Was the Roman Empire really glorious ?

[Hounf of Culan]

Yah I wouldn't dismiss Marx at all, he makes very good insights. I just think he gives too much credit to economic factors. Thanks for the book suggestion also.

[gaius valerius]

I just think he gives too much credit to economic factors.

That's vulgar marxism. Well he and Engels had little choice then to stress the economic factors, in one of his later letters in 1890 Engels stresses this point: they had to defend most of all their economic thesis, not getting the chance to amply explain the interdependancy with other variables like culture. By then all those young revolutionairies were long lost to this simplified marxism.

[Hounf of Culan]

Ok then, I haven't read everything by Marx, just the manifesto and a big group of his selected writings.

[jackwei]

oops forgive the mistake can this be deleted. i hate the internet sometimes!!

[jackwei]

I am not sure it took until the 1800s for Europe to catch china and we remember how powerful the Spanish Empire was in the 16th century?

Yes didn't Europe have Ships of the Line much earlier than the 1800s?

Wasn't European militaries far more better trained than the chinese in the 18th century?

Didn't the European age of Enlighenment play a major part for advancing the world?

We seem to forget too the Roman Invention of Concrete and was lost after the fall of the Western Empire, wasn't rediscovered until the 18th century by British Engineer John Smeaton?

I think it wasn't until the maybe the late 16th century or be more accurate the 17th century the Europeans were now ahead of the Ming dynasty in China.

[gaius valerius]

I am not sure it took until the 1800s for Europe to catch china and we remember how powerful the Spanish Empire was in the 16th century?

Yes didn't Europe have Ships of the Line much earlier than the 1800s?

Wasn't European militaries far more better trained than the chinese in the 18th century?

Didn't the European age of Enlighenment play a major part for advancing the world?

We seem to forget too the Roman Invention of Concrete and was lost after the fall of the Western Empire, wasn't rediscovered until the 18th century by British Engineer John Smeaton?

I think it wasn't until the maybe the late 16th century or be more accurate the 17th century the Europeans were now ahead of the Ming dynasty in China.

Ehm no. What I was referring to was production. In terms of mass production Europe only catches up with China around 1800, and will by far surpass them in the next century. All your technological innovations have little to do with it. You do realise were all the gold and (mainly) silver of that might Spanish empire went right? To China (and India).

EDIT: also I was under the impression that the procédé of how Roman concrete worked remains unknown, our concrete is different than that the Romans used.

[Odovacar]

Ok then, I haven't read everything by Marx, just the manifesto and a big group of his selected writings.

Beware the Manifesto. My prof used to say:
"Marx thought he has to produce something to those guys who had no clue about anything and just came up from the mines, so he said them: you will rule very soon"



Marx produced lot of interesting works: the Economical-Philosophical Manuscript from 1844, The Misery of philosophy, the Critique of Political Economy, the first parts of the Capital, describing ware-fetishism, work-theory, surpluss-theory.

Too bad today in Hungary there is a little but very powerful faction that tries to silence everyone reading Marx, Hegel, and everyone who had a clue about our society, because they lick the ass of politicians and glorify the existing order.
Using a phrase from Marx, they are the hungarian mandarins...

[Dracula]

Europe only caught up with the east around 1800, up untill the 1600's it had always been marginal in the reigning world-system dominated by Asia. We needed an Industrial Revolution and Imperialism to break these chains that kept us down, frankly, I see little link here with the heritage of Rome ??? You? Tell me, I'd like to know. The fact we owned half of the world is coincidence, unless you have some teleological believe in history as planned ahead.

Untill you said that I thought you are just reasoning. But this is just blind sorry. If Europe was marginal,why did in 1600(even before ?) the portuguese reach Asia ,not the chinese reach Europe ? And what the hell did they dominate ? The local tribes ? It is not even worth debating.

Plus to your notion,the gunpowder was invented paralelly to China in an Italian monastery. And its use began in Europe without any idea the chinese use it too. Plus in china they used it mainly for fireworks,in eu it was put to reasonable purpose from the very beginning.

must I say it,Roma caput mundi ?

[ray243]

Untill you said that I thought you are just reasoning. But this is just blind sorry. If Europe was marginal,why did in 1600(even before ?) the portuguese reach Asia ,not the chinese reach Europe ? And what the hell did they dominate ? The local tribes ? It is not even worth debating.

Plus to your notion,the gunpowder was invented paralelly to China in an Italian monastery. And its use began in Europe without any idea the chinese use it too. Plus in china they used it mainly for fireworks,in eu it was put to reasonable purpose from the very beginning.

must I say it,Roma caput mundi ?

Asians did invade europe. Remember the mongols? And perhaps the Huns as well?


And the chinese did use the gunpowder in the military...just that it is not as effective against the threats they face as compared to other weapons.

A early gun is less useful than a crossbow if you enemy consist of light and highly mobile cavalry...there is very little use for a gun where you do not need to a weapon to penetrate the enemy armor.

[SigniferOne]

Considering when this was "the universal opinion of every learned man in modern Europe" the modern and systematic study of the Middle Ages hadn't even begun (it didn't begin until well into the Twentieth Century), the fact that they held this quaint opinion is pretty irrelevant now.

Yeah, that's absolute nonsense, because the study of the Middle Ages was begun by Petrarch, who lived in them. The reason we even call it "Gothic" architecture was from the contempt that the humanists had for this Germanic, ponderous style, which they saw all around them as they went to northern Europe, and which was opposed to light-hearted and humane architecture of humanist Italy. The humanists brought us out of the Middle Ages, and they lived in them so they know exactly what went on there, yes better than you preaching from your medieval pulpit 700 years later through rosy lenses. I will trust the authority of Petrarch and Boccacio on the Middle Ages, in which they lived, over your declarations. Middle Ages were a time of monasticism and overbearing superstition. That is the last I'll say on the subject in this thread, as there are other threads in which we have, and will in the future, clash on the subject.

Romans live by eating the grains from slave farms. And they also destroyed carthaginians and dacians and many other civilization.

They're just as ruthless as mongols.

"lived by eating the grains from slave farms"? Would you care to substantiate that statement with any actual facts? Slavery in the Classical world is vastly overstated. In 5th century Athens there was hardly one slave per one citizen. In Augustan Rome, there were actually many more citizens than slaves, about 3 or 4 citizens per slave.

"destroyed carthaginians"? More incorrectness. They destroyed Carthage the city, it being an inveterate enemy and having cost Romans over 100,000 lives. But Carthaginian culture completely continued to function as normal -- Utica, the number 2 city in all of the Carthaginian empire, continued functioning uninterrupted into the end of the Classical period. Carthaginians as a society slowly absorbed into the larger Roman world because it had a stronger culture. Terence came from Africa to Rome, to write plays in Latin.

Timur once more constructed piles of skulls, yet under him and his grandson Ulegh Beg we have a Timurid Renaissance in his corelands, for example Samarkand, flourishing like never before.

Just the fact that you can talk about a "Timurid Renaissance" shows that you have no idea about its scale in Europe, the original user of that word. That's what I object to. You appropriate words like "renaissance" and "pax romana", words which have significance exclusively from earth-shattering innovations which Romans brought, by former to Europe, by latter to their own area, and you indiscriminately apply them to everyone, as if the Samarkand Renaissance and the Florence Renaissance are somehow comparable; as if pax mongolica, a peace of ignorant barbarians, was the same thing as pax romana. You even call it pax mongolica in Latin, even there helpless to avoid that the Romans were the earliest and greatest users of that term. I acknowledge the Samarkand might've had some sort of growth, but it's something completely insignificant to what happened in Florence, Padua, and Venice. I acknowledge that the devastation of Mongol rule brought peace onto an exhausted land, but it's unconscionable to compare that to Roman peace which saw the heights of literature and the arts. By using words like "renaissance" and "pax" you make an unthinking comparision between incommensurables.

[gaius valerius]

Untill you said that I thought you are just reasoning. But this is just blind sorry. If Europe was marginal,why did in 1600(even before ?) the portuguese reach Asia ,not the chinese reach Europe ? And what the hell did they dominate ? The local tribes ? It is not even worth debating.

You really don't get it do you? Why did Europe colonise the world? Why did China not? Untill the IR took place the Chinese were in many fields superior to Europe, produced much more, etc. The question is: why did China not discover the new world etc, as illustrated by THIS:

See that ship below? Thats the piece of crap Columbus used to cross the Atlantic. Then compare to that big piece of wood the Chinese had... Damn.


So the question remains? Why didn't they?

The answer is simple: THERE WAS NO NEED TO.

Your first mistake is that you reason that since Europe discovered the world this meant they were not marginal. The problem is that not one minute you stop to think WHY they explored the world. Before 1600 the world system was dominated by Asia: China, India, the muslim world. What for gods sake could Europe offer them (which they didn't have)? Fuzzy pelts? Why do you think spices went this way?

Your second mistake is that you don't stop to look at the consequences of the European explorations. They discovered rich deposits of silver and gold right? Do you have any idea were all that silver went?? It went straight to Asia, to China and India, etc. If you look at graphs about it, it's astonishing, nearly everything the Europeans (like your Portugese) got from the new world went DIRECTLY to the east. The trading deficit was ENORMOUS.


So why did Europe break out of its boundaries? Up untill 1600 they were just that little attachment to the Asian world system, they were part of it, but they were that marginalised region on the edge of the world. One of the reasons the Mongolians didn't invade Europe was that they knew there was nothing to gain. So what to do? How to break this vicious circle? The answer came in the form of the overseas exploration and the subsequent colonisation of the new world. Suddenly Europe had something to offer to the east: a massive amount of silver and gold.
Still Europe in terms of production was marginal. It could by far not touch China. This problem was fixed by the Industrial Revolution.

Further more Europe was spurred in one more way: the economical sphere and political sphere did not intertwine. In China you had - typical for an empire - the thing that the economic and political sphere were one and the same, such a system is characterised by a certain inertia, conservatism. While in Europe you had one economic sphere, but politically it was highly splintered (needs not to be highlighted), this system is characterised by competition, competition finding expression in for one the development of superior military techniques and the colonisation. On this you should read Wallerstein for an introduction, he might have cranky ideas about what capitalism is but he has some good points as well.

So both colonisation and the IR were needed to pull Europe out of its marginalised position.

Further more your assesment of 'dominating local tribes' shows that you know nothing of the Chinese.


I can only tell you this: go to google -> type "GREAT DIVERGENCE" -> read things, buy books about it whatever, then come back here otherwise there is no point in debating indeed.

[Wagnijo]

Yeah, that's absolute nonsense, because the study of the Middle Ages was begun by Petrarch, who lived in them. The reason we even call it "Gothic" architecture was from the contempt that the humanists had for this Germanic, ponderous style, which they saw all around them as they went to northern Europe, and which was opposed to light-hearted and humane architecture of humanist Italy..

This gothic architecture?

"Unlike Romanesque architecture, with its stress on heavy masses and clearly delimited areas, Gothic construction, particularly in its later phase, is characterized by lightness and soaring spaces. The overall effect of the Gothic cathedral combined this lightness with an innumerable subdivision and multiplicity of forms. The introduction (c.1180) of a system of flying buttresses (see buttress) made possible the reduction of wall surfaces by relieving them of part of their structural function. Great windows could be set into walls, admitting light through vast expanses of stained glass. Wall surfaces of High Gothic churches thus have the appearance of transparent and weightless curtains. The spiritual and mysterious quality of light is an important element of the religious symbolism of Gothic cathedrals."

And a picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:K..._Innenraum.jpg

[AqD]

"lived by eating the grains from slave farms"? Would you care to substantiate that statement with any actual facts? Slavery in the Classical world is vastly overstated. In 5th century Athens there was hardly one slave per one citizen. In Augustan Rome, there were actually many more citizens than slaves, about 3 or 4 citizens per slave.

You're talking about house-cleaning slaves, while what I said is the farming slaves in egypt. You don't have to see a slave to use him.

Besides, the ratio doesn't matter. Enslaving one man is as wrong as enslaving one million men.

"destroyed carthaginians"? More incorrectness. They destroyed Carthage the city, it being an inveterate enemy and having cost Romans over 100,000 lives. But Carthaginian culture completely continued to function as normal -- Utica, the number 2 city in all of the Carthaginian empire, continued functioning uninterrupted into the end of the Classical period. Carthaginians as a society slowly absorbed into the larger Roman world because it had a stronger culture. Terence came from Africa to Rome, to write plays in Latin.

So you believe they can function normally after a hell amount of citizens were slaughtered or enslaved?

No civilization or culture can be destroyed according to this logic.
________
Sweetblack18

[St Naffatun]

Does enlightenment fall under the banner of glorious?

I was taught at school that life outside the Roman empire in Europe was some sort of living hell - dark, brutal, squalid etc - and the Romans bought peace, and englightenment.

It seems this was Roman propaganda, they were ingenious and advanced but brutal and ruthless, lacking in compassion...

[gaius valerius]

By using words like "renaissance" and "pax" you make an unthinking comparision between incommensurables.

That its not my intention though, and sholars use these words as well. They don't mean to 'compare' like you say, they don't place the Pax Mongolia and Pax Romana on the same level, they simply are used to point out the fact that these evolutions shared some similarities. This in no means implies that I say 'well see the Pax Mongolia was just as good as the Pax Romana' or that they were exactly the same, I'm not saying the Mongolians did the same thing like the Romans, it just means that in both cases they guaranteed an internal stability being beneficial to trade, etc, the details being of lesser importance. I'm not comparing them at all in the sense that I judge them as to how valuable they were, the usage of terms like Renaissance and Pax merely imply in essence something that resembles what we had in Europe, it holds no specific meaning as to the impact, details, value etc.

[SigniferOne]

This gothic architecture?

Yes that. Do you know anything of Italic architecture? No one comes to France or to Germany to marvel the great beauty of medieval structures. A few people may come to visit Notre Dame, and marvel at its ugly flying buttresses. Every city in Italy, on the other hand, is a museum unto itself. The Middle Ages are an insignificant comparison to the Renaissance.

Besides, the ratio doesn't matter. Enslaving one man is as wrong as enslaving one million men.

Get off your high horse and read some history.

That its not my intention though, and sholars use these words as well.

I know they do, but hey never intend a comparison. You do, even though you say otherwise.

The terms are used to compare what happened in the east with what happened in the west, because in essence they are in a sence similar.

Similar in what sense. That's the key to the issue here. You say you're not comparing Roman to Mongol peace, yet you say that they were similar. Similar maybe only in some abstract principle, not in any degree of actual magnitude. Magnitude of achievements is what has always made Classical civilization glorious to Europe.

I'm not comparing them at all, you see what you want to see, not what I actually mean. What happened in Samarkand was insignificant for us, not for central Asia.

No, it was insignificant period, because no Laocoon was produced in Samarkand, no Aeneid was written there, no Natural History or De Verborum Significatu.

[Wagnijo]

See that ship below? Thats the piece of crap Columbus used to cross the Atlantic. Then compare to that big piece of wood the Chinese had... Damn.

There is very good a reason for that difference in size.

The chinese vessel was designed to show the power of the empire in civilised
areas.

The european ship was a typical western choice for voyages of discovery
in what might uninhabited or uncivilised areas.

It is one thing to trade for supplies with some semicivilised coastal tribe,
if you have a crew of one hundred and can pay in cash.

It is quite another thing to try to get supplies for an expedition of x0.000
in the middle of nowhere, and then try to pay with a cheque from the
chinese government.

Dont let that drawing make you think that chinese ships in general were
larger than or superior to european ships in this period


Boats of the world, Sean McGrail, 2001

Oxford University Press

"In two recent papers, Yang (1986, 1991: 2) has sug­gested that the Ming
dynasty annals' accounts of the size of Zheng He's ships are to be treated
cautiously. He has pointed out that a fragment of a memorial stone in the
Jing Hai temple at Nanjing, which may be fifteenth century, states that
ZhengHe's seagoing ships had eight oars and a cargo capacity of 2,000
liao­.where one liao is equivalent to c.60 kg rice: this indi­cates a
capacity of C.120 tonnes. Yang considers that Zheng He's ships were;
probably similar to the Kiangsu traders and the Fujian junks known from
recent cen­turies, and not more than 30 m in length overall. In the early
twentieth century, Fujian traders were C.25 m in length overall and had a
capacity of C.150 tonnes (Don­nelly, 1924: 103-4, 111-12).
Needham (1971: 481) notes other estimates of the size of Zheng He's ships
based on a large rudder stock (now in the National Museum, Beijing)
discovered in 1962 near Nanjing on the site of a Ming shipyard: these calculations suggest an overall ship length between 538 ft (164 m) and 600 ft (183 m). It should be noted in this context that Ronan's (1986) shorter version of Need­ham's work overlooks the fact that Needham used Ming units (1.02 ft) and Huai units (1.12 ft) rather than imperial feet units. It is undoubtedly true that this rud­der stock must have come from a large ship, but overall lengths of this magnitude are scarcely credible.
Needham (1971: 481, fig. 980) does not explain the details of the
calculations used to get ship length from the rudder stock parameters, but
he does give the stock's dimensions (in Huai feet units) and it is possible
to apply to this data the rules of thumb used to build Guangdongjunks in
recent centuries (10.7.5) and inves­tigate the possible dimensions of the
rudder stock's parent ship. Using these rules, the minimum overall
dimensions of the ship become 67.38 x 12.25 x 6.12 m; and the maximum, 80.88 x 13.48 x 6.74 m Using an extension of these rules (Liu and Li, 1991: 276), it may be estimated that the cargo capacity of the parent ship lay between 1,515 and 2,204 tonnes. Sleeswyk (1996), using naval architectural concepts, has recently argued that the largest of He's ships was C.62 m in length and C.11.2 m breadth, with a displacement tonnage of C.1100 tonnes.
These dimensions and tonnage, although large, are nevertheless credible and
bear comparison, for exam­ple, with estimates for Henry V's warship Grace
Dieu.".

[gaius valerius]

Similar in what sense. That's the key to the issue here. You say you're not comparing Roman to Mongol peace, yet you say that they were similar. Similar maybe only in some abstract principle, not in any degree of actual magnitude. Magnitude of achievements is what has always made Classical civilization glorious to Europe.

I rephrased my post cause I realised it was a bit crappy . What I implied was indeed only the similarities in the abstract principle, nothing more.

I'm no fanboy of either, I'm a fanboy of history as a whole.

[SigniferOne]

I'm no fanboy of either, I'm a fanboy of history as a whole.

Yet you must acknowledge the people that gave you the tools and the means to think and write about the world, and yourself.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Europe inferior to the East in the 1600's? Then how could the Dutch and Portuguese dominate large areas and practically most of the trade lanes in the Indian Ocean in general even before this time? Because the Easterners were all merciful of these (rather unwashed ) men?

Also, the Chinese ship demonstration simply does not live up to the expectations. Ships in the Ancient World often had sizes equal, if not bigger to European caravels, naos and other such ships, but they would sink easily in the middle of the Atlantic. Once again, size does not matter, and here's a clear difference in mentality.