting between various factions (Marians vs. Sullans, Caesarians vs. Pompeians, Constantine vs. Maxentius, etc.), inflation and currency woes, rampant corruption in the politicians, luxury in the aristocracy, and so on and so forth unto infinity. The Christians were merely allied with the imperial monarchy after 312ce and proved far more predatory and avaricious, Jewish traits imo, than any comparable pagan cult. The ironfisted nature of Christianity at this time mirrors the autocratic nature of the Roman monarchs, who were no longer called princeps like Augustus and Tiberius, but dominus et deus (Lord and God). It's also not as if Christian doctrine differs in any fundamental way from pagan doctrines, save that the object of adoration is, oddly, a Jew (the most iconoclastic race on earth) and the Christians have had uninterrupted centuries to refine their ideas whereas paganism died in the cradle, so to speak. The one attempt to create a unified pagan theology and church, under Julian and in reaction to the Christian churches, ended in a shambles with Julian's death. It was too late because [Christian] church had become wedded to state and gave birth to a hydra-headed monster. RomanQueen points out that it was despots like Justinian, and his earlier counterpart, Theodosius, Christian emperors, who slammed the lid shut once and for all on the pagan temples and schools of philosophy- places of learning for more than a thousand years and more and thus began the period appropriately called the dark ages.
RomanQueen points out that it was despots like Justinian, and his earlier counterpart, Theodosius, Christian emperors, who slammed the lid shut once and for all on the pagan temples and schools of philosophy- places of learning for more than a thousand years and more and thus began the period appropriately called the dark ages.
I should say that there were some noteworthy Christian philosophers, but these worthies were schooled in the classical philosophies, and my favorite of them is Boethius, who was born after the fall of the western Roman Empire in 476 (about 480).
Boethius seems more of a pagan to me than a Christian:
Boethius's best known work is the Consolation of Philosophy (De consolatione philosophiae), which he wrote most likely while in exile under house arrest or in prison while awaiting his execution, but his lifelong project was a deliberate attempt to preserve ancient classical knowledge, particularly philosophy. This work represented an imaginary dialogue between himself and philosophy, with philosophy being personified by a woman. The book argues that despite the apparent inequality of the world, there is, in Platonic fashion, a higher power and everything else is secondary to that divine Providence
Providence is a concept well-known to the classical philosophers (i.e. Seneca, who was made into a closet Christian and a penpal of Paul by the churches, wrote an essay, "On Providence.") This philosophical God differs from the Biblegod only in that it's an apersonal deity, like the Deist's deity, rather than a personal God. Otherwise, the traits such as omnibenevolence, omniscience, etc. are more or less the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boethius
Boethius was a Christian, true, but he seems more of a Neoplatonist to me given his use of allegory and metaphor in his De consolatione philosophiae. In this work, he never mentions Jesus or Christ iirc, but he does mention God and some of the pagan divinities (in an allegorial fashion, like the classical philosophers). Even the so-called church fathers, such as Augustine and Justin, rely on pagan philosophical methods, which [the historical] Jesus never betrays any knowledge of in the Gospels, to attempt to convince people of the truth of the Christian doctrine. This [use of pagan doctrines] is following after Paul/Saul of Tarsus, whereas Tarsus was a well-known center for such beliefs as Stoicism and Mithraism.
[QUOTE=Pallamedes;236729]I should say that there were some noteworthy Christian philosophers, but these worthies were schooled in the classical philosophies, and my favorite of them is Boethius, who was born after the fall of the western Roman Empire in 476 (about 480).
Boethius seems more of a pagan to me than a Christian:
Boethius's best known work is the Consolation of Philosophy (De consolatione philosophiae), which he wrote most likely while in exile under house arrest or in prison while awaiting his execution, but his lifelong project was a deliberate attempt to preserve ancient classical knowledge, particularly philosophy. This work represented an imaginary dialogue between himself and philosophy, with philosophy being personified by a woman. The book argues that despite the apparent inequality of the world, there is, in Platonic fashion, a higher power and everything else is secondary to that divine Providence
Providence is a concept well-known to the classical philosophers (i.e. Seneca, who was made into a closet Christian and a penpal of Paul by the churches, wrote an essay, "On Providence.") This philosophical God differs from the Biblegod only in that it's an apersonal deity, like the Deist's deity, rather than a personal God. Otherwise, the traits such as omnibenevolence, omniscience, etc. are more or less the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boethius
[/QUOTE=Pallamedes;236729]
Platonism and Aristotelism became the official philosophy of the medieval Catholic Church, which had an own philosophy called "scholastica".
That's why Boethius was Christian but seemed pagan. After a little period of confusion and after the scisma with the Orthodoxes, the Roman Catholics took care of the old books and philosophy. In particular they took, from the platonism, the concept of the "kalòs kai agathos", rapresented Jesus like Apollus and in the few paintings where God is rapresented, he looks like a Greek philosopher, in particular like Socrates.
This care for the Greek-Roman books led, with the time, to the Renaissance, becouse Platonism put the pious and intelligent man at the centre of the universe and, about 1400-1500, the new Italian upper class, formed most of all by rich merchants, started to buy copies of the old books and to educate themselves from them.
http://www.vaticanotours.com/g/cappella-sistina-creazione-di-abramo.jpg
In the romance countries, where the paganism and the politheism had been very influent, the Church allowed the cult of the saints (males and females) and of the Madonna as a substitute of the politheism (this was uncorrect for the pure christianism, indeed Martin Luther avoited this practise), very common in the law classes, whereas the upper classes practise today a form of christianism which is closer to deism or pantheism and it is based on the enlightment conceptions.
d3cimat3d
08-31-2010, 12:42 AM
Judging by this little chart, the slaves of the ancient Romans came from north Africa, Britannia, Gaul, llyria, Dacia, Thrace, Anatolia and all over the Mediterranean.
Italians are the most diverse people in Europe, some cluster with the Dutch, and others cluster with Syrians (according to this chart).
San Galgano
08-31-2010, 01:41 AM
Judging by this little chart, the slaves of the ancient Romans came from north Africa, Britannia, Gaul, llyria, Dacia, Thrace, Anatolia and all over the Mediterranean.
Italians are the most diverse people in Europe, some cluster with the Dutch, and others cluster with Syrians (according to this chart).
First, the slaves in Rome didn't change at all the composition of italians, as it is well explained here:
"However, one piece of negative evidence...provides an intriguing hint that conventional estimates of slaves making up as much as 40 percent of Italy's population by the late first century B.C. may be far too high. An analysis of the genetic makeup of Italy's modern population argues that the various distinctive genetic combinations currently found in different regions within the peninsula by and large track the linguistic distribution that resulted from the migrations of the Iron Age. No data indicate the subsequent large-scale infusion of new genetic material into the populations of these regions except in the case of southern Italy and eastern Sicily, which is explained by the well-documented Greek migrations there. ... But if a population of 3 million slaves, representing as much as 40 percent of Italy's inhabitants in the first century B.C., was successfully reproducing itself, it would surely have left its mark on the genetic makeup of contemporary Italians. That it did not argues strongly for a very low rate of natural reproduction among Italy's slaves, which in turn is difficult to reconcile with the hypothesis that the number of slaves ever grew large enough to comprise 40 percent of the Italian population."
(Rosenstein, 2004)
Second, that map, is of uncertain source as many that run around the net, and contradicts the global population structure in the below attachment.
There is a divide between North and South Italy, but southern italians are closer to greeks, and i don't know what map is that you posted.
These type of tests often simply reflect geography not genetic similarities and the map you posted lack many other people who would have been closer to lebaneses than southern Italians and Greeks do.
I have also seen some maps where some Turks pull toward Romania but that doesn't mean that southern romanians are turks.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.