Your opinions of Rome...

[Barreldriver]

I'm curious to see how others view the Roman activities throughout ancient Europe. For a while I had a bitter prejudice towards the Roman's for invading a great portion of Europe and the acclaimed destruction of ancient tribes at their hands, however when I take another glance I feel a sort of mysticism towards Rome.

Roman military prowess was astonishing, their weaponry excellent, the vast nature of the Empire jaw dropping. I often ponder, if I were an ancient Celt or Germanic warrior and were put into Roman military service and subject to Roman citizenship would I feel bitter or proud?

At first I had thought bitter, but after further thinking I had concluded that I would have felt a sense of power, after all I would have been allied with one of the greatest forces to ever present itself on Earth and I cannot deny the beauty of the Empire, the monuments, the tech. and the security offered by being a "Roman".

Then I wonder how much of "Roman" beauty is lore and myth, and how much is fact. I see Rome as a symbol of the power of unification of European tribes, under Rome many of the absorbed cultures were still able to flourish via the absorption of foreign cults into the Roman religious varieties yet remain secure under the might of a great Empire.

I can honestly say I am torn between support and distaste towards Rome, and nonetheless I can say I am intrigued. Please feel free to share your opinions.

[Gooding]

I'm curious to see how others view the Roman activities throughout ancient Europe. For a while I had a bitter prejudice towards the Roman's for invading a great portion of Europe and the acclaimed destruction of ancient tribes at their hands, however when I take another glance I feel a sort of mysticism towards Rome.

Roman military prowess was astonishing, their weaponry excellent, the vast nature of the Empire jaw dropping. I often ponder, if I were an ancient Celt or Germanic warrior and were put into Roman military service and subject to Roman citizenship would I feel bitter or proud?

At first I had thought bitter, but after further thinking I had concluded that I would have felt a sense of power, after all I would have been allied with one of the greatest forces to ever present itself on Earth and I cannot deny the beauty of the Empire, the monuments, the tech. and the security offered by being a "Roman".

Then I wonder how much of "Roman" beauty is lore and myth, and how much is fact. I see Rome as a symbol of the power of unification of European tribes, under Rome many of the absorbed cultures were still able to flourish via the absorption of foreign cults into the Roman religious varieties yet remain secure under the might of a great Empire.

I can honestly say I am torn between support and distaste towards Rome, and nonetheless I can say I am intrigued. Please feel free to share your opinions.

No real problem with them on this end, really. :) I think the whole Roman mystique is probably done to death by now, but I've no issue with them.

[Birka]

I like your thoughts on Rome and come to much the same conclusions. They had a very brutal empire. You either bowed down to Roman rule or were eliminated. An unmatched length of rule, best military of their time.

But, how many European cultures did they destroy? On the other hand we only know of many of these groups of Europeans only because of Roman records.

[Barreldriver]

I like your thoughts on Rome and come to much the same conclusions. They had a very brutal empire. You either bowed down to Roman rule or were eliminated. An unmatched length of rule, best military of their time.

But, how many European cultures did they destroy? On the other hand we only know of many of these groups of Europeans only because of Roman records.

My thoughts too, and it's not like Rome forbid native traditions, heck they even absorbed some of them lol.

Sometimes I think a "new Rome" would be good for us, preservation of our people, cultures, and security by numbers.

[Svarog]

My thoughts on Rome, to sum it up in the first sentence, negative and impressive, contradictory opinions are always present when it comes to Rome, if Ancient Greece is considered a cradle of European civilization, Rome can be considered as a cradle - of filth - in European civilization. I can't help it but to think about Roman social perversion and immoral nature first when it comes to this thread and about everything else later, and by that I certainly do not mean on sexual perversion although when it comes to that Romans were kind of sick too, homosexuality, incests and orgies in front of everything.

When it comes to culture I also have no respect for Rome as most of it was copy-paste from the Greeks mostly with minimal effort to change a thing or two, also, a piece of Roman culture came with each Barbaric nation conquered, they would take whatever they like, from religion to simple customs, Romans... just when you take a look who were the first elite citizens of Rome and how did all of they got where they did, it's not much to be surprised off.

Even military of Rome as impressive as it is was took from elsewhere tho they did invented many things and their style of waring is one of the things I do respect, also, how their country was organized most of the time as it really had it bad moments, 'their' architecture, again, a lot was took elsewhere and many actual workers were not Romans but the slaves of the empire, when i think about it, I don't really have any positive opinions about Rome :eek:

Tho.. I did shorten this up as I just woke up and am too lazy to type and think

edit: now when i kind of woke up and read whole thread i realized I completely missed the subject hahaha I read the title your opinions on Rome but what i did not get is that it is meant on their activities aka waring policy, will reply later, gotta work now

later

[Tabiti]

Like every huge empire with its rise, power and decadence...
I think one of the main reasons for Rome's decadence was the creating of a multicultural capital city, which led to its liberalization in moral, sexual, racial, religious and etc way.
However, Roman culture seems to be one of the most advanced in the Ancient world when it is about architecture, philosophy, arts, public laws, politics. In few words: Roman empire was a modern state in the Ancient world with all its advantages and disadvantages.

[Barreldriver]

My thoughts on Rome, to sum it up in the first sentence, negative and impressive, contradictory opinions are always present when it comes to Rome, if Ancient Greece is considered a cradle of European civilization, Rome can be considered as a cradle - of filth - in European civilization. I can't help it but to think about Roman social perversion and immoral nature first when it comes to this thread and about everything else later, and by that I certainly do not mean on sexual perversion although when it comes to that Romans were kind of sick too, homosexuality, incests and orgies in front of everything.

When it comes to culture I also have no respect for Rome as most of it was copy-paste from the Greeks mostly with minimal effort to change a thing or two, also, a piece of Roman culture came with each Barbaric nation conquered, they would take whatever they like, from religion to simple customs, Romans... just when you take a look who were the first elite citizens of Rome and how did all of they got where they did, it's not much to be surprised off.

Even military of Rome as impressive as it is was took from elsewhere tho they did invented many things and their style of waring is one of the things I do respect, also, how their country was organized most of the time as it really had it bad moments, 'their' architecture, again, a lot was took elsewhere and many actual workers were not Romans but the slaves of the empire, when i think about it, I don't really have any positive opinions about Rome :eek:

Tho.. I did shorten this up as I just woke up and am too lazy to type and think

edit: now when i kind of woke up and read whole thread i realized I completely missed the subject hahaha I read the title your opinions on Rome but what i did not get is that it is meant on their activities aka waring policy, will reply later, gotta work now

later

In reality not all subjects of Rome were slaves. Many were willing allies seeking the security of being "Roman". As was the case of many Germanic chiefs. Others were not comfortable with it and events took place like those at Teutoburg and Gaul.

[Galloglaich]

Rome's longevity, ingenuity, might, and overall impact upon our civilization are due some accord of respect, however I just can't help but feel some kind of instinctual antipathy towards the Roman civilization. I think it's rooted in my disgust at the modern nation state and the concept of empire for which the Romans set such a looming (proto) archytype. I'm just not a Statist.

Roman culture seems too homogenizing for me. Some people are wowed by the imperial majesty of imagining legion upon legion of Romans lined up in all their military finery. For some reason that idea kind of makes me sad and repulsed. My ideal would be somewhat more tribal and more pro-individual. I'm a barbarian at heart.

[Barreldriver]

Rome's longevity, ingenuity, might, and overall impact upon our civilization are due some accord of respect, however I just can't help but feel some kind of instinctual antipathy towards the Roman civilization. I think it's rooted in my disgust at the modern nation state and the concept of empire for which the Romans set such a looming (proto) archytype. I'm just not a Statist.

Roman culture seems too homogenizing for me. Some people are wowed by the imperial majesty of imagining legion upon legion of Romans lined up in all their military finery. For some reason that idea kind of makes me sad and repulsed. My ideal would be somewhat more tribal and more pro-individual. I'm a barbarian at heart.

I hear you out their, I guess I prefer the "barbarian" mind set, however I love Rome's military success. So perhaps a Barbaric Rome? :D Tribal politics, more individual based, however with a military capability to mirror or exceed Rome's. :D

[Útrám]

An empire reigns over the weak, that's what it does. IMO Rome's struggle honed the skills of other Europeans to quite an high extent; If they would just have sat around and established rapports cultural development would have been impeded.

[Barreldriver]

An empire reigns over the weak, that's what it does. IMO Rome's struggle honed the skills of other Europeans to quite an high extent; If they would just have sat around and established rapports cultural development would have been impeded.

Do you think a new Rome would benefit us in today's age? Perhaps it would inspire a new "uprising" in folkish loyalty that seems to be lacking?

[Beorn]

If Rome had not embarked upon its empire building and consumed the higher culture and intelligence of its surrounding neighbours, Rome would have stayed the backwards, ignorant bastard of the Mediterranean.

My opinion is that Rome became the best only because the cultures and nations they encountered pushed them to go beyond their actual means.

Would I have entered into Roman servitude and exacted upon others as had been done to me?

No.

[Barreldriver]

My opinion is that Rome became the best only because the cultures and nations they encountered pushed them to go beyond their actual means.



Can't that be said of anything that was "great"? In order to achieve you need to be "pushed".

[Útrám]

Do you think a new Rome would benefit us in today's age? Perhaps it would inspire a new "uprising" in folkish loyalty that seems to be lacking?

Probably. One of the by-products of conflict are domestic unity.

[Beorn]

Can't that be said of anything that was "great"? In order to achieve you need to be "pushed".

Not really. You need only look at the British Empire and other European empires of the last 200 odd years for proof of that.

It depends upon how you defined "pushed".

[Barreldriver]

Not really. You need only look at the British Empire and other European empires of the last 200 odd years for proof of that.

It depends upon how you defined "pushed".

By pushed I mean, maximum opposition, forcing you to go above and beyond your perceived capability thus unlocking some potential known or unknown allowing you to succeed where others fail.

[Galloglaich]

Do you think a new Rome would benefit us in today's age? Perhaps it would inspire a new "uprising" in folkish loyalty that seems to be lacking?

You're living in it. The folkish uprising you're referring to is evidenced by all the anti-American pro-nationalist sentiment expressed by populations worldwide who resent our intervention into their lives. Do you see a benefit?

[Barreldriver]

You're living in it. The folkish uprising you're referring to is evidenced by all the anti-American pro-nationalist sentiment expressed by populations worldwide who resent our intervention into their lives. Do you see a benefit?

Not yet, I do not see a benefit. However, the folkish uprisings I see are not of the good sort, they're not our folk that are uprising. I'm speaking in terms of our people, specifically those in America, and more so in my state of Ohio. The people in Ohio used to have deep cultural heritage much of which has fallen by the wayside in more recent times. An uprising is needed in order to make ourselves known, and the anti-American sentiment is mostly rooted in the foul politics of the modern American war machine that is fueled by outsiders. We need an uprising within our own borders fueled by our own people so we can make our place in our own lands by force if necessary, and force seems to be the only, and I mean only, option now.

And there is no "force" here outside of ignorant extremist groups, we need a well balanced force composed of logical and rational individuals willing to stand up for their people above all else.

[anonymaus]

But, how many European cultures did they destroy? On the other hand we only know of many of these groups of Europeans only because of Roman records.

This is the crux of the matter for me, too. In that context I would very much have preferred Roman hegemony to the splintering and weakening which resulted in Charlemagne's attempted genocide of my ancestors, perpetrated alongside forced conversion (mightily resisted) to worshipping the Semite-on-a-stick.

[Cato]

How many modern western European nations come out of the territories once controlled by the old Roman empire? How many modern western European peoples are themselves descendants of Romans and Romanized subjects?

[Barreldriver]

How many modern western European nations come out of the territories once controlled by the old Roman empire? How many modern western European peoples are themselves descendants of Romans and Romanized subjects?

Hard to say until more DNA testing is done.

[Psychonaut]

Sometimes I think a "new Rome" would be good for us, preservation of our people, cultures, and security by numbers.

Well, we did have a second Rome...the Holy Roman Empire of the Franks. A third was attempted back in the 30s, but that didn't pan out so well.

[Barreldriver]

Well, we did have a second Rome...the Holy Roman Empire of the Franks. A third was attempted back in the 30s, but that didn't pan out so well.

True, but failures in the long run. Should we attempt a fourth? :P

[Psychonaut]

True, but failures in the long run. Should we attempt a fourth? :P

Failure? Failure!?

The Holy Roman Empire lasted, in one form of another, from Charlemagne's coronation in 768 until Napoleon brought it to an end in 1806. That's over a thousand years of continuity, the legacy of which is the birth of both France and Germany.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/Banner_of_the_Holy_Roman_Emperor_%28after_1400%29. svg/600px-Banner_of_the_Holy_Roman_Emperor_%28after_1400%29. svg.png

[Barreldriver]

Failure? Failure!?

The Holy Roman Empire lasted, in one form of another, from Charlemagne's coronation in 768 until Napoleon brought it to an end in 1806. That's over a thousand years of continuity, the legacy of which is the birth of both France and Germany.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/Banner_of_the_Holy_Roman_Emperor_%28after_1400%29. svg/600px-Banner_of_the_Holy_Roman_Emperor_%28after_1400%29. svg.png

Does it survive to this day? Then it is a failure, at least in the long term. :D 1000 years not good enough. :D We need something that will last for ages to come!

Seriously though, Frankish Rome in my opinion was different from the first Roman Empire, the first conquered and absorbed, the second completely obliterated folkish traditions for the sake of Christianity.

[Tony]

My thoughts on Rome, to sum it up in the first sentence, negative and impressive, contradictory opinions are always present when it comes to Rome, if Ancient Greece is considered a cradle of European civilization, Rome can be considered as a cradle - of filth - in European civilization. I can't help it but to think about Roman social perversion and immoral nature first when it comes to this thread and about everything else later, and by that I certainly do not mean on sexual perversion although when it comes to that Romans were kind of sick too, homosexuality, incests and orgies in front of everything.

Some scholar says Rome got degenerated when came into contact with Greeks and their culture , before that Romans were pretty naive , simple and virile , just spent their time in working or/and going to war , period.
There were even times when theater was seen a morally indecent thus forbidden (just like the Puritans during the Cromwell's years) and a lot of intellectuals used to condemn the process of "hellenization".

[Psychonaut]

Does it survive to this day? Then it is a failure, at least in the long term. :D 1000 years not good enough. :D We need something that will last for ages to come!

We might just have to disagree here. I follow Spengler's lead in that cultures are organisms that follow life cycles. They are born, they live, they decline and finally die. When the Apollonian soul (the Grecco-Romans) was exhausted, the world witnessed the birth of Faustian (Western) man. We, however, are now in decline (according to Spengler) and, like all organisms, are doomed to die. I'd highly recommend giving his opus, The Decline of the West, a read.

http://faustianeurope.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/spengler.jpg


Some scholar says Rome got degenerated when came into contact with Greeks and their culture

I've heard that as well. Personally, I'm quite partial to Gibbon's idea that Rome's decline was accelerated, if not outright caused, by Christianity.

[Barreldriver]

We might just have to disagree here. I follow Spengler's lead in that cultures are organisms that follow life cycles. They are born, they live, they decline and finally die. When the Apollonian soul (the Grecco-Romans) was exhausted, the world witnessed the birth of Faustian (Western) man. We, however, are now in decline (according to Spengler) and, like all organisms, are doomed to die. I'd highly recommend giving his opus, The Decline of the West, a read.

http://faustianeurope.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/spengler.jpg

I'll give it a go go. :D

[Cato]

Far too many people get their idea of what Rome was like from Hollywood: orgies, trips to the vomitorium, pacifistic Christians being tossed to the lions by the pagans, gladiators always fighting to the death, evil emperors, corruption, brtual, crude, etc.

To address the contention that the Romans were brutual, even by the standards of the ancient world... The Assyrians used crucifixion and impalement, for example, and Qin's brutality united China despite hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of deaths during China's pre-imperial, feudal era. One antecdote from pre-imperial China has Qin defeating a rival kingdom, Zhao, in a massive battle and then executing all of the prisoners-of-war, all 400,000 of them- by being buried alive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Changping).

Just about EVERY army in the ancient world waged total war. Rome, like Assyria, was just more efficient and organized at it.

[Flanders]

I only read the opening post so if what I'm saying is kind of a repetition of points already made I apologize for that.:)

We have to view Rome in a completely different context than today's. The national states date from the modern age. In the times of Rome there were mostly very small local entities, tribes if you want, there was no nation, no state. Of course most of these tribes knew some sort of union with their genetic brothers from surrounding tribes. Any form of 'politics' in these days that can be seen as some sort of 'nationalist' action, meaning people fighting for the rule over themselves, went hand in hand with 'imperialist' action. It was not about the 'right of self-determination', it was about ruling over other peoples as well.

Anyways, Rome initially wasn't an imperial force. Roman imperialism knew a couple a stages. The first one, definitely until the second Punic war it a form of imperialism purely to defend itself. Rome had no standing army, they assembled one when they needed one. Most of their expansions in these days were the neighbouring entities they got in conflict with. After the first Punic war they got control over Sicilia for example, the first Roman province. They really hesitated to colonize the island. Carthage however was their rival and enemy in these days but Rome fought most its wars with the single goal of defending the own interests and not the expansion of their 'empire'.

Where exactly they changed from defensive imperialism into the most agressive form of imperialism is rather unclear. There are two events that are named as most probable breaking points. The first being the third Punic war where they destroyed the city of Carthage. The problem here however is that the Romans still got the bitter taste of the second Punic war where Hannibal nearly destroyed the Roman empire forever. Walking through Italy destroying all Roman forces on his way and turning Rome's allies against it. The other event being the destruction of Corinth, the conquest of Greece and the brutal destruction of cities who offered resistance can clearly be seen as imperialism in its purest form.

But we shouldn't forget that the Romans brought us an enormous cultural heritage. Their military was supreme, the size of their armies wasn't matched in Europe until the 1600s. Furthermore Rome even had standing armies, a concept that would disappear from Europe for over a thousand years. The strenght of their armies was the way they were used, the legions fought as disciplined units. However Roman weaponry wasn't always that brilliant. Their sword, the gladius, was a broad bronze weapon that was so short because bronze isn't the best material to make swords from. Many so-called barbarian tribes had better swords for example. The Germans for example were superior smiths these days.

[Sol Invictus]

Rome was the Borg Collective.

Hail Rome.

[Óttar]

I admire Rome's art and honor her deities. The Romans inherited Hellenistic realism in their art forms, their architecture was spectacular, their road system unparalleled. The single thing I am bitter about in regards to Rome is Constantine's conversion to Christianity and Theodosius' outlawing of Roman indigenous religion. I am a champion of affirming life. Venus Vina Musica Vita est. As Nietzsche said "To be a pagan is to be one who affirms life."

The Latin tongue is beautiful, and reflects the sublime, mystical quality of the Romans as a people. In the German spirit, there is a heavy masculine element which drowns out the feminine. When I think of the Germans I think of wood, stone, inflexibility, woodlands. Now it is true the ancient Germans had a very high respect for women in general, ascribing to them an affinity for spiritual power. This was noted by Tacitus in his Germania. The Romans could very well be called "misogynistic", limiting women's power etc. but even so, folklorists have pointed out that in German folktales there is a repression of the feminine element. One can feel something different in Classical mythology. When I think of the Romans I think silk, luxury, wine, might, art, culture, sophistication, flexibility, fluidity, a mystical embryonic paradigm that's sensual, earthy and transcendent at the same time.

Magna Mater, te exalto. Macte esto!

"Vivemus, Morimus ergo bibamus."

"Let us drink and die | and drink again"

"Let us drink to Rome| and ravish again." - ORE

[Osweo]

Barreldriver put it really well in his opening post.

I used to fume at the Classical focus in school curricula at the expense of our own local ancestors. At how mythology and 'ancient civilisations' themed books concentrated on these distant southerners. At some of the wicked things I read about them doing to Boudicca and everyone. At the nastier perverted things in Suetonius et al...

But I'm glad that this feeling made me go and look into things. And I thank Tacitus for having existed. I'd deify the man. Up there with Bede and Gibbon, Frazer and Snorri, Nestor and Nennius! That was a Roman.

I've spent my life inspecting the traces Roman engineers and soldiers left on my island. The scale, order and impressiveness of it all still captivate me. We should think of these men, not of corrupt despots lounging around on silk couches, when we think of Rome. The Romans deeply impressed our forebears, and that is recommendation enough, perhaps. Rome's faults were often inescapable things, the unavoidable phases, downswings and system crashes that we have to live through in our still unmatured life as a species.

The Glory That Was Rome. Some here should read some Macauley, if that phrase means nothing to them.

[Cato]

Rome was a founder and transmitter of culture, just as China was in the east, especially dynasties like Qin and Han. Would the world be what it is today without empires like those of Rome, Qin, and Han? Absolutely not.

[Beorn]

Would the world be what it is today without empires like those of Rome

A place full of tribal unity and homogeneous religiosity? Yes.

The Romans destroyed every culture they encountered. They assimilated and altered the enemy and adapted the ranks accordingly.

As Veritas said, they were the Borg of Europe.

[Osweo]

Humanity without Roman Empires and Christianity-type monotheisms is next to impossible. Such phenomena were inevitable, sooner or later, and the forms they took were hardly the worst we could have had.

One day, the stars await us, should we survive the mess we're in at the moment, and get back to our more compelling tasks as a species. You don't reach them if you hang around in oak groves for all eternity.

Rome gave us the Oikumene. We learnt about the rest of the world, and now are in a better position to know ourselves.

Much of Roman values (literature, oratory, respect for history and art) persisted under Christianity and ensured that at least something was left for us to look back to when we finally awoke from the clouds of incense and obfuscation a few centuries ago.

[Cato]

A place full of tribal unity and homogeneous religiosity? Yes.

The Romans destroyed every culture they encountered. They assimilated and altered the enemy and adapted the ranks accordingly.

As Veritas said, they were the Borg of Europe.

Are you so completely sure of that position? If the past of tribal unity ran into, say, the Persians or the Huns or, heaven forbid, the Muslims- what then?

[Beorn]

Are you so completely sure of that position? If the past of tribal unity ran into, say, the Persians or the Huns or, heaven forbid, the Muslims- what then?

I'm purely speculating, but I would have speculated that we would have had our Vercingetorix and Arminius and have held firm against whatever came against us.
If we had survived and progressed beyond that, I cannot divulge, unfortunately, but I romantically believe that we would have progressed just fine and fortuitously and perhaps grounded deep roots as which we Europeans have done as Christians.

The unforseeable is never an easy one to predict, but I certainly believe that we as Europeans would have stood our ground against an alien religion as we did in early day France.

[Cato]

The tribes didn't stand a chance against Rome, so I doubt they would've stood a chance against any other large, unified power had Rome never risen to power. The Gauls were overrun and the only thing that kept the Romans out of Germany was Varus' blunder in the Teutoberger forest. Germanicus the younger avenged Varus' legions, but the Romans were leery of expansion into Germany after that. Had they set their mind to it, they very likely would've done to Germany what they did to Gaul.

Tribal systems are always disunited, witness the defeat of the Amerindian tribes by the U.S. Large, organized nations can field equally large, organized armies. Rome did this to defeat its opponents, even other militarily succesful powers like Macedon and Sparta. In a world without Rome, some other large, organized power most likely would've overrun Europe- and then people would be cursing Macedonians, for example, or the Carthaginians.

[Osweo]

Vercingetorix and Arminius
Men of such nature loom large in the archaic past of Roma herself. We would have had the same, only a little later.

we as Europeans would have stood our ground against an alien religion as we did in early day France.
Motivated and united by what, pray? The old diversities could never have provided us with a suitably hardened and intent state religion to stand in the face of a pure monotheism. You and I would be named Jamal and Abdullah now. We would have no record of what had gone before. We might have got over it eventually, and had a bit of a nativist renaissance but the damage would have been done...

[Beorn]

Motivated and united by what, pray?

If I may, and if I may answer both you, Oswiu and Hroda at the same time, but what was the ethnic demographic make-up of the men who stood up towards the army of Rome in the Gallic conquest? The men of Alesia were of what descent and origin?

We may have not had the same presence of Rome in her latter years, but we certainly had her number in due course.

I fervently believe the Muslim hordes would have met a more cohesively religious and socially cohesive unit than they did after the Roman/Christian bloom and decline.

[Osweo]

If I may, and if I may answer both you, Oswiu and Hroda at the same time, but what was the ethnic demographic make-up of the men who stood up towards the army of Rome in the Gallic conquest? The men of Alesia were of what descent and origin?
MORE SIGNIFICANTLY, I suggest you look at the make up of Caesar's army...

Chocabloc with Gauls.

The same scenario was repeated with the Irish in the Middle Ages.

We may have not had the same presence of Rome in her latter years, but we certainly had her number in due course.
Numbers? Without a bureaucracy, without bread shipments from a conquered Egypt, without the economic clout that urban centres give? No chance. Pure wishful thinking.

The irony is, you wouldn't be here thinking like this if it hadn't all went on.

[Cato]

Monotheism isn't the evil, it's the form that that monotheism takes. Jewish monotheism was inclusive and the Jews more or less didn't care about converts. It would've been nice if you, as a pagan, understood that Jehovah was the God of Gods, but you didn't have to. Some pagans, Greeks and Romans among others, did a bit of semi-conversion and there're records where Jehovah is equated to Zeus and Jove. However, these Greeks and Romans were kind of ostracized in their own societies, for "adopting Jewish manners" as, I believe, Cicero calls it. If anything, these pagans were reacting to the gross behaviors of the time and found the Jewish deity to be morally superior to their own many and varied deities. Whilst they may've scorned the pagans, the Jews didn't exterminate them or force them to convert- as the Christians and Muslims were wont to do.

The idea of a single God goes hand-in-hand with the idea of a centralized authority, hence national deities like Asshur in Assyria, Jehovah in Israel, and so forth. The Romans had Jupiter, but this belief never got much beyond what history shows it to have been. IOW, Jupiter never really shed his polytheistic background to become less of a God of the myths and more of a God of the mores of human behavior. This is seen with Jehovah, where the "man of war" becomes, to the Jews, a deity of moral behavior; it is also seen with Ahura Mazda in Persia, the "good mind." In both cases, Jewish and Persian, the resulting monotheism was highly ethical and demanded good behavior and elaborate ritual hand-in-hand.

I can't say that the outcome of ethical monotheism has been all that good, however. The God of Gods is often hard to please, as a Chinese poem quoth ("heaven can't be trusted" I believe it said), but the idea of a single deity at the fore, rather than a divided pantheon, is capable of motivating nations and peoples quite powerfully.

[Beorn]

MORE SIGNIFICANTLY, I suggest you look at the make up of Caesar's army...

Chocabloc with Gauls.

The cavalry, yes, but the infantry was made up of every poor sod under recent Roman rule.


Numbers? Without a bureaucracy, without bread shipments from a conquered Egypt, without the economic clout that urban centres give? No chance. Pure wishful thinking.

And before the iron rod of Roman rule, we Northern Europeans were bereft of food and the means to survive?

[Cato]

Imagine...

Europe without Rome would've wound up like Europe before Rome- a patchwork of tribes, primitive in some areas and advanced in others, until being overrun by the Huns, who had been driven out of central Asia by the Han dynasty in China in the early centuries C.E.

[Cato]

And before the iron rod of Roman rule, we Northern Europeans were bereft of food and the means to survive?

Subsistence farming is a lot different than Egyptian bumper crops. Egypt was the breadbasket of the ancient world.

[Beorn]

Imagine...

Europe without Rome would've wound up like Europe before Rome- a patchwork of tribes, primitive in some areas and advanced in others, until being overrun by the Huns, who had been driven out of central Asia by the Han dynasty in China in the early centuries C.E.

Without the prime mover for Christianity, would the Huns and ultimately the Muslim hordes have mobilised to conquer Europe?

I honestly believe most of the occurrences were on behalf of what the Roman empire initiated.

[Osweo]

The cavalry, yes, but the infantry was made up of every poor sod under recent Roman rule
Really?

There were infantry auxiliary units too.

And before the iron rod of Roman rule, we Northern Europeans were bereft of food and the means to survive?
That does not equate to the creation of massive standing armies.

We lacked the focus that Rome provided. You wouldn't have had a Gaulish Empire, or Celtic or whatever. Gaul would have become to whatever centre emerged as Italy was to Rome. You wouldn't have liked what you got.

You wish we'd resisted Rome but hope we would have become something like Rome anyway? I don't get it. :confused: Rome abandoned its old ways when they became structurally outmoded, we would have too.

[Beorn]

Subsistence farming is a lot different than Egyptian bumper crops. Egypt was the breadbasket of the ancient world.

So was the British Isles. Apart from Tin and unconquered wealth, the wealth of British Isles envied by Caesar and Rome was the fertility of our lands.

[Osweo]

So was the British Isles. Apart from Tin and unconquered wealth, the wealth of British Isles envied by Caesar and Rome was the fertility of our lands.

That's simply not true. :)

The Hunnish thing was extraEuropean in origin, and Islam would have BEEN Christianity if it hadn't already happened.

Urban civilisation went in waves from its ancient centres. You need a certain historical trajectory to even think about starting it up yourself, at a remove from the centres. Thereby impossible.

[Beorn]

Really?

There were infantry auxiliary units too.

Of course. Without digging into the actual names of the units stationed in the British Isles, we can see that.


That does not equate to the creation of massive standing armies.

True, but we still managed to raise thousands more than the Romans, deliver more concise attacks upon delivery and supplies, and inspire considerably more numbers to our ranks. (Even hardened Roman soldiers defected to our cause against the Romans pre-Alesia).


We lacked the focus that Rome provided. You wouldn't have had a Gaulish Empire, or Celtic or whatever. Gaul would have become to whatever centre emerged as Italy was to Rome. You wouldn't have liked what you got.

I'll agree we did not have the structural focus to conquer and build an empire, but we certainly had our moments as a unified ethnic unit, scaring and annihilating the Greeks and Romans in their places of sanctity.


You wish we'd resisted Rome but hope we would have become something like Rome anyway? I don't get it. :confused: Rome abandoned its old ways when they became structurally outmoded, we would have too.

Perhaps, but this is where we descend into the unknown.

Would we as a people, an ethnic commonality, descended into disparate tribes and nations faced by the forces of the Huns and ultimately the Islamic hordes?

[Osweo]

True, but we still managed to raise thousands more than the Romans,
While simultaneously Roman armies were in North Africa, Spain, Gaul, Germany, Pannonia, Thrace, Greece, Anatolia, the Levant...

I've played along with the 'we' thing up till now, but you really are overdoing it. Celts in Iberia, Britain, the Balkans and Anatolia probably didn't give much of a toss about their fellows elsewhere.
And the other half of our 'we' wasn't involved.

I'll agree we did not have the structural focus to conquer and build an empire, but we certainly had our moments as a unified ethnic unit, scaring and annihilating the Greeks and Romans in their places of sanctity.
The former example is more akin to a minor Viking raid. The latter occured in the days when Rome hadn't quite perfected its later techniques but still demonstrates how the Celtic political and economic structure was doomed to fall. They took the city - but then what? They had to go off again. They were never able to make good their gains. Same in later Britain and Ireland.


Would we as a people, an ethnic commonality, descended into disparate tribes and nations faced by the forces of the Huns and ultimately the Islamic hordes?
The Huns were hardly the massive disaster people sometimes dress them as. Our Germanic ancestors rather respected them and emulated them in many things.

As for Islam - we can't really comment, as it was near enough a product of the Roman Empire.

Perhaps we can comment on Carthage though. They were rather nasty to the Iberians. Better with Rome. :thumbs up

[Óttar]

but the idea of a single deity at the fore, rather than a divided pantheon, is capable of motivating nations and peoples quite powerfully.

A single deity at the fore doesn't necessarily mean monotheism. I would've been overjoyed to see Mithraism and the cult of Mithras overrun the Empire and the populations contained therein. Smaller deities would've been absorbed as aspects of Sol Invictus and/or would've been given subordinate positions, but they wouldn't have been annihilated like under Christianity and Islam. Annihilating other deities (or other people simply because they honored them) was an alien concept to the Greeks and Romans (pretty much every ancient people except a few isolated cases in Egypt i.e. Akhenaten, the conflict between the cults of Horus and Set.)

It was exactly because Judaism and Christianity weren't flexible enough to at least accomodate or tolerate other deities that Jews and Christians were oppressed by the Romans.

Plutarch (or perhaps it was Lucan) recorded a vision of Isis and she said to him essentially 'people give me many names, but foremost among them is queen Isis.' This inclusive attitude is alien to Abrahamic monotheism.

As I said before I am a proponent of the Mystery cults (every one except Christianity) of the Hellenistic and later Roman world.

"Mithras, god of the morning, our trumpets waken the wall | Rome is above the nations, but Thou art over all."

-Ancient Roman military song. trans. Rudyard Kipling.

[Beorn]

I've played along with the 'we' thing up till now, but you really are overdoing it.


I'm being lazy. :coffee:

[Cato]

I've more or less exited the thread, simply because it's veering into the area of speculative fiction and romantic wishing.

Rome rose, dominated and fell and the world is better in some ways and worse in other ways because of these historical facts. I won't deny that the time of the Roman domination was a time of brutality and war, yet this was also a time of one of the greatest cultural flowerings that the world has ever known (the classical Greco-Roman period). Rome's legacy can't be called either good or bad, but, rather, it's a mixture of both.