Romans and Greeks weren't the same thing

[JMack]

I have seen many uninformed stupid retards here defending this idea of a common ''Greco-Roman'' culture. It's not true at all for the reasons I will expose. Before the beggining is just necessary to explain that I'm talking about culture mostly, so if you want to bring anthrotardism and genetic bullshit here get lost. My point is that the establishment of something called ''Greco-Roman'' culture was one of the reasons of decay for the Latin spirit, not a cause of glory.

1- When the Romans arrived Greeks were considerable Orientalized

Everyone knows that the ancient Latins and the first Hellenes shared a similar despise for the East, associated with feminine, passive and inferior mentality. As Julius Evola notes in an essay, the East was associated with the teluric energies opposed to the Olympian/Ascetic spirituality of the first Latins and Hellenes; according to the model stablished by the Swiss scholar Bachofen the Oriental mythologies were directed to the cult of a Great Mother and practices related with sacred prostitution, emasculation and fertility; the early Itallic and Hellenic spirituality were based in a major Sky Father who governed the world as an authocrat and a rigid hierarchy of being, caracterized by virility, ascetic virtue (virtue and virility both sprung from the Latin Vir, meaning ''Man'') and a kind of spiritual order characterized by duty and sacrifice.

Well, when the Greeks started their development towards democratic societies and the ''birth of modern West'' as liberal modernistic historiography likes to put it, they were being degenerate from the inside, their early warrior and ascetic mentality started to be corrupted by opulence due to contact with semitic and other Oriental peoples from the Levant and Asia Minor. The slaves imported to Greece also affected the Greeks to develop a mentality towards syncretic religiosity and efeminate values. Only the Lacedemonians resisted this trend so far, Athenians, considered by modern Western liberal historiography as a paradigm of virtue, were no more than a bunch of degenerate faggots. Xenophon told us that at certain times they tended to spend more time in parties and festivities than in preparing for war. At a certain point, the Dorian virility of the Spartans started to decline and they have been defeated in war. But another wave of heroic militarism was infused in Ancient Greece with the arrival of the Macedonians, the ones who started the conquest of the East. But it was a very bad idea.

It made the ascetic Macedonian spirit vulnerable to the opulence of the East, and in time they were also contaminated by the Oriental spirit due to contact with Indians, Semites, Persians and other degenerate cultures marked by the prevalence of femininity. Religious synchretism and decayed values were the social norm in the Hellenistic Kingdoms of Greece and the ones in the East (Seleucians, Antigonians, Ptolomaics); only the Indo-Greeks of Bactria managed to have a decent culture for a short amount of time due to the infusion of the new spirituality of Buddhism among them; which reversed the trend of femininization there for a short period.

It's no wonder why Romans dominated the Greek kigdoms so easily; they were totally lost in asiatization and faggotry, a figure like Cleopatra is the emblem of this period of decadence. During the early age of the empire it was common for Roman noblemen to have special Greek slaves to teach their kids about the Hellenic culture. But that's the main problem: what was called Hellenic culture was no longer the true early Greek spirit, but a synchretic orientalized and passive group of symbols detached from any true manly spirit. As we know, early Latin culture was based on ascetism, fidelity, honor and war. As the Latin peoples of the Italian peninsula approached more and more the Greeks and started to have contact with them, many voices in Rome were raised against hellenization, what moves us to the second point.

2- Early Latin thinkers who valued the traditional Roman spirit strongly opposed Hellenization

The trend to hellenize the Latin culture started among some decadent patrician families, fond to opulence, material pleasure and oriental faustness. One of the first opposers of hellenization, Lucius Valerius Flaccus, a friend of Cato the Elder '' was a member of that purist patrician faction which displayed its adherence to the stricter virtues of the ancient Roman character. Within Roman society a transition was in progress—from Samnite rusticity to Grecian civilization and oriental voluptuousness.''.

Also: ''The two men shared common conservative political sympathies and cultural outlook, and were loyal to the military and political views of the older generation represented by Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus. Both he and Cato sought to defend Roman tradition against Hellenism.''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius...consul_195_BC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_the_Elder

Let's see what Cato the Elder had to say about the Greeks:

''In due course, my son Marcus, I shall explain what I found out in Athens about these Greeks, and demonstrate what advantage there may be in looking into their writings (while not taking them too seriously). They are a worthless and unruly tribe. Take this as a prophecy: when those folk give us their writings they will corrupt everything. All the more if they send their doctors here. They have sworn to kill all barbarians with medicine—and they charge a fee for doing it, in order to be trusted and to work more easily. They call us barbarians, too, of course, and Opici, a dirtier name than the rest. I have forbidden you to deal with doctors.''

— Quoted by Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia 29.13–14.

In the end, Hellenization triumphed over the traditional Latin and Sabine rusticity, rugedness and pshysical and mental ascetism of early Romans. So, again, on the contrary of what modernistic liberal historiography says to us, Greco-Roman culture wasn't the apex of anything rather it was a degeneration of the true Roman spirit and it's contamination by thousands of Godesses, Great Mothers, Mithraic cults, mystery religions and other synchretic tendencies that followed the establishment of the Empire (what itself was a perversion of early Roman values as Cicero reminds us) and the end of a vital and natural culture.

We can maybe say the same trend exists everywhere: the biggest the opulence, the greater the danger for any truly natural, hierarchical and stable society.
Just observing the modern ''West'' we can see the same thing happening again, with thousands of alternative religions and new age spiritualities, faggotry, feminization and perversion of natural values ocurring everywhere.

[Tauromachos]

When did Romans start to dominate Greek land?

What was the cause of the decline of Greek military power when the Romans took over Greece?

How do you see the Greek city states in Southern Italy?

[tekken999]

Romans didn't not see themselves as Greek at all and Greeks definitely did not see themselves as Romans. Greeks didn't even consider Macedonians to be part of the Hellenic race and they're closer genetically than Romans.

[Lavrentis]

Who said that they were the same thing? The Romans were greatly influenced by the Greeks though, that's what everybody's saying

[Lavrentis]

Greeks didn't even consider Macedonians to be part of the Hellenic race

Wrong. Macedonians took part in the Olympics so they were perfectly considered Greek, since only Greeks took part in the Olympics. There were some people in ancient Greece who had a political agenda against Macedonians and Macedonian rule over Greece that they said that Macedonians are not Greek. But that was rare.

[JMack]

Who said that they were the same thing? The Romans were greatly influenced by the Greeks though, that's what everybody's saying

Yes. My point is to adress this influence as a negative thing instead of a positive ''Greco-Roman'' culture.

There are many dumbasses in this forum defending that ''Romans and Greeks were the same''. They were not as I explained. I'm talking about culture mainly, not genetics , race or whatever anthrotardism some TA users like to vomit.

[JMack]

When did Romans start to dominate Greek land?

What was the cause of the decline of Greek military power when the Romans took over Greece?

How do you see the Greek city states in Southern Italy?

1- After the Punic Wars Roman influence started to be strong in the Greek kingdoms of Greece and Asia.

2- Asiatization as I said in the text

3- They were totally unrelated culturally with Early Romans

[Lavrentis]

OP doesn't provide sources for his claims in the first part. Somehow the Greeks changed their culture because Alexander conquered the East. Yeah right. I wonder if there has been one historian who asserted it. It was the opposite that happened, the East took a Greek culture. That's why this era was called the Hellenistic Era.

[Lavrentis]

Yes. My point is to adress this influence as a negative thing instead of a positive ''Greco-Roman'' culture.

There are many dumbasses in this forum defending that ''Romans and Greeks were the same''. They were not as I explained. I'm talking about culture mainly, not genetics , race or whatever anthrotardism some TA users like to vomit.

Romans and Greeks were different people who had a lot of contact. And I'm talking about culture too, genetics are a different thing.

[JMack]

OP doesn't provide sources for his claims in the first part. Somehow the Greeks changed their culture because Alexander conquered the East. Yeah right. I wonder if there has been one historian who asserte it. It was the opposite that happened, the East took a Greek culture. That's why this era was called the Hellenistic Era.

You can look for these names:

J.G. Droysen, Julius Evola, J.J.Bachofen and many others. It's a debatable topic, of course, that's the reason I'm wanting to discuss it here. It's the old question of hellenization vs asiatization in the Greek kingdoms.

You can see some parts of this debate between Droysen and Grote here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=ro...page&q&f=false