Books about the Roman empire

[pentazoid]

Any good book on the Roman Empire that draws comparisons between the Roman empire and the United States , since like Roman, the United States started out as a republic?

[Proton Soup]

dunno, but i'd be interested, as well. i think there are a lot of similarities.

[Astronuc]

I'd recommend Peter Heather's book
The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians
http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Roman-Empire-History-Barbarians/dp/0195325419/

The book addresses both the impact of the Barbarian Invasions on the Roman empire as well as the emperors themselves. Basically many of the emperors became emperor through assassination. In some cases, I believe the Senate selected an emperor by vote.

Fortunately, the system in the US is more benign.

Only the characters of the presidential nominees get assassinated :biggrin: - well maybe not, but they get pretty roughed up.

I don't know if there is such a book that compared Roman Emperors and the Imperial system with the US Presidents and the US system, but

The Roman Emperors (Hardcover)
http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Emperors-Michael-Grant/dp/0760700915

Maybe arildno, marcus or Evo can recommend something.

Or try this thread - http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=89577

[arildno]

Any good book on the Roman Empire that draws comparisons between the Roman empire and the United States , since like Roman, the United States started out as a republic?
I don't see the relevance of such a comparison, not the least since the Roman state started out as a kingdom.

[pentazoid]

I don't see the relevance of such a comparison, not the least since the Roman state started out as a kingdom.

I think the comparison between the two is relevant because before rome collapse , it was in debt, much like the United states right now. Like the united states, government grew to a gargantuan size, providing services for the Romans through taxes, much like government supported programs in the US. Rome was a superpower , much like the US is a superpower today.

[Evo]

There really is no comparison between the two. That's why you won't find a comparison between the two.

[tiny-tim]

I think the comparison between the two is relevant because before rome collapse , it was in debt, much like the United states right now …

I'm confused … since Rome ruled most of the known world …

who was it in debt to? :confused:

and is it true that new york, like rome, was built on seven hills? :smile:

[arildno]

I think the comparison between the two is relevant because before rome collapse , it was in debt, much like the United states right now.
No, the Roman state was NOT in debt, but many of its citizens were. To the Roman state.

Like the united states, government grew to a gargantuan size, providing services for the Romans through taxes, much like government supported programs in the US.
Complete nonsense. There were not really any "welfare programs" to the benefit of its ordinary citizens that heavily strained the resources of the state.

You have messed up the meaning of the "annona", the regular corn supply to metropolises like Rome and Constantinople:
Corn was requisitioned (for Rome, from North Africa, for Constantinople, from Egypt), more than it was bought. (I.e, the Roman state had few expenses with it).
It is true that the land-holders (i.e, those who were required to provide) had to sell the corn at fixed, low prices, yet as a recompense, they were given virtual monopolies to sell other commodities, like wine, oil, etc.
(It was, at least for the major players, a very lucrative business!).

Anyhow, the Roman state did not overburden its own resources by keeping these "welfare programs" running.



In general, it is not at all fruitful to make such a comparison, because the conditions regulating economic and political life are so different:
First off, the extensive grants of privileges and monopolies totally changes the economic dynamic in a society. (A free-market economist would say it f*cks it up, but that merely means it works along other, alien lines)

Secondly, in order to understand the financial crisis the Roman state went into during the fifth century, you should first single out what was just about its only major budget post: The expenses for the army.
When large tax domains fell out of Roman control due to the barbarian invasions, the Roman state lost its ability to pay its own soldiers.
This resulted in an accelerating crumbling process, where the region the Roman state was able to exert direct control over became gradually constricted, until it "vanished" altogether.

I am at a loss to see how this process of disintegration has much relevance for the study of contemporary US economics and politics.

[CarmenV]

"The New Rome?"
-the fall of an empire and fate of America.
by: Cullen Murphy

[SW VandeCarr]

I'm confused … since Rome ruled most of the known world …


This is a common misconception. The Romans themselves were aware of vast lands to the east which had been conquered by Alexander the Great. These lands extended from the eastern boundary of the Roman Empire to India. It's also likely that Romans were vaguely aware of the Han Empire in China whose influence extended to the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea.

Also, the US is a republic with popular elections, a written constitution including a Bill of Rights, a free press and democratic institutions. The Roman Empire had none of these. Unfortunately, the US does have a lot of public and private debt.

[tiny-tim]

I'm confused … since Rome ruled most of the known world …

who was it in debt to? :confused:
This is a common misconception. The Romans themselves were aware of vast lands to the east which had been conquered by Alexander the Great. These lands extended from the eastern boundary of the Roman Empire to India. It's also likely that Romans were vaguely aware of the Han Empire in China whose influence extended to the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea.

I'm confused :confused: …

are you saying that Rome was in debt to the Han empire, and Alexander the Great?

[SW VandeCarr]

I'm confused :confused: …

are you saying that Rome was in debt to the Han empire, and Alexander the Great?

I was referring to your phrase: "Since Rome ruled most of the known world..." (which is all I quoted) and the second paragraph (which you omitted in your quote) refers to the US debt. You know this. Stop playing games.

EDIT: Since the Parthian and Han Empires were contemporary to the Roman Empire they could have been in debt to them, although I know of no historical evidence they were. Rome traded with both, although only indirectly with the Han via India and the Silk Road. And no, Tiny Tim, Rome could not have been in debt to Alexander the Great. Do you know why?

[tiny-tim]

EDIT: Since the Parthian and Han Empires were contemporary to the Roman Empire they could have been in debt to them, although I know of no historical evidence they were.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
And no, Tiny Tim, Rome could not have been in debt to Alexander the Great. Do you know why?

Rome used imperial currency, and Big Alex used metric?

All the bullion stage-coaches were pillaged by the Vikings? :redface:

[SW VandeCarr]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Rome used imperial currency, and Big Alex used metric?

All the bullion stage-coaches were pillaged by the Vikings? :redface:

Nice try. Alexander was long dead when the Roman Imperial regime was instituted in 27 BC and his heirs had lost their empires to Rome, the Parthians and local powers in Central Asia like Samarkand. The Vikings pillaged your country at a later time. Beware. They might come back.

[Evo]

SW, if you have a point, please state it clearly and then furnish links to the peer-reviewed research that backs up what you say. We don't allow making statements without furnishing the research that goes with it.

Thank you.

[SW VandeCarr]

SW, if you have a point, please state it clearly and then furnish links to the peer-reviewed research that backs up what you say. We don't allow making statements without furnishing the research that goes with it.

Thank you.

Evo There's nothing that I said that can't be found in any textbook of ancient history with exception of conditional statements such as: since the Romans were contemporaries to the Parthian and Han states and they could have been in debt to them directly or indirectly.

Frankly, Tiny Tim's post to which I responded was not serious. Hence my remark that the Vikings might return. In any case, a convenient source would the Kinder H, Hilgemann W, Anchor Atlas of World History Vol I, Doubleday.

Anyone can go on the web and search on Parthia, Roman history, Alexander the Great, the Han empire and confirm what I said. But, beyond that, do such statements such as Alexander the Great lived before the Roman state became a major power, or that Vikings belong to a period after the Roman Empire require citations? If so, it's a rule that's not being enforced and if it were, it would stifle any meaningful discussion.

[Evo]

Evo There's nothing that I said that can't be found in any textbook of ancient history with exception of conditional statements such as: since the Romans were contemporaries to the Parthian and Han states and they could have been in debt to them directly or indirectly.Then post links to the online texts that specifically back up what you said. The burden of proof lies with the person that makes the claim.

Frankly, Tiny Tim's post to which I responded was not serious. Hence my remark that the Vikings might return. In any case, a convenient source would the Kinder H, Hilgemann W, Anchor Atlas of World History Vol I, Doubleday.

Anyone can go on the web and search on Parthia, Roman history, Alexander the Great, the Han empire and confirm what I said. But, beyond that, do such statements such as Alexander the Great lived before the Roman state became a major power, or that Vikings belong to a period after the Roman Empire require citations? If so, it's a rule that's not being enforced and if it were, it would stifle any meaningful discussion.No, these parts i will overlook.

It's this post which needs to be clearly re-stated since we don't quite get what you meant and that needs links to the research that vaildates what you say.

This is a common misconception. The Romans themselves were aware of vast lands to the east which had been conquered by Alexander the Great. These lands extended from the eastern boundary of the Roman Empire to India. It's also likely that Romans were vaguely aware of the Han Empire in China whose influence extended to the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea.

Also, the US is a republic with popular elections, a written constitution including a Bill of Rights, a free press and democratic institutions. The Roman Empire had none of these. Unfortunately, the US does have a lot of public and private debt.

[SW VandeCarr]

Then post links to the online texts that specifically back up what you said. The burden of proof lies with the person that makes the claim.

No, these parts i will overlook.

It's this post which needs to be clearly re-stated since we don't quite get what you meant and that needs links to the research that vaildates what you say.

I hope I don't need a citation to state that the Roman Empire never included Persia, China or India. Nor do I think a citation to say the US has written constitution and democratic institutions. As For contacts between the Han and Rome :

http://www.silk-road.com/artl/romanenvoy.shtml

other info:

http://roman-empire.net

By the way, I checked out these sites after writing the posts. I read books.

[Evo]

Evo There's nothing that I said that can't be found in any textbook of ancient history with exception of conditional statements such as: since the Romans were contemporaries to the Parthian and Han states and they could have been in debt to them directly or indirectly.

Frankly, Tiny Tim's post to which I responded was not serious. Hence my remark that the Vikings might return. In any case, a convenient source would the Kinder H, Hilgemann W, Anchor Atlas of World History Vol I, Doubleday.

Anyone can go on the web and search on Parthia, Roman history, Alexander the Great, the Han empire and confirm what I said. But, beyond that, do such statements such as Alexander the Great lived before the Roman state became a major power, or that Vikings belong to a period after the Roman Empire require citations? If so, it's a rule that's not being enforced and if it were, it would stifle any meaningful discussion.That's not how it's done here. If you make a claim, you need to back it up with vaild research. Also, I can't really make sense of what you are trying to say, please make a post clearly stating your point as it seems to have fallen apart.

[SW VandeCarr]

I'm confused … since Rome ruled most of the known world …



First Evo, Aroldno made a number of much more detailed claims in post 8 without references and was not called on it. Everything I said, with the possible exception of the Roman-Han connection, is well within the public domain. My link for this is short but to the point. The Silk Road Society is a respected historical association. You can click on their links. The Roman Empire link is major Google project gathering information on the Roman Empire. My reworded response to the above quote is as follows:

What do you mean by the "known" world? Known by whom? Your view is quite Euro-centric. The Roman Empire never extended beyond Mesopotamia, and it held that region for a very short time. In any case, contacts between the West and India go back at least to the time of Alexander the Great. The Romans knew about lands they didn't conquer and traded with them.

http://www.roman-empire.net

http://www.eh.net/bookreviews/library/0937

EDIT: The Wiki also has an excellent well referenced article on 'Roman Trade' but I suppose I can't cite that.

[SW VandeCarr]

Then post links to the online texts that specifically back up what you said. The burden of proof lies with the person that makes the claim.


I fully expect the same level of scrutiny by you for all posts in this forum. When it comes to history there are many things that are in the public domain as opposed to the physical or biological sciences where statements that are not easily verified should be cited. Historical research today focuses mostly on the finer points, not on whether the Roman Empire contained the entire "known" world.

EDIT: I wasn't able to quote both you and tiny-tim in the previous post (#20), but the first paragraph is directed to you. I trust my re-written post with links meets with your approval.

[Evo]

I fully expect the same level of scrutiny by you for all posts in this forum. When it comes to history there are many things that are in the public domain as opposed to the physical or biological sciences where statements that are not easily verified should be cited. Historical research today focuses mostly on the finer points, not on whether the Roman Empire contained the entire "known" world.It's pretty much a given that we consider the Roman Empire to have been most of the "known world" then. Anyone familiar with history will understand the use of this term.

Why are the events of the first century so critical in shaping our perception of the Romans?
I think that this period was important in shaping of the Roman Empire. We take the series through the dynasty developed by Augustus – how it grew, almost destroyed itself and then how it survived. It's a period of great expansion, when the known world is literally ruled by Rome.

http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/series/interview_lyn.html

Did you ever study history in college?

Arildno is quite an expert on ancient history and doesn't make overly speculative posts. Of course, if you aren't fasmiliar with something he says, please do ask for sources. Until you have a proven record of knowing what you are talking about, sources are definitely required.

[Evo]

EDIT: I wasn't able to quote both you and tiny-tim in the previous post (#20), but the first paragraph is directed to you. I trust my re-written post with links satisfies the the requirements.I didn't see where you reposted sources citing the claims you made and a link to those sources.

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

Where is the source of your claims of economic problems in Rome that are similar to the US?


This is a common misconception. The Romans themselves were aware of vast lands to the east which had been conquered by Alexander the Great. These lands extended from the eastern boundary of the Roman Empire to India. It's also likely that Romans were vaguely aware of the Han Empire in China whose influence extended to the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea.

Also, the US is a republic with popular elections, a written constitution including a Bill of Rights, a free press and democratic institutions. The Roman Empire had none of these. Unfortunately, the US does have a lot of public and private debt.

When you make a specific claim, you should then post a link to the source as well as posting the specific paragraphs that confirm your post.

[SW VandeCarr]

It's pretty much a given that we consider the Roman Empire to have been most of the "known world" then. Anyone familiar with history will understand the use of this term.
http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/series/interview_lyn.html

It's a given if you maintain an extreme euro-centric point of view. That's hardly the kind of citation you've asked of me. Anyone truly familiar with history will know this claim is a delusion of euro-centric historians and probably of many Romans. However, even they asked where their silk came from.

Did you ever study history in college?

Arildno is quite an expert on ancient history and doesn't make overly speculative posts. Of course, if you aren't fasmiliar with something he says, please do ask for sources. Until you have a proven record of knowing what you are talking about, sources are definitely required.

I did study history in college and for years after. I stand by what I said and a glance and the few (of many possible) sources that I linked will show I'm correct. The known world extended far beyond the limits of the Roman Empire and if adrildno knows history, he knows this. Are you saying Alexander the Great didn't reach India when Rome was just a city state? The Romans fought wars with the Parthians and traded with India. I'm not going to spend my time developing an exhaustive bibliography for people that don't know these basic facts. At least read the second link in post 20.

[SW VandeCarr]

.

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

Where is the source of your claims of economic problems in Rome that are similar to the US?

I never made that claim.

[Evo]

I never made that claim.Then please explain what you meant when you made these posts. What does the US economic situation have to do with ancient Rome?

This is a common misconception. The Romans themselves were aware of vast lands to the east which had been conquered by Alexander the Great. These lands extended from the eastern boundary of the Roman Empire to India. It's also likely that Romans were vaguely aware of the Han Empire in China whose influence extended to the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea.

Also, the US is a republic with popular elections, a written constitution including a Bill of Rights, a free press and democratic institutions. The Roman Empire had none of these. Unfortunately, the US does have a lot of public and private debt.

I was referring to your phrase: "Since Rome ruled most of the known world..." (which is all I quoted) and the second paragraph (which you omitted in your quote) refers to the US debt. You know this. Stop playing games.

EDIT: Since the Parthian and Han Empires were contemporary to the Roman Empire they could have been in debt to them, although I know of no historical evidence they were. Rome traded with both, although only indirectly with the Han via India and the Silk Road. And no, Tiny Tim, Rome could not have been in debt to Alexander the Great. Do you know why?

Also, you don't seem to get the "known world" reference. From the perspective of Rome, yes it was most of the "known world". This would be lands well known, mapped, etc... Of course doesn't include the "known world" of people living in Asia, southern Africa, and the yet to be discovered peoples of North and South America, etc... Your personal opinion is just that and is not the generally accepted meaning. We're going with the generally accepted meaning.

[SW VandeCarr]

Then please explain what you meant when you made these posts. What does the US economic situation have to do with ancient Rome?

It was a separate paragraph addressing the issue posed earlier which drew an equivalence between the US and the Roman Empire. I tried the multi-quote but couldn't get it to work. The issue of debt was brought up in tiny-tim's post which made the assumption "Since Rome ruled most of the known world..." and then linked that to a reference to Rome's debt.

You don't seem to get the "known world" reference. From the perspective of Rome, yes it was most of the "known world". This would be lands well known, mapped, etc... Of course doesn't include the "known world" of people living in Asia, southern Africa, and the yet to be discovered peoples of North and South America, etc... Your personal opinion is just that and is not the generally accepted meaning. We're going with the generally accepted meaning.

Known by whom? Not yet discovered by whom? Rome's knowledge of its own territories was of course greater then what lay beyond the Empire's boundaries. The Han's knowledge their territory was greater than what lay beyond their territory and so on for India, Persia, and the civilizations of Central Asia which were all linked by trade networks. The Euro-centric view where you use the term "known world" without qualification is out of date and frankly smacks of white supremacy. It's not necessarily understood the same way by non-Europeans as it is by Europeans (and Euro-Americians). Europe is not the center of the world or its history anymore. We can be proud of our Western heritage (Greece and Rome) without marginalizing other heritages. Have you examined any recent world history texts and compared them to texts of fifty years ago? Certainly China and India's heritages should not be overlooked in a multi-cultural world. Their history is not less worthy of the attention of historians. Why even say "known world"? What's the matter with the 'Mediterranean World' or simply the 'Western World' in terms of describing the Roman Empire?

[tiny-tim]

Why even say "known world"? …

Because you can only be in debt to what you regard as the known world. :wink:

[arildno]

1. I would like to say that SW Vandecarr is most likely right that the Roman Empire knew about the Han Empire.

2. I do not know if the Silk Road was yet in existence (but it seems likely), but they did have extensive trade connections with India circumventing the areas controlled by the Sassanian Empire (i.e, the Persians) by following the sea-lanes by way of nowadays Yemen and the Red Sea.
As an aside, the Silk Road was in existence in the sixth centure, when the Byzantine Empire broke the silk monopoly and began their own production of silk, both on the Anatolian heartland, and later on, at Sicily.

3. Even if Han Empire products might possibly not reach Rome by the direct landward road through the Sassanian Empire, it could easily have reached Rome by the route sketched in 2. It would not be an unlikely scenario at all, in my view.

4. The phrase "the known world":
SW Vandecarr: I ought to have had a reference on this, but I am quite sure that the Romans prided THEMSELVES for having conquered "nearly the whole known world".

That the Romans were an arrogant, conceited lot is a truism, and far more Romano-centric than any latterday European could be said to be Eurocentric. The Romans were as Romanocentric as the Chinese were Sino-centric and so on.

The phrase "the known world" is NOT a descriptive phrase, it is a normative phrase "the world WORTH KNOWING" (barbarian countries not worth knowing at all, from the Roman point of view").
Thus, apart from the Mediterranean civilization, the various high civilizations of Persia would be grudgingly included in the phrase (because they were foes the Romans could respect).


India and China, of course, were exotic countries the Romans practically knew very little about, in particular geographic extent; it was sort of fairy-tale countries to them.


Whether they included them in their phrase "the known world" is rather beside the point; the blithely arrogant, and ignorant, Romans still went about regarding "the known world" as mainly consisting of the Rome-dominated Mediterranean (plus Presia) in the midst of sea of barbarians not worth knowing about.


Continuing to use "the known world" in a Roman normative sense (rather than descriptive, in which case YOU would be right), has become a European convention.

[arildno]

The following article from (ugh!) Wikipedia has much interesting stuff on Roman-Chinese relations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_embassies_to_China

That a half-dozen formal, or for the most part, IN-formal embassies (or, more likely, merchant groupings) can be documented for a period of several centuries does NOT in any way constitute an argument that for the most part, China was for the Romans a country shrouded in legend and mystery, a fairy-tale country.

[Astronuc]

It seems to me that SW VandeCarr was making the point that the Romans (of the Roman empire) knew of China. The following supports that.
Numerous Han envoys were sent west, some parties exceeding 100 members. The Han Dynasty sent one mission to Parthia, which was reciprocated at around 100 BC: Roman emissaries were captured by the Chinese in 30 BC along the Silk Road at Yongchang. Later a Chinese envoy reached the Roman Emperor Augustus Caesar, who reigned between 27 BC and 14 AD; (Florus, 25 BC) Several Roman ambassadors reached China after 166 AD. http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=18006 I'm looking forward to cross-referencing with other sources, e.g. Florus (c. 25 BC) ‘'Epitome de T. Livio Bellorum omnium annorum DCC Libri duo'', Loeb Classical Library (no. 231, published in translation 1984, ISBN 0-674-99254-7)

Then there is this: Soon after the Roman conquest of Egypt in 30 BC, regular communications and trade between India, Southeast Asia, Sri Lanka, China, the Middle East, Africa and Europe blossomed on an unprecedented scale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road#The_Roman_Empire
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Transasia_trade_routes_1stC_CE_gr2.png

The Romans were perhaps most concerned with Europe and those regions immediately on the borders. The Danube River seemed to form an natural border.

The Romans certainly knew of other tribes outside of the territory they ruled. They did not venture to Sarmatia or Scythia.

By the first century BC, Sarmatians came into direct contact with Rome through Mithridates VI of Pontus. In the employ of the Pontic King, the Sarmatians ran helped bring Asia Minor under his rule, and likely wreaking havoc in Greece and the Balkans, at the expense of Rome. These alliances would eventually be crushed by Pompey and by Caesar in the mid 1st century BC, but the Sarmatians would continue to be a threat to Rome for another several centuries. External pressures from marauding Huns and other eastern people pushed the Sarmatians farther west. The Iazyges, certainly the most commonly known tribe to the Romans, settled along the Danube, between Dacia and Pannonia, soon to be in direct conflict with Rome.

Initially, the Iazyges were cautiously welcomed by the Romans, as they caused problems for tribes in Dacia, but eventually they would ally against the common foe. The Roxolani, another Sarmatian tribe, had settled the region and joined with their cousins as well. By the early 2nd century AD, the Emperor Trajan led a massive campaign to conquer Dacia, and between 102 and 106 AD, he brought this region and these tribes under Roman rule. Just a generation later, under Hadrian, it was deemed more advantageous to allow the nomadic horsemen their freedom, though Dacia itself was kept under Roman dominion. . . .
http://www.unrv.com/provinces/sarmatia.php
http://www.unrv.com/roman-empire-map.php
Dacia was as far east as the Roman Empire pushed on the Eurasian continent north of Black Sea (Pontus Euxinus), with the exception of what is now Crimea. South of the Black Sea, Rome pushed out to Armenia and Mesopotamia.
http://www.unrv.com/provinces/pontus.php
http://www.livius.org/sao-sd/sarmatians/sarmatians.html
The Alamanni and Rome 213-496 (Caracalla to Clovis) (http://books.google.com/books?id=LtCQ2mz6b5cC&pg=PA197&lpg=PA197&dq=Rome,+Sarmatia&source=bl&ots=qJrZXsZNcB&sig=PSMMAnRV9nXUwiEceyZmbH2mlew&hl=en&ei=OypjSqiNMuGTtgf93aX7Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4)

Another useful reference Rome and the Enemy (http://books.google.com/books?id=VRrgHhen4SwC&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66) By Susan P. Mattern

Mattern may be a good reference on Roman History - http://www.uga.edu/history/_cvs/CVMattern.pdf

The study of the Silk Road and its history is rather compelling. It's complementary to my studies of Central Asian and Chinese Histories, which of particular interest to me.

[Evo]

No one has questioned if the Romans knew of China, but SW keeps bringing it up as if someone questioned it. I think his rationale is that if the Romans knew of their existence, then they couldn't have conquered most of the "known world". Thank you arildno, for an excellent explanation.

[Astronuc]

No one has questioned if the Romans knew of the Hans, but SW keeps bringing it up as if someone questioned it. :tongue: I believe SW was responding to tt's comment I'm confused … since Rome ruled most of the known world …


who was it in debt to? Then question becomes, what did the Romans know about the rest of the world, and did they know that the world outside their borders was much larger? Perhaps even the most learned scholars could not comprehend the world being much larger than the territory they controlled.

They apparently knew of the Sarmatians, Scythians, Parthian, Indians, Hans (beyond the Scythians and Partians), as well as tribes beyond N. Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_trade_with_India
http://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/periplus/periplus.html

Roman coins from the 1st, 2nd and 5th cent CE have apparently been found in India.

I do agree that claims of fact should be supported by references/citations, especially since the thread is about books about the Roman Empire, or at least the title is. The OP seems to go off on a tangent, or skew, about parallels between the indebtedness of the Roman Empire and the US. That seems to be a whole other matter.

[SW VandeCarr]

Because you can only be in debt to what you regard as the known world. :wink:

It was the premise to your question that I was objecting to.

To everyone else who commented, thanks. I was feeling a lonely for a while. I have a Japanese friend who is a long term student of Western history. She even took two years of Latin so she could read Roman authors, particularly Tacitus. She's always telling me about the arrogance displayed by Western authors of Roman history and history in general, especially in older works. She likes to say "No one has ever conquered Japan." Because I want to remain friends with her, I don't argue the point.

[tiny-tim]

It was the premise to your question that I was objecting to.

I stand by :smile: my premise …
… since Rome ruled most of the known world …

… I do not accept that the fact that Rome knows that there is "something out there" means that Rome knows it.

Is the Oort cloud part of the known world? Was the far side of the moon part of the known world before anyone had even seen it? Was Mars part of the known world before Voyager (or was it Enterprise? :rolleyes:) visited it and started to map it?

Socrates (Roman ambassador to the court of Alexander the Small, ruler of Asia Minor) said something like "Who is wise? Only he who is aware of his own ignorance."

Surely wise Romans were well aware that they did not know the Han empire? :wink:

And is there any way that Rome could possibly have been in debt to the Han empire?

[SW VandeCarr]

I stand by :smile: my premise …



Socrates (Roman ambassador to the court of Alexander the Small, ruler of Asia Minor) said something like "Who is wise? Only he who is aware of his own ignorance."



This looks like something that needs a citation. Evo, where are you?

[arildno]

By the way, I have just begun reading Adrian Goldsworthy's "How Rome Fell", and on page 17, he is referring to Rome as ruling "the bulk of the known world".

That is, he, a professional historian, is utilizing that phrase in the conventional European (i.e, Romanocentric) sense.

[arildno]

It was the premise to your question that I was objecting to.

To everyone else who commented, thanks. I was feeling a lonely for a while. I have a Japanese friend who is a long term student of Western history. She even took two years of Latin so she could read Roman authors, particularly Tacitus. She's always telling me about the arrogance displayed by Western authors of Roman history and history in general, especially in older works. She likes to say "No one has ever conquered Japan." Because I want to remain friends with her, I don't argue the point.

And for your Japanese friend, wasn't it a teensy bit of national arrogance in Japan??
And in China, the "Middle Kingdom" i.e, the center of the world, isn't that arrogant?


It is NATURAL that large cultures are immensely proud of themselves, what is UN-natural, and even directly false, is to say Western cultures have been the worst in this.


It should be remembered that it is only by looking beyond your navel, and picking up whatever your competitors have made that seems useful to you that you have a real chance to expand.

The Romans, and Europeans have never denied that they have used other people's inventions and technologies; the Romans prided themselves on this point.

This in contrast to some other cultures, for example..JAPAN??

[SW VandeCarr]

It is NATURAL that large cultures are immensely proud of themselves, what is UN-natural, and even directly false, is to say Western cultures have been the worst in this.


Of course. But we who post in PF must be above all that. It must be in the rules somewhere.

Seriously, even these sub-forums should be objective and at least questioning statements like "Since Rome ruled the known world...". It's simply not factual by any reasonable interpretation. If you're going say anything along these lines it should be qualified such as "Rome ruled all the world they felt was worthy of them to rule." Even this is not factual since they had designs on Persia. The simple fact is that Rome ruled about as much of the world as it could reasonably hold and defend as a Mediterranean based civilization.

[arildno]

Of course. But we who post on PF must be above all that. It must be in the rules somewhere.
Not for Norwegians like myself.

After all, we are the legitimate rulers of Russia, France, Great Britain, Ireland, Iceland, Sicily, Southern Italy, some enclaves in Turkey and the North American continent.

We are just biding our time to make our claims once more.

[SW VandeCarr]

Not for Norwegians like myself.

After all, we are the legitimate rulers of Russia, France, Great Britain, Ireland, Iceland, Sicily, Southern Italy, some enclaves in Turkey and the North American continent.

We are just biding our time to make our claims once more.

I warned tiny-tim about you guys.

[arildno]

Of course. But we who post in PF must be above all that. It must be in the rules somewhere.

Seriously, even these sub-forums should be objective and at least questioning statements like "Since Rome ruled the known world...". It's simply not factual by any reasonable interpretation.
And we haven't denied that.
If you're going say anything along these lines it should be qualified such as "Rome ruled all the world they felt was worthy of them to rule." Even this is not factual since they had designs on Persia.
We have said "most of the known world".
Adrian Goldsworthy uses "the bulk of the known world."

Get used to it, it is a linguistic normative convention, not a precise descriptive term, and was never that to the Romans, either.

[SW VandeCarr]

And we haven't denied that.

Get used to it, it is a linguistic normative convention, not a precise descriptive term, and was never that to the Romans, either.

I'm not losing any sleep over it, but it's like asking children why they repeat certain things as if they were true, and they answer "Because everybody says so."

[arildno]

I'm not losing any sleep over it, but it's like asking children why they repeat certain things as if they were true, and they answer "Because everybody says so."
And this shows that you have totally failed at understanding the whole thing.

[SW VandeCarr]

And we haven't denied that.

We have said "most of the known world".
Adrian Goldsworthy uses "the bulk of the known world."

Get used to it, it is a linguistic normative convention, not a precise descriptive term, and was never that to the Romans, either.

"Everybody says so." is a linguistic normative convention too. It's never really "everybody". It's understood in terms of some social or even cultural context. You're not going to convince me that it's really appropriate in any discussion of scientific merit and I'm apparently not going to convince you that it isn't appropriate, or Evo or tiny-tim or perhaps a lot of other people (including the eminent Adrian Goldsworthy). Let's leave it at that and agree to disagree.

[Evo]

I believe SW was responding to tt's comment Then question becomes, what did the Romans know about the rest of the world, and did they know that the world outside their borders was much larger? Perhaps even the most learned scholars could not comprehend the world being much larger than the territory they controlled.If you look at they lands they conquered, it would seem that they did not care about the lands beyond them because they weren't worth conquering, a military campaign would not be effective, or the territory would be too costly to control, not that they weren't aware of them.

[arildno]

"Everybody says so." is a linguistic normative convention too. It's never really "everybody". It's understood in terms of some social or even cultural context. You're not going to convince me that it's really appropriate in any discussion of scientific merit and I'm apparently not going to convince you that it isn't appropriate, or Evo or tiny-tim or perhaps a lot of other people (including the eminent Adrian Goldsworthy). Let's leave it at that and agree to disagree.


Ever heard about the "Edict of Milan"?

That was technically neither an edict or issued at Milan, but THE NAME HAS STUCK ANYWAY.

The sciences, and history as well, of course, are replete with namings and definitions at odds with either an ordinary, or technical, meanings.

A puristic frenzy to uproot all such linguistic growths would be both endless and pointless.

[tiny-tim]

Hi arildno! :smile:
Ever heard about the "Edict of Milan"?

Nooo :redface: … but … I've heard of the Diet of Worms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_of_Worms). o:)

[SW VandeCarr]

Ever heard about the "Edict of Milan"?

That was technically neither an edict or issued at Milan, but THE NAME HAS STUCK ANYWAY.

The sciences, and history as well, of course, are replete with namings and definitions at odds with either an ordinary, or technical, meanings.

A puristic frenzy to uproot all such linguistic growths would be both endless and pointless.

I'm not in any kind of frenzy. My reasons are specific. They're stated in post 27.

[Evo]

SW, you seem to be interested in chinese history. Why don't you start a thread on that? I think it would make for a good discussion.

[Astronuc]

If you look at they lands they conquered, it would seem that they did not care about the lands beyond them because they weren't worth conquering, a military campaign would not be effective, or the territory would be too costly to control, not that they weren't aware of them. This quite true. The Romans generally stayed around the Mediterranean, or coastal areas.

Rome went as far east as it could. They were pretty much stopped by the Germanic tribes in the north, by the Sarmatians and Scythians north of the Black Sea, by the Parthians in Mesopotamia, and probably by the Sahara desert in the south.

The Romans and Parthians fought a series of wars beginning with Crassus' invasion in 52-53 BC and ending with Macrinus' ignominious defeat and retreat in 217 AD. . . . . http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/numismatics/parthia/frames/romvspar.htm

According Strabo's Geographica and later, Pliner the Elder's The Natural History, the Roman's knew quite a lot about the lands east of the Black Sea and Mesopotamia, and apparently as far east as Bactria or basically the mountainous western border of China. They traded with India.

It appears that the Sarmatians, Scythians and Parthians were too much for Rome to conquer. The descendants of these tribes eventually rolled over the Roman and Byzantine empires.

[Integral]

I have not read every post in this thread but, there is no doupt that the Romans has a well established trade with China. Read the Wiki article on the Silk Road. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road#The_Roman_Empire)

The togas of the wealthy were rewoven from Chinese silk.

Further according to the Buddists, christ traveled the silk road to Tibet as a youth. This According to my verbal source (Sonam Kazi (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBF_enUS249US249&q=Sonam+Kazi))

[SW VandeCarr]

SW, you seem to be interested in chinese history. Why don't you start a thread on that? I think it would make for a good discussion.

I don't claim any expertise in Chinese history, but it would be interesting to compare the Han and Roman empires in the 1st century CE when both states were at or near the height of their power and influence. I'm kind of spread out right now, but I'll give it some thought. Thanks.

[SW VandeCarr]

Further according to the Buddists, christ traveled the silk road to Tibet as a youth. This According to my verbal source (Sonam Kazi (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBF_enUS249US249&q=Sonam+Kazi))

What's Sonam Kazi's source for THAT? It's difficult enough to even establish the existence of a historical Jesus Christ, let alone that he traveled to TIBET!

EDIT: I may have seemed harsh, but I take the search for the historical Jesus seriously, not for religious reasons, but because of the influence of Christianity on the subsequent course of Western history, which was enormous. The issue is how much of Jesus is Jesus and how much is a mythic creation of those who followed him? The Gospels first appeared some 40-60 years after he was supposed to have died. There's almost no contemporary documentation of his life. Did Jesus really give the Sermon on the Mount? Who took notes? Even religious Christians agree Jesus never wrote anything down. Was he able to write? It wasn't that common then. Most scribes wrote in Greek, not Aramaic. I believe it's more likely than not that Jesus lived and that basic facts of his life (not the miracles or resurrection) as related in Matthew and Mark are probably historically valid, but outside the Gospels and the epistles, there's almost nothing to go on.

When you relate the Buddhist tradition that Jesus visited Tibet, it makes the historical person less real, more mythical and supernatural. It becomes more difficult to separate the search for the historical man from the myth, and religious faith from scientific knowledge. From that point of view, I don't I think that belongs in PF, if for no other reason than that a discussion of the historical Jesus in PF is more likely to be challenged as unacceptable under the rules.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

[Integral]

What's Sonam Kazi's source for THAT? It's difficult enough to even establish the existence of a historical Jesus Christ, let alone that he traveled to TIBET!

EDIT: I may have seemed harsh, but I take the search for the historical Jesus seriously, not for religious reasons, but because of the influence of Christianity on the subsequent course of Western history, which was enormous. The issue is how much of Jesus is Jesus and how much is a mythic creation of those who followed him? The Gospels first appeared some 40-60 years after he was supposed to have died. There's almost no contemporary documentation of his life. Did Jesus really give the Sermon on the Mount? Who took notes? Even religious Christians agree Jesus never wrote anything down. Was he able to write? It wasn't that common then. Most scribes wrote in Greek, not Aramaic. I believe it's more likely than not that Jesus lived and that basic facts of his life (not the miracles or resurrection) as related in Matthew and Mark are probably historically valid, but outside the Gospels and the epistles, there's almost nothing to go on.

When you relate the Buddhist tradition that Jesus visited Tibet, it makes the historical person less real, more mythical and supernatural. It becomes more difficult to separate the search for the historical man from the myth, and religious faith from scientific knowledge. From that point of view, I don't I think that belongs in PF, if for no other reason than that a discussion of the historical Jesus in PF is more likely to be challenged as unacceptable under the rules.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

According to Mr. Kazi his name appears in the Buddhist records, of course this is just oral hearsay as far as we are concerned.

Not sure how a trip across the Silk Road makes him any more mystical. The Silk Road was a well established trade route routinely traversed in that era.

The Romans ruled the known world by definition. If they ruled it it was known, outside the empire was not known. They did not stop conquering because they were not interested but rather because they ran into peoples who did not wish to be conquered. They tried and failed to conquer Germany and Scotland, as well as other areas in the Middle East.

[Proton Soup]

According to Mr. Kazi his name appears in the Buddhist records, of course this is just oral hearsay as far as we are concerned.

Not sure how a trip across the Silk Road makes him any more mystical. The Silk Road was a well established trade route routinely traversed in that era.

The Romans ruled the known world by definition. If they ruled it it was known, outside the empire was not known. They did not stop conquering because they were not interested but rather because they ran into peoples who did not wish to be conquered. They tried and failed to conquer Germany and Scotland, as well as other areas in the Middle East.

interesting. i didn't know there were other versions of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Notovitch

not that i have much faith in the tale, but fwiw, from my rather shallow understanding of buddhism, i think there is some overlap on issues like self-denial.

[SW VandeCarr]

interesting. i didn't know there were other versions of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Notovitch

not that i have much faith in the tale, but fwiw, from my rather shallow understanding of buddhism, i think there is some overlap on issues like self-denial.

The issue here is the level of scholarship and historical validity. The site I linked presents material from authors with reputations for a scholarly approach to this difficult, but historically important area of research. There are any number of stories and beliefs about Jesus Christ including the Mormon (LDS) belief that Jesus visited North America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon see Chronology

[SW VandeCarr]

The Silk Road was a well established trade route routinely traversed in that era.


Movement of goods along the Silk Road was in stages. Very few people traveled the entire length. This would have been very difficult and dangerous. It took Marco Polo two years to traverse the road in the 13th century CE when the route was much better organized and Mongol power helped insure safety.

http://www.silk-road.com/artl/marcopolo.shtml

[Proton Soup]

The issue here is the level of scholarship and historical validity. The site I linked presents material from authors with reputations for a scholarly approach to this difficult, but historically important area of research. There are any number of stories and beliefs about Jesus Christ including the Mormon (LDS) belief that Jesus visited North America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon see Chronology

http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/tibet.html

[SW VandeCarr]

http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/tibet.html

Well, this article essentially dismisses the idea of Jesus in Tibet. To say it's possible is virtually meaningless. It's possible that Jesus is a complete fiction or a composite of several individuals. I'd prefer to stick to real history to the extent it's possible. Whatever we might be able to say about the historical Jesus, there is no doubt that Christianity took root in the Roman Empire in the 1st century CE, first as a Jewish sect and eventually as the state religion of Rome by the early 4th century. It would be nice to know how it all began. If Jesus is fictitious, who invented him and why? I personally believe there was such a person.Most scholars agree (see my link: post 55), and an oral tradition developed around his teachings. These traditions were probably committed to written form (the lost Q Gospel?) well before the canonical Gospels appeared. There is always the possibility that the Q Gospel or other written documentation will be found. In any case, I'd prefer any further comments or questions along these lines would focus on historical scholarship rather than ahistorical speculation. I won't respond to the latter.

[Proton Soup]

Well, this article essentially dismisses the idea of Jesus in Tibet.

i know, that's why i posted it. although i think the idea is interesting because of what i see as philosophical overlap, i don't much buy the story that notovitch wrote.

[Smurf]

Socrates (Roman ambassador to the court of Alexander the Small, ruler of Asia Minor) said something like "Who is wise? Only he who is aware of his own ignorance."

I know you're likely not being serious but I'm afraid you hurt me and I must correct you in order to feel better. Socrates was a greek from Athens who died before Alexander was born. Aristotle was the tutor to Alexander the Great, and was also from Athens. All of this happened before Rome was even a minor power, and may not have even been founded.

None of this is controversial and is available on wikipedia and at your local public library
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

[arildno]

1. No, Aristotle was from Stageira, not Athens.
2. Already in the late 5th century, Rome was the major power in Latium (a tiny area in Italy)
3. During the latter half of the 4th century (after a setback due to the Gaulish sack in 390 BC), Rome was embroiled in the Samnite wars, i.e, contesting for the hegemony of Italy.

[Smurf]

Damnit!

[harborsparrow]

I recommend starting with some original readings such as Caesar's Gallic Wars (Part I). Better than some textbook.

[mgb_phys]

Or you could stick to the classics
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51T2CC10AML._SL500_AA240_.jpg