PDA

View Full Version : Greeks or Romans?


Przemysław
02-11-2007, 03:24 AM
Who is better?

I say the ancient Romans.

koch curve
02-11-2007, 03:49 AM
greeks by far

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
02-11-2007, 04:03 AM
Nero is the man. He burnt down a town, and then blamed it on the Catholics.

Helios Panoptes
02-11-2007, 05:06 AM
We have this thread. Perun posted it last time.

Nyx
02-11-2007, 05:13 AM
Roman culture was vastly inferior to Greek.

Dragonair
02-11-2007, 12:27 PM
Both =D
Sorry, both worship my precios Venus/aphrodite :]

Jimbo Gomez
02-11-2007, 01:08 PM
Romans obviously.

Don Quixote
02-11-2007, 02:06 PM
Greeks obviously.

Jimbo Gomez
02-11-2007, 02:12 PM
Roman culture was vastly inferior to Greek.


The Greeks were filthy sodomites. The Romans less so.

Draco
02-11-2007, 03:17 PM
Romans were anti-semites and better scientists, so they get my nod.

MrAngry
02-11-2007, 03:25 PM
Romans because they invented multiculturalism.

Jimbo Gomez
02-11-2007, 03:40 PM
Romans because they invented multiculturalism.


They did not. Everyone in the empire knew what the dominant and superior culture was.

Don Quixote
02-11-2007, 03:54 PM
Romans were anti-semites and better scientists, so they get my nod.What scientists?

VAMPIR
02-11-2007, 04:01 PM
Greeks. No question at all.

http://www.aerenlund.dk/korfu/achil_2.jpg

Elysium
02-11-2007, 04:51 PM
Greeks. Far better and way more interesting thinkers, scientists, heroes and a unique and original mythology, unlike these goddamn Romans who took their deities from Hellenes. The power city-states like Athens achieved to gain is incredible, Greeks fought Persians in an admirable way, and they built no empire by crushing cultures like Romans did.

http://www.knowprose.com/images/Sanzio.jpg

Hakluyt
02-11-2007, 05:10 PM
They did not. Everyone in the empire knew what the dominant and superior culture was.
Including the Romans, who over the course of their history worshipped Greek, then Persian, then Semitic gods. :p

OVERWATCH
02-11-2007, 05:13 PM
BARBARBAR

http://www.mysteriousworld.com/Content/Images/Journal/2003/Autumn/Giants/parthian_horse_archer_180.gif

Jimbo Gomez
02-11-2007, 05:14 PM
Whatever they decided to do on any given day was deemed the norm for the rest of the Empire though. Of course their millenialong history saw changes in their culture.

Geist
02-11-2007, 05:19 PM
Romans because they invented multiculturalism.

LOL :rofl:

Geist
02-11-2007, 05:20 PM
The Greeks.

Keystone
02-11-2007, 05:21 PM
Bar bar bar

Hakluyt
02-11-2007, 05:24 PM
In all seriousness, I'd say the Greeks invented multiculturalism when Athens adopted the doctrine that all gods are equal (which they did so as to not offend Egyptians and Jews in the Greek colonies, and vice-versa, to protect Greeks abroad.)

Yon
02-11-2007, 06:15 PM
Greek culture = warmth. :)

MrAngry
02-11-2007, 06:16 PM
They did not. Everyone in the empire knew what the dominant and superior culture was.


You're right to a degree, but the Romans changed their culture as they subsumed and assimilated other cultures. They also adopted other races as their own on many occaisions.

Jimbo Gomez
02-11-2007, 06:17 PM
Look what good it did to them...

MrAngry
02-11-2007, 06:20 PM
Look what good it did to them...


:rofl: I thought you'd have brought that up the 1st time.

Anyway, it was far more complex then that, by building roads they created the need for the corner shop, thus ensuring the migration of Indians throughout Europe.

Brechun
02-11-2007, 07:38 PM
Look what good it did to them...

The Romans didn't fall because of mixing with the slaves, sorry.

Jimbo Gomez
02-11-2007, 07:43 PM
The Romans didn't fall because of mixing with the slaves, sorry.


Did I state that anywhere?

Brechun
02-11-2007, 07:48 PM
Did I state that anywhere?

That's just what came up to me.

Jimbo Gomez
02-11-2007, 07:56 PM
The Roman Empire fell because its people had seen it all, its core culture had assimilated so much foreign elements, and its people had lost so much of their vitality, that the Empire died of old age, replaced by younger and more vital Germanics.

Keystone
02-11-2007, 08:16 PM
that the Empire died of old age, replaced by younger and more vital Germanics.
That's why I voted Bar bar bar in poll.

Nothing like a northern European invasion to freshen things up a bit.

Jimbo Gomez
02-11-2007, 08:19 PM
That's why I voted Bar bar bar in poll.

Nothing like a northern European invasion to freshen things up a bit.


The Northern Europeans of today are the Romans of 1500 years ago.

Ambrosio Spinola
02-11-2007, 08:21 PM
Thank God this is in the lounge as the joke factor here is increasing.

Keystone
02-11-2007, 08:27 PM
The Northern Europeans of today are the Romans of 1500 years ago.
???

......

Ambrosio Spinola
02-11-2007, 08:31 PM
Yeah, I think the man is overstressed with his work too :p

Jimbo Gomez
02-11-2007, 08:39 PM
I point out the similarities. Two old, tired cultural blocs, being swarmed with invaders. Rome fell, and parts of Europe will fall in a similar manner.

Ambrosio Spinola
02-11-2007, 08:47 PM
People are quite mistaken when they freely talk about "racemixing rome". Offer and demand, where would rome gets its closests slaves? wars aside.
Where did the northern slaves go?

Jimbo Gomez
02-11-2007, 08:49 PM
They mixed with those germanic slaves too. I'm not singling out Rome here, any nation in history that imported slaves mixed with them.

///M power
02-11-2007, 09:20 PM
I point out the similarities. Two old, tired cultural blocs, being swarmed with invaders. Rome fell, and parts of Europe will fall in a similar manner.
yes,you are exactly right.
unfortunately the end of the west,means rising of Islam, since today Islam is like Romes Germanic problem in the past.

Ravenheart
02-11-2007, 11:18 PM
In all seriousness, I'd say the Greeks invented multiculturalism when Athens adopted the doctrine that all gods are equal (which they did so as to not offend Egyptians and Jews in the Greek colonies, and vice-versa, to protect Greeks abroad.)

Traditional Indo-European paganism has typically been rather accepting of foreign gods. It can also be observed in, for example, the Roman empire, and even among the Indo-Europeans in northern India; modern "Hinduism" incorporates gods from both Aryan and pre-Aryan pantheons. Many Romans thought foreign gods were just different religious forms of the same deities, and they had a good point within the Indo-European context, of course.

Vasily Zaitsev
02-12-2007, 12:02 AM
Traditional Indo-European paganism has typically been rather accepting of foreign gods. It can also be observed in, for example, the Roman empire, and even among the Indo-Europeans in northern India; modern "Hinduism" incorporates gods from both Aryan and pre-Aryan pantheons. Many Romans thought foreign gods were just different religious forms of the same deities, and they had a good point within the Indo-European context, of course.

This has been a constant stumbling block for Christian missionaries in India.

It's not uncommon for Jesus to get a good reception from the Hindus, but much to the dismay of the missionaries he is rarely ever accepted as anything more than a form of Vishnu.

Micaelis
02-12-2007, 02:18 AM
Who is better?

I say the ancient Romans.

Being a man of the liberal arts, I prefer the Greeks. These guys invented everything, from philosophy to the jet engine prototype. They were simply amazing in antiquity.

///M power
02-12-2007, 09:44 AM
they invented democracy(Greeks) that cant be good:whip:
I signed for a course about ancient Greece next semester,maybe after that my vote will change, but I do think romans were supirior.

Elysium
02-12-2007, 02:01 PM
they invented democracy(Greeks) that cant be good:whip:
I signed for a course about ancient Greece next semester,maybe after that my vote will change, but I do think romans were supirior.

You're dumb. Ancient greek democracy was entirely viable: only adult men who were free, owners and had free time because of their slaves and workers could vote. In Athens, there were 250,000 people, only 30,000 could participate in democracy, and much less than 30,000 did.

Dr. Gutberlet
02-12-2007, 02:21 PM
I voted Greeks because they were the innovators in the classical world. I love the modern Greeks because they take shit from nobody- neither the US nor the EU.

Don Quixote
02-12-2007, 03:07 PM
You're dumb. Ancient greek democracy was entirely viable: only adult men who were free, owners and had free time because of their slaves and workers could vote.No, all male citizens over the age of 18 regardless of wealth or station were politically equal.

Elysium
02-12-2007, 03:19 PM
No, all male citizens over the age of 18 regardless of wealth or station were politically equal.

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/greekdemocracy_03.shtml
First, scale. There were no proper population censuses in ancient Athens, but the most educated modern guess puts the total population of fifth-century Athens, including its home territory of Attica, at around 250,000 - men, women and children, free and unfree, enfranchised and disenfranchised. Of those 250,000 some 30,000 on average were fully paid-up citizens - the adult males of Athenian birth and full status. Of those 30,000 perhaps 5,000 might regularly attend one or more meetings of the popular Assembly, of which there were at least 40 a year in Aristotle's day. 6,000 citizens were selected to fill the annual panel of potential jurymen who would staff the popular jury courts (a typical size of jury was 501), as for the trial of Socrates.

Carlos Danger
02-12-2007, 03:24 PM
I don't think we've had a "Why did Rome fall?" thread yet on this incarnation of The Phora

Don Quixote
02-12-2007, 03:28 PM
From http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/greekdemocracy_03.shtmlIts inaccurate. There was no wealth qualification at all - all adult citizen males.
The term 'full status' here can only mean, not legally debarred - loss of citizneship rights could be a penalty for certain offences.

ogenoct
02-12-2007, 03:46 PM
I voted for the Romans because, unlike the Greeks, they built an empire and crushed inferior peoples. The Romans were more progressive.

Constantin

Steppenwolf
02-12-2007, 04:28 PM
Greece of the Heroic Age. All that came after that was inferior.

Watzy
02-12-2007, 04:30 PM
Pre-Macedonian, pre-Roman and Pre-Byzantine/Orthodox Greeks.

Elysium
02-12-2007, 04:46 PM
Its inaccurate. There was no wealth qualification at all - all adult citizen males.
The term 'full status' here can only mean, not legally debarred - loss of citizneship rights could be a penalty for certain offences.

No wealth qualification, but citizens had to have completed their military service. And the ones who were politically active often needed slaves, id est wealth, to get the job done at their place. For example, a small merchant never had long days to spend at the pnyx, while rich owners had.

Carlos Danger
02-12-2007, 06:47 PM
I would advise against using the BBC as an authoritative source on politically-sensitive historical questions

Elysium
02-12-2007, 07:49 PM
I would advise against using the BBC as an authoritative source on politically-sensitive historical questions

This question is as "politically-sensitive" as the birthday of John Locke.

Don Quixote
02-12-2007, 08:02 PM
No wealth qualification, but citizens had to have completed their military service. And the ones who were politically active often needed slaves, id est wealth, to get the job done at their place. For example, a small merchant never had long days to spend at the pnyx, while rich owners had.Yes, of course, but none were formally excluded, that's the point.

Boleslaw
02-12-2007, 08:20 PM
We have this thread. Perun posted it last time.
Damn right I posted it. It's here:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13103&highlight=greeks

I suggest we just merge the two together.

Boleslaw
02-12-2007, 08:21 PM
Anyways....I greatly admire the Greeks, I really do. But the simple fact remains the Romans really kicked ass!!!

Don Quixote
02-12-2007, 08:22 PM
Anyways....I greatly admire the Greeks, I really do. But the simple fact remains the Romans kicked ass more!Is this something to be admired?

Boleslaw
02-12-2007, 08:29 PM
Is this something to be admired?
Yes it is. Although not all conquerors are made equal. The Romans did much to bring culture and civilization to the far corners of the world, which provided the basis for European civilization. And much of the Greek heritage was preserved under the Romans.

Although I have a preference for Republican Rome over that of the Empire.

My general outlook on the world and temprament seems more compatible with that of the Romans than with the Greeks.

Don Quixote
02-12-2007, 08:39 PM
Yes it is. Although not all conquerors are made equal. The Romans did much to bring culture and civilization to the far corners of the world, which provided the basis for European civilization. And much of the Greek heritage was preserved under the Romans."You create a devastation and call it peace."
Although I have a preference for Republican Rome over that of the Empire. I prefer the empire, they have been somewhat civilised by the Greeks by then.
My general outlook on the world and temprament seems more compatible with that of the Romans than with the Greeks.Interesting, I'd be the other way round.

Boleslaw
02-12-2007, 08:45 PM
"You create a devastation and call it peace."

Ahh yes, some Scottish chieftain stated that(forgot his name at the moment) before battling the Romans....or so the sources say.


I prefer the empire, they have been somewhat civilised by the Greeks by then.

But then how do you reconcile that with what you said above?

I will say the early Empire was alright, since it operated on a commonwealth basis where power rested with local elites - which corresponds to my general preference for decentralised governance. I believe St. Augustine had praise for the early Republic as well.



Interesting, I'd be the other way round.

Yes I know, you love engaging in numerous philosophical discussions involving abstract concepts. Me OTOH, have little patience for that. I prefer discussing more pratical issues, which is what Roman philosophy largely deals with.

I believe it was Kierkegaard who stated that philosophy only really has a purpose when it teaching you how to live. I certainly agree with that assestment - which explains my recent fascination with Existentialism. It suits my philosophical temprament quite well.

Boleslaw
02-12-2007, 09:01 PM
You're dumb. Ancient greek democracy was entirely viable: only adult men who were free, owners and had free time because of their slaves and workers could vote. In Athens, there were 250,000 people, only 30,000 could participate in democracy, and much less than 30,000 did.

Athenian democracy was viable because it was practiced within a small localized context. Quite a contrast to the asburd mass democracies of today.

Carlos Danger
02-12-2007, 09:03 PM
The Greeks produced Athens and democracy, but also Sparta - and a social system which looks suspiciously like communism

Which "Greeks" are we talking of here?

Boleslaw
02-12-2007, 09:06 PM
The Greeks produced Athens and democracy, but also Sparta - and a social system which looks suspiciously like communism


Interesting enough modern democracies got their inspirations from Sparta, not Athens. This was true for both the American and French revolutionaries. Both democrats and totalitarians have sought inspiration from the Spartans.

BTW, there's supposed to be a movie about the Spartans (http://youtube.com/watch?v=wDiUG52ZyHQ) coming out real soon. Im guessing it's a remake of The 300 Spartans. Whether or not it'll be good as the original is anybody's guess.

Vasily Zaitsev
02-13-2007, 03:13 AM
Ahh yes, some Scottish chieftain stated that(forgot his name at the moment) before battling the Romans....or so the sources say.

Calgacus was his name (he holds the distinction of being the frist named Scot in history), though whether or not the speech was ever made is a matter of minor dispute. Being that the only record of it is from Tacitus, a common opinion is that the Roman wrote it as a way of criticizing his countrymen.

"We who live on the edge of the Earth and are the last bulwark of freedom have to this day been protected by our remoteness and by the mystery and fear created by our name. But now the frontiers are open and beyond us is no other people--nothing but the sea--and still they come. Their oppression is not to be escaped by flight, surrender, or obedience. These plunderers of the Earth are invading the seas because, having devastated everything, they now have no more land. If their enemy is wealthy, they are greedy. If he is poor, they will be after glory. This race for whom neither East nor West is home. Alone among peoples they have looked with equal greed upon both rich and poor alike. To robbery, murder, and rape they give the lying name of 'government.' And where they make a wasteland they call it 'peace.'"

Helios Panoptes
02-13-2007, 03:26 AM
I believe it was Kierkegaard who stated that philosophy only really has a purpose when it teaching you how to live. I certainly agree with that assestment - which explains my recent fascination with Existentialism. It suits my philosophical temprament quite well

I think of philosophy more like science, but having the most general field of inquiry.

Boleslaw
02-13-2007, 03:46 AM
Fascinating Helios.

Helios Panoptes
02-13-2007, 03:49 AM
Fascinating Helios.

Are you being sarcastic?

I genuinely can't tell.

Boleslaw
02-13-2007, 03:53 AM
Are you being sarcastic?

I genuinely can't tell.

Yes somewhat, but not in any mocking sense. What you said seems to remind me of what Pascal stated about the difference between the mathematical mind and the intuitive one.

Nyx
02-16-2007, 03:05 AM
The Greeks were filthy sodomites. The Romans less so.The Greeks invented science and philosophy, so they get my vote.

Przemysław
02-16-2007, 04:16 AM
The Romans advanced with it, though.

As well as engineering.

Nyx
02-16-2007, 05:04 AM
The Romans advanced with it, though.Not really. The greatest Roman scientist/philosopher was Lucretius, and there is hardly anything which is not derived from Greek sources in his doctrine. The Romans were engineers, architects, and administrators, not scientists and philosophers. They were practical men. They lacked the generalising genius of the Greek mind. They only surpassed the Greeks in law, administration and other things of only material or practical value.

Petr
02-16-2007, 05:13 AM
Not really. The greatest Roman scientist/philosopher was Lucretius, and there is hardly anything which is not derived from Greek sources in his doctrine. The Romans were engineers, architects, and administrators, not scientists and philosophers. They were practical men. They lacked the generalising genius of the Greek mind. They only surpassed the Greeks in law, administration and other things of only material or practical value.
An interesting "what-if" historical scenario: what would have become of Romans if they had not ever encountered Greeks? Would they have even become literate people?


Petr

Helios Panoptes
02-16-2007, 05:59 AM
The results of this public poll are interesting. If you look at the votes, you can discern a distinction between those who voted for Greece and those who voted for Rome. The posters on the Greece list have a different set of styles and interests than the ones on the Rome list. A few break form, of course, but I could have predicted how most would have voted by observing their personas.

Nyx
02-16-2007, 06:04 AM
The results of this public poll are interesting. If you look at the votes, you can discern a distinction between those who voted for Greece and those who voted for Rome. The posters on the Greece list have a different set of styles and interests than the ones on the Rome list. A few break form, of course, but I could have predicted how most would have voted by observing their personas.I was just about to comment on the same thing. Philistines largely voted in favour of Rome, quite befitting.

Sean
02-16-2007, 06:12 AM
Yes I know, you love engaging in numerous philosophical discussions involving abstract concepts. Me OTOH, have little patience for that. I prefer discussing more pratical issues, which is what Roman philosophy largely deals with.

I believe it was Kierkegaard who stated that philosophy only really has a purpose when it teaching you how to live. I certainly agree with that assestment - which explains my recent fascination with Existentialism. It suits my philosophical temprament quite well.

You should read the post I made in the "What Question are you trying to answer thread?" thread. I'm essentially with you in that I find thinkers like Nietzsche to be for more interesting than abstract metaphysical issues.

http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=298444&postcount=9

These are the concerns, I think, which most led me to pursue philosophy, and which have driven me much more so than a mere pursuit of knowledge. I think that Plato believed that the goal of philosophy is to pursue the good (that is, we can find out how we aught to live by inquiring into nature), and this is something that can be seen in Greek philosophy from the time of Socrates down to the Hellenistic period. The emphasis was on finding the good life--man's happiness, not just ideas, was what was at stake. Not that they actually had any definite answers, it is just the spirit of philosophizing that I admire about them, and which is why I feel a greater attachment to them than most of the modern philosophers I have read.

Vasily Zaitsev
02-16-2007, 01:49 PM
An interesting "what-if" historical scenario: what would have become of Romans if they had not ever encountered Greeks? Would they have even become literate people?


Petr

They likely would have become literate due to their exposure to the Etruscan system of writing, though even these characters were Greek derived.