Were the Aztecs a civilization of savages?

[Hanny]

Sorry only if you cling to the long outdated and disproved notions of Lefebvre des Noëttes... but I suspect you do Hanny. In any case a man can push a lot more on a cart on a paved road than he carry with less effort - even your boy Engles shows that - oops no he doesn't not with his willful suppression of data.

Engles is a standard edu text book, used thgroughout the world. Another problem you have is thinking ever expert is wrong and your right.

Please demonstrate a source - because I think I know what it is and once again the devil is the details...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...01-15_ch11.htm

no issue of a cart to increasde a soldiers pulling capacity, but different weight loads for seasons, and climate.
-------------------

You can do this yourself, strap 80 kilos on your back and hike for a week at 18 klicksa day, now put 80 kilos ina whelbarrow and push it for 18 klicks down a road for 7 days, and see which cripples you.

People shave sheep, why not Bison?

For the same reason bison have not beeen exported all over the globe to replace inferior sheep and cattle, or B, Bison like haveing beards.

[Ludicus]

Both the Maya and the Inca did build roads to over come their regional geographic problems with transportation, still without draft animals and harnesses, people on foot carrying items on their back was far more practical.

As already stated, that´s the point. This especially true in mountainous terrain.The Aztecs occupied high altitudes with different ecosystems at different altitudes and on slopes.

[MAXlMUS]

supposing the aztecs would have wanted to get beasts of burden, how are llamas supposed to survive in central america anyways? their fur is thick and adapted to the cold weather of the andes. as for bisons, they're too hot-headed to use as beasts of burden

[DAVIDE]

Rome was founded by Greeks

Sorry????

[Hanny]

I understood he was refering to rome being founded from the Trojan Aeneas, or the more greek Evander founding of rome.

[DAVIDE]

Apart there's no proof Rome has been founded by Greeks. At contrary, it's very plausible Etruscans did it with some confirmations in archaeological field we have. Etruscans which Romans called/labelled as Sardii because of their origin from Middle East, one of the people of the sea. In 2007, the equipe of Professor Antonio Torroni of Pavia university compared the DNA of still living inhabitants from Tuscany taking it by at least three generations of people living in the centers of Volterra, Murulus and Casentino (the ones which had less mixture of genes in all Tuscan history according to researches) matching it with other DNAs taken from other peninsula Italica populations and foreigners. By the comparison in laboratory is emerged the fact that those people from Volterra etc. had the genes very similar to Syrians and Palestinians, confirming what ancient Romans knew about their ancestors aka Etruscans.

[Hanny]

Apart there's no proof Rome has been founded by Greeks. At contrary, it's very plausible Etruscans did it with some confirmations in archaeological field we have. Etruscans which Romans called/labelled as Sardii because of their origin from Middle East, one of the people of the sea. In 2007, the equipe of Professor Antonio Torroni of Pavia university compared the DNA of still living inhabitants from Tuscany taking it by at least three generations of people living in the centers of Volterra, Murulus and Casentino (the ones which had less mixture of genes in all Tuscan history according to researches) matching it with other DNAs taken from other peninsula Italica populations and foreigners. By the comparison in laboratory is emerged the fact that those people from Volterra etc. had the genes very similar to Syrians and Palestinians, confirming what ancient Romans knew about their ancestors aka Etruscans.

Your not understand Ramashans post, he was writting in context of interconental trade, not about the many alternative founding theorys.

There is no proof it was founded by Romulus and remus, descedents of aeneas, which is how the Romans understood they came from, there is the texts that say thats how the Romans thought they began, there is the evidence that the palatine was settled by evander and greeks founded Pallenteum where Rome would later stand, and Evander's home was in the spot where the Forum Romanum would later be built before italiacs, and romans understood they came from Aeneas and still more Greeks.

They did not consider they came from Etruscan stock, they would not have had to kidnape sabine women if they did, they would just have taken more etruscan women by consent, and thats forgetting that the latins fromm Aeneas stock are here in 1000 and teh Etruscans only arriving 200 years after that, comming from Lydiahttp://www.crsd.org/50341929124934/lib/50341929124934/Beginnings_(Rome)_FACT_FILE.pdf

[DAVIDE]

There is no proof it was founded by Romulus and remus, descedents of aeneas, which is how the Romans understood they came from, there is the texts that say thats how the Romans thought they began,

I never said it was founded by Romolus. The legend is

there is the evidence that the palatine was settled by evander and greeks founded Pallenteum where Rome would later stand, and Evander's home was in the spot where the Forum Romanum would later be built before italiacs, and romans understood they came from Aeneas and still more Greeks.

Evidences like? Sorry but there's no evidence at all there.

they would not have had to kidnape sabine women if they did, they would just have taken more etruscan women by consent.

It's a legend

and thats forgetting that the latins fromm Aeneas stock are here in 1000 and teh Etruscans only arriving 200 years after that, comming from Lydiahttp://www.crsd.org/50341929124934/lib/50341929124934/Beginnings_(Rome)_FACT_FILE.pdf

Just suppositions

[Hanny]

I never said it was founded by Romolus. The legend is

Thats right you made the following statemenmt as to who founded Rome."At contrary, it's very plausible Etruscans did it with some confirmations in archaeological field we have"

Which contradicts so many knbown facts as to qulify as an epic fail, you took issue with Ramashan for following traditional founding theory, and replace it with Etruscan founded Rome, ignoring the fact that Greeks lived in what became Rome, before Etruscans got to Etruria, and that all Roman acounts r3efer to greek ancestory for their origins.

Evidences like? Sorry but there's no evidence at all there.

Depends on what you understand it to refer to.

It's a legend

Ok, then when will the world edu stop using it to teach then?.http://adaptation.uchicago.edu/2008/...nd-classicism/

[DAVIDE]

Which contradicts so many knbown facts as to qulify as an epic fail, you took issue with Ramashan for following traditional founding theory, and replace it with Etruscan founded Rome, ignoring the fact that Greeks lived in what became Rome, before Etruscans got to Etruria, and that all Roman acounts r3efer to greek ancestory for their origins.

Just you say they lived there based on improbable legends. Or well, you are basing on a legend created for the first time during the III century BC written by peoples of the south under the influence of Greek Culture. Archaeologically talking, the most ancient layers of Rome we have show Etruscan similarity on both layers and building techniques. Also, there's the ethimology of the name Roma coming from Etruscan word Ruma which means literary breast because of the shape the curvy river Tiber gave to the area, with Insula Tiberina being the nipple of Ruma as you can see here,



The first door, the most primitive one of the square Rome is called Porta Romanula, Romanula means "towards the breast", in contrast with the nearby door called Flumentana who means "towards the river". While, according to Servius, the huge curve of the river Tiber was called Rumon, who means literary huge breast. Rumon still existing today exactly as Ruma (viewable by the hills)
Also we have the ancient Etruscan antroponyms matching with the archaic Latin ones as etr. Amun, lat. Amunius and Amonius; etr. Clute, lat. Clutius, Cludius (abjective. cludus) and Clotius, Clodius (clodus) etr. Crus'ni, lat. Crusius and Crosius; etr. Cursni, lat. Cursenus and Corsinius; gloss etr. garouleou "crisanteno 'lat. Carullius and Carollius; etr. Fului, lat. Fulvius and Folvius; etr. Rope, lat. Funius and Fonius; etr. Murias', lat. Murrius and Morrius , etr. Pluto, lat. Plutius and Plotius; etr. Prut, lat. Brutus and Protius; etr. Puntna, epithet lat. funtana, and funtes fontes, etr. Purce, lat. Purcius and Porcius; etr. Rusco, lat. Ruscius and Roscius. The little phonetic difference is explained by almost the totality of experts in two ways: the Etruscan vowel u pronounced by archaic Romans as a very open letter and so close to a o pronounced very tight or that those difference of pronounciation was pecuriar of different Etruscan towns, exactly as the Etruscan ethnos which never knew a tight political unity neither a linguistical unity as well

[Hanny]

Just you say they lived there based on improbable legends. Or well, you are basing on a legend created for the first time during the III century BC written by peoples of the south under the influence of Greek Culture.

No, i used the Roman acounts.

Archaeologically talking, the most ancient layers of Rome we have show Etruscan similarity on both layers and building techniques. Also, there's the ethimology of the name Roma coming from Etruscan word Ruma which means literary breast because of the shape the curvy river Tiber gave to the area, with Insula Tiberina being the nipple of Ruma as you can see here,

Incorrect. Rome existed prior to any etruscan influence from when it conytrolled the region, second the first inhabitants were called Ramnes and re date all etruscan presecence, the name of the romans comes from teh original inhabitants called the ramnes. As you can read here, your timeline and argument is all out of sequence.
http://www.forumromanum.org/history/morey02.html
The people who formed this settlement were called Ramnes. They dwelt in their rude straw huts on the slopes of the Palatine, and on the lower lands in the direction of the Aventine and the Caelian. The outlying lands furnished the fields which they tilled and used for pasturage. In order to protect them from attacks, the sides of the Palatine hill were strengthened by a wall built of rude but solid masonry. This fortified place was called Roma Quadrata,1 or “Square Rome.” It formed the citadel of the colony, into which the settlers could drive their cattle and conduct their families when attacked by hostile neighbors. What some persons suppose to be the primitive wall of the Palatine city, known as the Wall of Romulus, has in recent years been uncovered, showing the general character of this first fortification of Rome.

Thats the origin of who the Romans were, the origin of Rome the city comes from romulus, http://hubpages.com/hub/Rome_Founded...ulus_After_All which turns out to not a greek myth acount but a roman archeology one as well.

[DAVIDE]

No, i used the Roman acounts.

Roman accounts which took the legend created by the southern Italians under the Greek cultural influence, because they wanted to attribute the town a very strong foundation for propaganda purposes

Incorrect. Rome existed prior to any etruscan influence from when it conytrolled the region, second the first inhabitants were called Ramnes and re date all etruscan presecence, the name of the romans comes from teh original inhabitants called the ramnes. As you can read here, your timeline and argument is all out of sequence.
http://www.forumromanum.org/history/morey02.html

If we have to see who lived there before Etruscans and Latins in the interior, where we could go till Neanderthals considering the remnaints archaeologists found. It's obvious some people lived there before the foundation.

The people who formed this settlement were called Ramnes. They dwelt in their rude straw huts on the slopes of the Palatine, and on the lower lands in the direction of the Aventine and the Caelian. The outlying lands furnished the fields which they tilled and used for pasturage. In order to protect them from attacks, the sides of the Palatine hill were strengthened by a wall built of rude but solid masonry. This fortified place was called Roma Quadrata,1 or “Square Rome.” It formed the citadel of the colony, into which the settlers could drive their cattle and conduct their families when attacked by hostile neighbors. What some persons suppose to be the primitive wall of the Palatine city, known as the Wall of Romulus, has in recent years been uncovered, showing the general character of this first fortification of Rome.

Apart that Ramnes is an Etruscan name, and this has been documented by the same ancients and modern linguistics, Ramnes, Tities and Luceres are Etruscan words as well. Remni and Romili are the Etruscan words for Romulus and Remus
Archaeology proved that many villages were present there before the traditional date of foundation and those werent Rome.

[Hanny]

Roman accounts which took the legend created by the southern Italians under the Greek cultural influence, because they wanted to attribute the town a very strong foundation for propaganda purposes

Livy Virgil etc, wanted to use propognada against the greeks whom the Romans had thrashed every which way you can be threashed?. Romans had there own acounts and had no need to uise proganda to explain there sucess.

If we have to see who lived there before Etruscans and Latins in the interior, where we could go till Neanderthals considering the remnaints archaeologists found. It's obvious some people lived there before the foundation.

Your still confused, Etruscan influences is from post extitence of the Ramnes and latin cration of rome, by 200 odd years, there was of course cultural difusion going on, but it cannot go one before its prsent to diffuse, Rome and teh ramsnes existed prior to the etruscan influence extending into the region.

Apart that Ramnes is an Etruscan name, and this has been documented by the same ancients and modern linguistics, Ramnes, Tities and Luceres are Etruscan words as well. Remni and Romili are the Etruscan words for Romulus and Remus
Archaeology proved that many villages were present there before the traditional date of foundation and those werent Rome.

Incorect, Ramnes is the latin name, later changing to romans, refers to the the third part of the people of the tribe /political divisoin of Rome, of the tribe, of latins, tiles applies to sabines, and luceres to etruscans, all being Latin words, refering to the leader of the etruscan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe


First Period: from the foundation of the city, to the establishment of the plebeian order. Niebuhr's researches into the early history of Rome have established it as a fact beyond all doubt, that during this period the patricians comprised the whole body of Romans who enjoyed the full franchise, that they were the populus Romanus, and that there were no other real citizens besides them (Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome, II. pp224, 225, note 507; Cic. pro Caecin. 35). The patricians must be regarded as conquerors who reduced the earlier inhabitants of the places they occupied to a state of servitude, which in our authorities is designated by the terms cliens and plebs. The other parts of the Roman population, namely clients and slaves, did not belong to the populus Romanus, or sovereign people, and were not burghers or patricians. The senators were a select body of the populus or patricians, which acted as their representative. The burghers or patricians consisted originally of three distinct tribes, which gradually became united into the sovereign populus. These tribes had founded settlements upon several of the hills which were subsequently included within the precincts of the city of Rome. Their names were Ramnes, Tities, and Luceres, or Ramnenses, Titienses, and Lucerenses. Each of these tribes consisted of ten curiae, and each curia of ten decuries, which were established for representative and military purposes [Senatus.] The first tribe, or the Ramnes, were a Latin colony on the Palatine hill, said to have been founded by Romulus. As long as it stood alone, it contained only one hundred gentes, and had a senate of one hundred members. When the Tities, or Sabine settlers on the Quirinal and Viminal hills, under king Tatius, became united with the Romans, the number of gentes as well as that of senators was increased to 200. These two tribes after their union continued probably for a considerable time to be the patricians of Rome, until the third tribe, the Luceres, which chiefly consisted of Etruscans, who had settled on the Caelian Hill, also became united with the other two as a third tribe. When this settlement was made is not certain: some say that it was in the time of Romulus (Festus, s.v. Caelius Mons and Luceres; Varro, de Ling. Lat. V.55); others that it took place at a later time (Tacit. Ann. IV.65; Festus, s.v. Tuscum vicum). But the Etruscan settlement was in all probability older than that of the Sabines (see Göttling, Gesch. der Röm. Staatsverf. p54, &c.), though it seems occasionally to have received new bands of Etruscan settlers even as late as the time of the republic. The amalgamation of these three tribes did not take place at once: the union http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/.../Patricii.html

http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/2994.html
ROMULUS.
pitoline hills, and the latter on the Caelian. In course of time these Sabine and Etruscan settle­ments coalesced with the Latin colony on the Palatine, and the three peoples became united into one state. At what time this union took place it is of course impossible to say ; the legend referred it to the age of Romulus. There ap­pears, however, sufficient evidence to prove that the Latins and Sabines were united first, and that it was probably long afterwards that the Etruscans became amalgamated with them. Of this we may mention, as one proof, the number of the senate, which is said to have been doubled on the union of the Sabines, but which remained two hundred till the reign of Tarquinius Priscus, who is reported to have increased it to three hundred (Liv. i. 35 ; Dionys. iii. 67). These three peoples, after their amalgamation, became three tribes ; the Latins were called Ramnes or Ramnenses ; the Sa­bines, Tities or Titienses ; the Etruscans, Luceres or Lucerenses. The name of Ilamnes undoubtedly comes from the same root as that of Romus or Romulus, and in like manner that of Tities is con­nected with Titus Tatius. The origin of the third name is more doubtful, and was a disputed point even in antiquity. Most ancient writers derived it from Lueumo, which etymology best agrees with the Etruscan origin of the tribe, as Lucumo was a title of honour common to the Etruscan chiefs, Others suppose it to come from Lucerus, a king of Ardea (Paul. Diac. s. v. Lucereses, p. 119, ed. Miiller), a statement on which Niebuhr principally relies for the proof of the Latin origin of the third tribe ; but we think with the majority of the best modern writers, that the Luceres were of Etruscan, and not of Latin, descent. Each of these tribes was divided into ten euriae, as the legend states ; but that they derived their names from the thirty Sabine women is of course fabulous. In like man­ner each curia was divided into ten gentes, which must be regarded as smaller political bodies, rather than as combinations of persons of the same kin­dred. For further information the reader is referred to the several articles on these subjects in the Dic­tionary of Antiquities

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tribe

has ramnes as a latin word, not etruscan
Every acount disagrees with you.

[Helm]

They thought they had to sacrifice a human in order for the Sun to rise the next day due to a blood debt they had with the gods. Though as far as they were concerned they killed someone, and then the Sun rose so it must have been working.

[DAVIDE]

Livy Virgil etc, wanted to use propognada against the greeks whom the Romans had thrashed every which way you can be threashed?. Romans had there own acounts and had no need to uise proganda to explain there sucess.

No. Romans just wanted to glorify their foundation indipendently by everything, taking as sample Trojans, Aeneas etc... people or facts which were legend already at the time. Mithology

Your still confused, Etruscan influences is from post extitence of the Ramnes and latin cration of rome, by 200 odd years, there was of course cultural difusion going on, but it cannot go one before its prsent to diffuse, Rome and teh ramsnes existed prior to the etruscan influence extending into the region.

Incorect, Ramnes is the latin name, later changing to romans, refers to the the third part of the people of the tribe /political divisoin of Rome, of the tribe, of latins, tiles applies to sabines, and luceres to etruscans, all being Latin words, refering to the leader of the etruscan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe


First Period: from the foundation of the city, to the establishment of the plebeian order. Niebuhr's researches into the early history of Rome have established it as a fact beyond all doubt, that during this period the patricians comprised the whole body of Romans who enjoyed the full franchise, that they were the populus Romanus, and that there were no other real citizens besides them (Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome, II. pp224, 225, note 507; Cic. pro Caecin. 35). The patricians must be regarded as conquerors who reduced the earlier inhabitants of the places they occupied to a state of servitude, which in our authorities is designated by the terms cliens and plebs. The other parts of the Roman population, namely clients and slaves, did not belong to the populus Romanus, or sovereign people, and were not burghers or patricians. The senators were a select body of the populus or patricians, which acted as their representative. The burghers or patricians consisted originally of three distinct tribes, which gradually became united into the sovereign populus. These tribes had founded settlements upon several of the hills which were subsequently included within the precincts of the city of Rome. Their names were Ramnes, Tities, and Luceres, or Ramnenses, Titienses, and Lucerenses. Each of these tribes consisted of ten curiae, and each curia of ten decuries, which were established for representative and military purposes [Senatus.] The first tribe, or the Ramnes, were a Latin colony on the Palatine hill, said to have been founded by Romulus. As long as it stood alone, it contained only one hundred gentes, and had a senate of one hundred members. When the Tities, or Sabine settlers on the Quirinal and Viminal hills, under king Tatius, became united with the Romans, the number of gentes as well as that of senators was increased to 200. These two tribes after their union continued probably for a considerable time to be the patricians of Rome, until the third tribe, the Luceres, which chiefly consisted of Etruscans, who had settled on the Caelian Hill, also became united with the other two as a third tribe. When this settlement was made is not certain: some say that it was in the time of Romulus (Festus, s.v. Caelius Mons and Luceres; Varro, de Ling. Lat. V.55); others that it took place at a later time (Tacit. Ann. IV.65; Festus, s.v. Tuscum vicum). But the Etruscan settlement was in all probability older than that of the Sabines (see Göttling, Gesch. der Röm. Staatsverf. p54, &c.), though it seems occasionally to have received new bands of Etruscan settlers even as late as the time of the republic. The amalgamation of these three tribes did not take place at once: the union http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/.../Patricii.html

[/QUOTE]

Wrong. Apart that Plutarch in Life of Romolus clearly explains that>

- Ramnes is an Etruscan word by Etruscan Gens settled in the area of Rome
- Tities, Etruscan word for Titus Tatius
- Luceres, Etruscan word coming from Lygmon, clearly of Etruscan origin meaning Etruscan Gens as well too


Also, the Ager Vaticanus who is the alluvial plain situated on the left bank of the river Tiber was of Etruscan dominion at the time and Tiber was the border between Etruscan state and Latium Vetus. Ager Vaticanum who included the Vaticanus hill, Gianicolo and Mount Marius. Ethimology of Vaticanus comes from Vaticum, an Etruscan settlment in the Ager Vaticanum. Too see that this is correct, you should just see the art of Vaticini Romani of the time called Haruspex, clearly of Etruscan origin and provenience imported then to Rome by the same Etruscans founding the town

Haruspex


Here the Ager Vaticanus i posted before, with the border of Etruscan State

[Ramashan]

Sorry????

I may have said it quite off hand, but I was referring to their own foundation legend through Aeneas. Regardless of what the truth actually was, there were Greek colonies in southern Italy at the time and even if they Rome was founded by Etruscans, the nearby Greeks and Gauls would have still had the influence of large domestic animals due to the horse. And the fact that the Roman's chose to even claim to be founded by Greeks proves that they at least had contact and were familiar with Greek culture early in their history, circa the 4th century bc

I did not mean to start a debate on who actually founded Rome and I apologize for an off handed remark that did so.

Lets just agree that even during the founding of Rome, by whom ever, they would have at least have had knowledge of the Greek colonies in the south.

[Hanny]

Wrong. Apart that Plutarch in Life of Romolus clearly explains that>

Really both UK and USA edu teachings texts are wrong, as is the dictionary, who would have believed that.

So you say http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/.../Romulus*.html says something completly different from what it contains, who would have believed that either.


Others again say that the Roma who gave her name to the city was a daughter of Italus and Leucaria, or, in another account, of Telephus the son of Heracles; and that she was married to Aeneas, or, in another version, to Ascanius the son of Aeneas. Some tell us that it was Romanus, a son of Odysseus and Circe, who colonized the city; others that it was Romus, who was sent from Troy by Diomedes the son of Emathion; and others still that it was Romis, tyrant of the Latins, after he had driven out the Tuscans, who passed from Thessaly into Lydia, and from Lydia into Italy. Moreover, even those writers who declare, in accordance with the most authentic tradition, that it was Romulus who gave his name to the city, do not agree about his lineage. 2 For some say that he was a son of Aeneas and Dexithea the daughter of Phorbas, and was brought to Italy in his infancy, along with his brother Romus; that the rest of the vessels were destroyed in the swollen river, but the one in which the boys were was gently directed to a grassy bank, where they were unexpectedly saved, and the place was called Roma from them. 3 Others say it was Roma, a daughter of the Trojan woman I have mentioned, who was wedded to Latinus the son of Telemachus and bore him Romulus; others that Aemilia, the daughter of Aeneas and Lavinia, bore him to Mars; and others still rehearse what is altogether fabulous concerning his p95origin. For instance, they say that Tarchetius, king of the Albans, who was most lawless and cruel, was visited with a strange phantom in his house, namely, a phallus rising out of the hearth and remaining there many days

You say Ramnes/tiles etc is defined by Plutarch ina way that is not present in his work, please refrain from misquoting the ancient text with your inventions, as plutachs acount is the same as the others i linked, Plutarch does not even use the 3 words you claim he defines as being etruscan.

Plutarch:Now the Sabines were a numerous and warlike people, and dwelt in unwalled villages, thinking that it behoved them, since they were Lacedaemonian colonists, to be bold and fearless.

At this the rest of the Sabines were enraged, and after appointing Tatius their general, marched upon Rome.

[DAVIDE]

Ramashan: np.. off topic is ended for me btw.. it-s a topic on Aztecs not Romans so i apologize for my ot

[Ramashan]

Ramashan: np.. off topic is ended for me btw.. it-s a topic on Aztecs not Romans so i apologize for my ot

No, if I state something that is questionable I expect to be called out on it. I have clarified my statement to point out only the close proximity of possible trade connection and culture with the Greeks regarding animal husbandry, which still supports my argument that even if there was a wide swath of trade in the pre-columbian world, that the movement of large domesticated animals would be in the most highly unlikely and in the least extremely difficult to move.

[conon394]

Engles is a standard edu text book, used thgroughout the world. Another problem you have is thinking ever expert is wrong and your right.

This and the related issue is OT I will follow up in a new thread Hanny