|
| Thread: American-Roman Connection |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted May 18, 2005 06:48 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 18 May 2005
|
Roman Thoughts:
I've been doing some more reading into Roman history and legacy. I still can't find any connection between them and modern-day Americans.
I have found some interesting distinctions though:
1. Science and architecture were extremely different.
2. Political processes were extremely different
3. Medicine was almost as obsolete as the need for space travel is today. The potential was there but no one really expected to get better if they became ill. Just as space travel clearly presents obvious possible advantages for the further advancement of humankind, so too did medicine present with such possibilities if only the government and people had supported it enough to research to the extent that many do today. I believe in the future people will look back on us today and say the same thing. Resources and gaps in the Periodic table await to be unlocked if only we as a people were devoted enough to invest more of ourselves into the endeavor.
4. Art is an entirely other subject however. Some, or possibly many, may argue with me but I believe that sculptors had learned so much from the Greek masters that this might have been the most advanced number of person sculptors that the world had ever seen. And I am talking about taking what you learn from the Greek master sculptors and then advancing their skill further to apply it to your own architecture! It's truly quite amazing in my opinion.
5. Philosophies might be the closest area of similarity to modern-day Americans. It is from the Romans that the world first learned what could be accomplished under joined city-states. Today's America is made up of larger actual states combined and joined to form the United states. The philosophy similarity might be that of nationalism. A nation, that is, comprised of states adherring to a greater concept of comraderie. But there it ends. No American states are being held at the tip of a sword. And even when we had our civil war, there was civility. When the Roman empire had its civil war(and they were many) the results were often brutal and ravaging. I seem to recall Pompeii's head being removed in honor of Julius Caesar by the little boy king Ptolemy. And even if you accept that Caesar was not pleased to hear of it, you must also admit that he had come a long way. Caesar was not about to simply ask for his ring. Historians say it had to be done and Caesar, being the opportunist that he was, was glad the task did not fall to himself. He probably saw the political advantage of blaming the young immature king of ignorance of roman custom. Ptolemy was, after all, looking to gain favor seeing as he was currently at odds with his sister for the Egyptian throne.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted May 18, 2005 01:24 PM |
|
Edited By: Shiva on 18 May 2005
|
Quote:
I've been doing some more reading into Roman history and legacy. I still can't find any connection between them and modern-day Americans.
I have found some interesting distinctions though:
1. Science and architecture were extremely different.
.......
Yes, Rome didn't have cell phones or computers, or
elevators in their buildings...?
I think you missed the point by a wide margin, Consis.
The comparison was about empire building and the social
conditions involved in the rise and fall. Comparisons
of technology and science are irrelevant.
The similarity is that they are the dominant force of
their time. That is the theme of this thread.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted May 18, 2005 04:05 PM |
|
|
Huh?
Quote:
I think you missed the point by a wide margin, Consis.
The comparison was about empire building and the social
conditions involved in the rise and fall. Comparisons
of technology and science are irrelevant.
Technology and science comparisons are irrelevant?
Quote:
The similarity is that they are the dominant force of
their time. That is the theme of this thread.
Americans are the dominant force of this time? That's the theme of this thread?
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 18, 2005 08:38 PM |
|
|
The causes of societal collapse (and thus predictions about the fate of our own society) were discussed nicely in Jared Diamond's new(ish) book, suitably named, "Collapse". The Collapses of ancient
societies discussed in this work include Easter Island, the Mayas, and the Greenland Norse, and many of the factors responsible boil down to environmentalism and the failure to manage resources properly. The factors responsible for those collapses are then discussed in the context of modern societies facing serious problems, including (in order of decreasing severity): Rawanda, Haiti, China and Australia. The fate of the US is also implicitly discussed. Anyway, if this is a topic you (all) are interested in, I recommend the book heartily. It's a little repetitive at time but a valuable read nonetheless.
Corribus
EDIT: btw I do not (nor does the book) imply that Australia (or China) is in immediate danger of collapse or anything - simply that the book examines some of their problems (which are similar to problems responsible for Ancient societal collapse) and their causes and (in some cases) interesting solutions. Nor is the US implied to be problem free - more specifically, the causes of collapse of ancient societies and the causes of problems of modern societies are analyzed with the goal of highlighting how similar problems are occuring in the US and how they might a) be remedied or b) end in the collapse of the US if they are allowed to get worse and are NOT remedied.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted May 29, 2005 01:40 PM |
|
|
I got back from my first trip to America recently.
I travelled to New York for one week, and I was reminded of this old thread.
Now I'm not saying that the US of A is on the downfall, but one of the main things I noticed was how it was ageing. The litte things like roads and bridges were in terrible condition. Run down and delapidated housing and public places were the major negative points I picked up.
Compared to the cities I have lived in, I think that America's debt is starting to show. Don't get me wrong, New York is a great city, I'm just pointing out a negative.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted May 29, 2005 09:48 PM |
|
|
|
It's true. Most state and local governments have suffered terrible budgetary shrinkage since 9-11 and the accompanying recession. It is beginning to show infrastructurally in many places, and services budgets are also collapsing nationwide.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted May 31, 2005 10:34 PM |
|
|
Not to mention that the entire West is slowly building down their industrial base. We'll be developing nations in a few years, unless some regulations on outsourcing and stuff like that.
If you thing deindustrialisation is a bad thing, that is...
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted October 04, 2005 05:18 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 4 Oct 2005
|
A Thought . . .
Last night I heard something that raised my brow immediately.
As I watching my 3rd recording of Founding Fathers (series of short biographies on each American founder), I heard one of the historians say:
"America became the first republic since Rome. Most of the founders were history buffs. History has shown that with every single republic: a tyrant arose, it became a monarchy, or they were simply conquered by a foreign army. No republic has ever lasted."
This was spoken in the context of the importance for the need of a well-written/devised constitution/form of government.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted October 05, 2005 01:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
"America became the first republic since Rome. Most of the founders were history buffs. History has shown that with every single republic: a tyrant arose, it became a monarchy, or they were simply conquered by a foreign army.
Does that mean that one of these will happen to America as well?
Correction: number 1 already happened.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 05, 2005 02:31 AM |
|
|
Well Svarog. . .
That is a distinct possibility. That is why it is so important to have a system of checks and balances. One branch of government (Or one man/woman for that matter) should not be allowed to gain total control. Whether this rule is being enforced is another matter.
How to maintain a republic without falling into anarchy or becoming a monarchy seems both the question at hand and a daunting task. We Americans really aren't that old in terms of historical context.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 05, 2005 06:12 AM |
|
|
So who is this tyrant, Svarog? Putting aside your ridiculous hatred of President Bush and looking at facts, there's no tyrant. Tito was a tyrant, a peaceful one (sort of), but a tyrant nonetheless.
Stalin was a tyrant.
EDIT: I just noticed my signature when I was looking over my post, ironic, no? 
____________
|
|
vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted October 05, 2005 06:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"America became the first republic since Rome. Most of the founders were history buffs. History has shown that with every single republic: a tyrant arose, it became a monarchy, or they were simply conquered by a foreign army. No republic has ever lasted."
Wrong. San Marino is the oldest republic in the world. 
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted October 05, 2005 07:16 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 5 Oct 2005
|
Vlaad,
Benito Mussolini's idea of a republic is a bit different from mine. Which ever definition you prefer is your own prerogative. I prefer to believe that a republic is a state or nation in which the supreme power rests in all the citizens entitled to vote (the electorate) and is exercised by representatives elected, directly or indirectly, by them and responsible to them.
I suppose that definition could be seen in a different light depending on the spin doctor describing it to you. But even so, San Marino relies on Italy for its defense. What are your feelings about the "oldest republic" relying on foreign militaries to defend its sovereignty? An also, does size matter? It is quite small you know; home to roughly 20-30 thousand people.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted October 05, 2005 08:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Benito Mussolini's idea of a republic is a bit different from mine. Which ever definition you prefer is your own prerogative. I prefer to believe that a republic is a state or nation in which the supreme power rests in all the citizens entitled to vote (the electorate) and is exercised by representatives elected, directly or indirectly, by them and responsible to them.
I suppose that definition could be seen in a different light depending on the spin doctor describing it to you.
Your definition is fine with me and the people of San Marino, too. 
Quote:
But even so, San Marino relies on Italy for its defense. What are your feelings about the "oldest republic" relying on foreign militaries to defend its sovereignty?
It is a sovereign country - a member of EU and UN.
As for her defense, today most countries are dependent in one way or another.
Quote:
An also, does size matter? It is quite small you know; home to roughly 20-30 thousand people.
Funny you mentioned it. Why do you think so?
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted October 06, 2005 02:16 AM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 5 Oct 2005
|
Quote:
So who is this tyrant, Svarog? Putting aside your ridiculous hatred of President Bush and looking at facts, there's no tyrant.
Gosh, man cant make a joke these days without the conservative bunch of HC geting sexually aroused over Bush.
Seriously, who has a ridicilous hatred rowards Bush?! I quite like the man, only that i think he has a face as a potato.
And keep your American schoolbook description of Tito for urself. Just because he's put under the graph "Communist evil tyrants" there, doesnt give you the right to give such judgements of him on a public message board.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted October 06, 2005 08:26 PM |
|
Edited By: Russ on 6 Oct 2005
|
|
Just out of curiosity I have a question for wolfman: What exactly does it mean to be a patriot in USA? It means thinking that you are better than everyone else and that your way is the only right way, yelling about your patriotism and waving your flag around everywhere you can? (As opposed to DOING your best to make your country a better place to live in?) Did I get it right?
|
|
2XtremeToTake
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 07, 2005 05:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The Roman Empire is alive and well, and we are living in it. It has merely migrated to the northwest (into Great Britain) then across the ocean (to the U.S.).
Does that mean i can wear togas in public?
One difference though from USA to all the other major empires throughout the world (Rome, france under Napeoleon, USSR) Is that they were consistently seeking for more land to add to their dominion, they would not settle for just one area, they had to have it ALL. America did that in its early days, but I dont believe we have annexed, bought, or conquired a country in i believe over 150 years. Our borders have been the same for quite a while now, with the exceptions of Alaska and Hawaii, but they were United States territorys for a while before they became states.
____________
I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met.
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted October 07, 2005 04:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
One difference though from USA to all the other major empires throughout the world (Rome, france under Napeoleon, USSR) Is that they were consistently seeking for more land to add to their dominion, they would not settle for just one area, they had to have it ALL. America did that in its early days, but I dont believe we have annexed, bought, or conquired a country in i believe over 150 years. Our borders have been the same for quite a while now, with the exceptions of Alaska and Hawaii, but they were United States territorys for a while before they became states.
Oh, please! Just because USA doesn't actually add the conquered countries to their own country doesn't mean it isn't trying to expand! What do you think the war in Vietnam was all about? Or Iraq? And what about the "invisible" wars won with little or no fighting, yet where USA acheived its goal of installing a puppet government? USA is trying to acheive the contol over the rest of the world as much as any other empire, if not more. It isn't very successful at it (Vietnam was lost, their friends Saddam and Osama turned on them, etc), but as they say "it doesn't hurt to try".
To add more to this - USA is acting exactly the same as the Roman Empire. Just like USA after the Indian wars and the war with Mexico, Roman empire (I think it was under emperor Diocletian) decided that it is too big to be controlled effectively and it stopped expanding. It even gave up some of the territories because they were too hard to control! However, they did their best to make sure to install some pro-roman puppet kings (this is how "governments" were called at that time ) in the lands they left behind.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted October 07, 2005 11:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
America did that in its early days, but I dont believe we have annexed, bought, or conquired a country in i believe over 150 years. Our borders have been the same for quite a while now, with the exceptions of Alaska and Hawaii, but they were United States territorys for a while before they became states.
I'd put it at closer to 100 years in your terms as Hawaii was only acquired 1898. Cuba was also to all intents and purposes annexed for a short period around the same time. Then there was the long term occupation of the Philippines which began also around then and wasn't relinquished until just after WW2. Just because the last two didn't become part of the USA as a whole shouldn't IMO discount them as they are evidence of land acquisition.
As for secret plans for colonisation, that's what Starbucks is for right?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted October 13, 2009 09:39 PM |
|
|
The American-Roman Connection --
Thread revived. This is probably a mistake since it will inevitably get dragged to Wastelands given recent trends. I will only ask that posters try their best to preserve the respectful mood and seriousness of the original. Maybe that way we can have a serious discussion and avoid VW.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
|
|
