Can the Roman Empire and the United States be compared through literature?

[SW VandeCarr]

I stand by 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!

Ever heard about the "Edict of Milan"?

Nooo … but … I've heard of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_of_Worms" . ​

 

[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 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 (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 (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