- #1
pentazoid
- 146
- 0
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 said: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?
arildno said:I don't see the relevance of such a comparison, not the least since the Roman state started out as a kingdom.
pentazoid said: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.pentazoid said:I think the comparison between the two is relevant because before rome collapse , it was in debt, much like the United states right now.
Complete nonsense. There were not really any "welfare programs" to the benefit of its ordinary citizens that heavily strained the resources of the 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.
tiny-tim said:I'm confused … since Rome ruled most of the known world …
tiny-tim said:I'm confused … since Rome ruled most of the known world …
who was it in debt to?
SW VandeCarr said: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.
tiny-tim said:I'm confused …
are you saying that Rome was in debt to the Han empire, and Alexander the Great?
SW VandeCarr said: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.
And no, Tiny Tim, Rome could not have been in debt to Alexander the Great. Do you know why?
tiny-tim said::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:Rome used imperial currency, and Big Alex used metric?
All the bullion stage-coaches were pillaged by the Vikings?
Evo said: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.
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.SW VandeCarr said: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.
No, these parts i will overlook.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.
SW VandeCarr said: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.
Evo said: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.
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 said: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.
tiny-tim said:I'm confused … since Rome ruled most of the known world …
Evo said: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.
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.SW VandeCarr said: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.
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.
I didn't see where you reposted sources citing the claims you made and a link to those sources.SW VandeCarr said: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.
SW VandeCarr said: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.
Evo said: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
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 said:.
Perhaps I wasn't clear.
Where is the source of your claims of economic problems in Rome that are similar to the US?
Then please explain what you meant when you made these posts. What does the US economic situation have to do with ancient Rome?SW VandeCarr said:I never made that claim.
SW VandeCarr said: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 said: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?
Evo said:Then please explain what you meant when you made these posts. What does the US economic situation have to do with ancient Rome?
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 said:Why even say "known world"? …
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)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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road#The_Roman_EmpireSoon 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://www.unrv.com/provinces/sarmatia.phpBy 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. . . .
I believe SW was responding to tt's commentEvo said:No one has questioned if the Romans knew of the Hans, but SW keeps bringing it up as if someone questioned it. :tongue:
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.I'm confused … since Rome ruled most of the known world …
who was it in debt to?
tiny-tim said:Because you can only be in debt to what you regard as the known world.
SW VandeCarr said:It was the premise to your question that I was objecting to.
tiny-tim said:… since Rome ruled most of the known world …