What is Roman culture

[hellheaven1987]

After studying Greek and Roman history for years, I find out myself cannot really explain this question - what is Roman culture exactly?? It seems that Roman culture, unlike Chinese culture, lacking any central philosophy or other focus on it, but is rather a mixture of several different cultures and unable to actually has a central point. Perhaps, that flexibility of culture was why Roman could survive ever since the chaotic situation in 3rd Century, yet that also bring out another questions - if Roman culture is lacking any central focus, then what values of Roman culture Europeans actually inherited??

I would like to hear what TWC members have to say about this subject, and what exactly Europeans inherited from Romans.

[Shadowcry]

Just curious based on your analogy of Chinese culture. So hypothetically if we base our analysis of Chinese culture on the endurance of Confucianism as an ideology and central focus then what would you say about the times before Confucius and after the Cultural revolution.

No attempt to stir up nationalism or conflict just curious.

[hellheaven1987]

Just curious based on your analogy of Chinese culture. So hypothetically if we base our analysis of Chinese culture on the endurance of Confucianism as an ideology and central focus then what would you say about the times before Confucius and after the Cultural revolution.

No attempt to stir up nationalism or conflict just curious.

1. It was not Confucianism, but a pseudo Taoist-Confucianism. Confucius was actually an athesist yet in Chinese tradition Emperor had mythical power and the head priest of China - something Confucius would definately found it a heresy. Interesting enough, serious Confucianism scholars were generally athesist too.

2. I am Taiwanese/Singaporean so I cannot comment how Cultural Revolution actually affects China (bushbush is better canadit), but in both Taiwan and Singapore, this pseudo Taoist-Confucianism never really disappeared, although the Taoist part had disappeared from politic since the creation of Republic, but Confucianism part, mainly to "Respect" eachothers, never die off and still the basic element for Chinese culture.

[Shadowcry]

1. It was not Confucianism, but a pseudo Taoist-Confucianism. Confucius was actually an athesist yet in Chinese tradition Emperor had mythical power and the head priest of China - something Confucius would definately found it a heresy. Interesting enough, serious Confucianism scholars were generally athesist too.

2. I am Taiwanese/Singaporean so I cannot comment how Cultural Revolution actually affects China (bushbush is better canadit), but in both Taiwan and Singapore, this pseudo Taoist-Confucianism never really disappeared, although the Taoist part had disappeared from politic since the creation of Republic, but Confucianism part, mainly to "Respect" eachothers, never die off and still the basic element for Chinese culture.

Interesting. I though teh application of our modern day Atheism would be too strong for Confucius. I always imagined him an agnostic since one of his quotes instructed his students "respect the ghosts and keep them at a distance" They appear more secular than most individuals of this time period, but not as atheist as say Dawkins.

So hypothetically from your perspective Taiwan/ Singapore are inheritors of Chinese tradition to a greater extent than that of PRC? Additionally what would you say would be the impact of Buddhism and Christianity (as it is growing in popularity) on this Chinese tradition?

[Exarch]

Interesting. I though teh application of our modern day Atheism would be too strong for Confucius. I always imagined him an agnostic since one of his quotes instructed his students "respect the ghosts and keep them at a distance" They appear more secular than most individuals of this time period, but not as atheist as say Dawkins.

chinese are very pragmatic, if it works, they keep it;
another thing, we have to remember is that chinese cultural values are not the same western christian values.

So hypothetically from your perspective Taiwan/ Singapore are inheritors of Chinese tradition to a greater extent than that of PRC? Additionally what would you say would be the impact of Buddhism and Christianity (as it is growing in popularity) on this Chinese tradition?

china has had contact with christianity for millenia and not just from nestorian christians; look at taiwan's sinic culture; it's not uncommon for families to have more than one religion in the family-the key is religious pluralism. i know a few chinese christians who still light incense and pray to their ancestors as their predecessors have done for millenia and still attend church.

[hellheaven1987]

Interesting. I though teh application of our modern day Atheism would be too strong for Confucius. I always imagined him an agnostic since one of his quotes instructed his students "respect the ghosts and keep them at a distance" They appear more secular than most individuals of this time period, but not as atheist as say Dawkins.

No, the better translation is "leave Gods and Ghosts as far as possible", means his students should not care about those local belief too much (Taoism was the base for Chinese local culture). Most people would rather argue that Confucius' teaching about worshipping ancestors was some form of religious ritual, but from my view it was more for his teaching of "Respect", to respect the ancestors and remember their deed, or, in modern term, to remember our past/history.

So hypothetically from your perspective Taiwan/ Singapore are inheritors of Chinese tradition to a greater extent than that of PRC? Additionally what would you say would be the impact of Buddhism and Christianity (as it is growing in popularity) on this Chinese tradition?

Like I said, I never been China before so I cannot make a comparision, although people like bushbush is no different than us, but I also met some hardcore-Communists before. For Christianity and Buddhism... I would discuss about Christianity using my mother's description "I just go there to get some free stuff." Sure, there are some Chinese really love Christianity, but my observation is that Chinese in China is more heated about that, while other regions, perhaps already get used of it, just view it another religion.

Now, for Buddhism, it would be more correctly to say Chinese Buddhism is heavily mixed with Taoism nowaday. No kidding, you can worship Buddha and Guanyin in Taoist temple, along with Jade Emperor!! I don't really know how to explain this weird situation, although Chinese novel, Journey to the West, would probably explain that situation in better way. Either way, it seems majority of Chinese has no guilt to worship Buddha and Guanyin just like another Taoist God and Goddness, even though there are still some Buddhist monks follow Buddhism strickly.

china has had contact with christianity for millenia and not just from nestorian christians; look at taiwan's sinic culture; it's not uncommon for families to have more than one religion in the family-the key is religious pluralism. i know a few chinese christians who still light incense and pray to their ancestors as their predecessors have done for millenia and still attend church.

Indeed. Religion is always a free-for-all in Chinese culture; in fact, we probably can say that Chinese' religious belief is much more close to Viking - it is better to worship more different Gods and Godnesses and get more favor from them.

Funny enough, my dad is a Catholic, my mom is a Taoist/Buddhist, my sister is a freelance, and I... cannot tell them I am worshipping Khorne the Blood God...

[Exarch]

to quote Mark Antony, from HBO's Rome: "... my slaves..."
that pretty much sums up roman values lol

[Exarch]

when i think 'roman culture' i think roman cultural values ie what did the romans hold dear, what did they consider moral and right? what made a good roman citizen?

and of course, history and self identity play a big part in that

and culture doesnt depend on ethnicity; for eg the romano british

[hellheaven1987]

when i think 'roman culture' i think roman cultural values ie what did the romans hold dear, what did they consider moral and right? what made a good roman citizen?

The problem was, Roman really had nothing left for next generation. A few things we can notice in Roman Empire.

1. Nationalism/Citizenship. Highly value by Roman, but the development of modern Nationalism had nothing to do with Roman.

2. Christianity. In East it was already rooted before Constantine officially accepted Christianity, yet in West Christianity was only rooted because of Carolingian's effort - nothing to do with Roman, again.

3. Senate. Modern Senate system was rather a development from Feudalism - nothing to do with Roman again.

4. Imperialism. Again, nothing to do with Roman.

5. Standard armed force. An idea nothing to do with Roman at all. Attempt to recreate same discipline as Caesar's Gaulic force always failed.

6. Art and music. Left too few that we cannot even determine what they were.

7. Architecture. Now that is something people actually want to copy. 100% inherited by European.

8. Writing and literature. Good thing because Roman left some alphabets so Europeans can spell out their words!! Unfortunately those alphabets only served as a pronouciation symbol for each group of people. The original pronouciation was completely lost. Either way, the literature did give us a lot of information regarding Roman Empire, or Roman Empire would really fall into legend!!!

Overall: Any actual benefit?? A few, sure, but few ideas even survived.

[Exarch]

T
5. Standard armed force. An idea nothing to do with Roman at all. Attempt to recreate same discipline as Caesar's Gaulic force always failed.

interesting, who attempted to recreate the same discipline as caesar's gallic force in the medieval/dark ages?

also, i remmeber reading somewhere that it was more a series of wars after the fall of the WRE that really decimated the roman culture

[hellheaven1987]

interesting, who attempted to recreate the same discipline as caesar's gallic force in the medieval/dark ages?

No, it was not Middle Age, but during Dutch Revolt and Thirty Years War.

It is noted that one of them died in Battle of Lutzen, probably got assassined by his troops since the critical wound was shot from his back.

[Exarch]

No, it was not Middle Age, but during Dutch Revolt and Thirty Years War.

It is noted that one of them died in Battle of Lutzen, probably got assassined by his troops since the critical wound was shot from his back.

i see, thanks

btw, i cant quite remember but when did roman culture -classical roman culture become extinct?
i mean the culture of italy during the medieval period seemed more german influenced than anything else

[ray243]

2. Christianity. In East it was already rooted before Constantine officially accepted Christianity, yet in West Christianity was only rooted because of Carolingian's effort - nothing to do with Roman, again.

Considering that Christanity as we know today is shaped by Roman influence, such as mixing it with other non-abrahamic religion for instace, I think it has everything to do with the Romans.

3. Senate. Modern Senate system was rather a development from Feudalism - nothing to do with Roman again.

Really? So the US is not influenced by the Roman senate at all?

4. Imperialism. Again, nothing to do with Roman.

I think you are ignoring the fact that modern imperialism is partially influenced by the desire to create an Empire that can rivial the romans.

5. Standard armed force. An idea nothing to do with Roman at all. Attempt to recreate same discipline as Caesar's Gaulic force always failed.

It will be nice to see you back up your claim. And tell me what you mean by the same level of discipline as Caesar's Gaulic force?

If so, why did their attempt fail?

7. Architecture. Now that is something people actually want to copy. 100% inherited by European.

What about the Ottomans? What about all the old colonial buildings you see in Singapore?

8. Writing and literature. Good thing because Roman left some alphabets so Europeans can spell out their words!! Unfortunately those alphabets only served as a pronouciation symbol for each group of people. The original pronouciation was completely lost. Either way, the literature did give us a lot of information regarding Roman Empire, or Roman Empire would really fall into legend!!!

What? Latin is still in use in the west even after the western empire fell. Then the Eastern Empire still retains a number of people who can speak Latin.

Hell, what about the fact that one of Shakespear's most influencial play is about the life of Caesar?

And I think that even if the literature did not survive to modern times, archeological remains will allow us to confirm the existence of the Romans.

2. I am Taiwanese/Singaporean so I cannot comment how Cultural Revolution actually affects China (bushbush is better canadit), but in both Taiwan and Singapore, this pseudo Taoist-Confucianism never really disappeared, although the Taoist part had disappeared from politic since the creation of Republic, but Confucianism part, mainly to "Respect" eachothers, never die off and still the basic element for Chinese culture.

Glad to see a fellow Singaporean/Taiwanese around.

[SigniferOne]

1. Nationalism/Citizenship. Highly value by Roman, but the development of modern Nationalism had nothing to do with Roman.

2. Christianity. In East it was already rooted before Constantine officially accepted Christianity, yet in West Christianity was only rooted because of Carolingian's effort - nothing to do with Roman, again.

3. Senate. Modern Senate system was rather a development from Feudalism - nothing to do with Roman again.

4. Imperialism. Again, nothing to do with Roman.

5. Standard armed force. An idea nothing to do with Roman at all. Attempt to recreate same discipline as Caesar's Gaulic force always failed.

6. Art and music. Left too few that we cannot even determine what they were.

7. Architecture. Now that is something people actually want to copy. 100% inherited by European.

8. Writing and literature. Good thing because Roman left some alphabets so Europeans can spell out their words!! Unfortunately those alphabets only served as a pronouciation symbol for each group of people. The original pronouciation was completely lost. Either way, the literature did give us a lot of information regarding Roman Empire, or Roman Empire would really fall into legend!!!

Overall: Any actual benefit?? A few, sure, but few ideas even survived.

Are you serious? Are you asking if there was a Roman culture, or are you actually asking if there was any benefit from it. Those are different topics.

And anyway, you're wrong on many of your points on the 'benefits' heading:

Both modern "citizenship" and modern "election/senate" systems (e.g. in America) were taken from the Romans. Where do you think the words "Senate" or "citizen" come from?

"Standard armed force" in Europe got its start in the large-scale replacement of cavalry with infanty in the 16th century, although the heavy knights were idolized and their role was viewed as untouchable and great. Why was this change possible? One of the contributing factors were Livy's History and Caesar's Commentaries. Vegetius' military manual, idolizing Roman heavy infantry, was the only military book Europeans read or knew about for centuries. Europeans saw that being an infantryman was practical, but now they learned that it also could be noble, and desirable.

"Art and Music": I wouldn't exactly call the Laocoon unknown. Music is a separate topic, but it is well known that Renaissance Italian musicians took the highly technical book on music by Aristides Quintilianus as their Vitruvius or Vegetius.

"Writing and literature": They left a little bit more than just the alphabet. See books that detail the enormous and vast influence that Classical works have exercised on the European imagination, like The Culture of Classicism, by Caroline Winterer, which details how in early colonial America everybody thought in exclusively Classical, largely Roman, terms. (Middle Ages were called barbarian and primitive.)

[Edelward]

"Writing and literature": They left a little bit more than just the alphabet. See books that detail the enormous and vast influence that Classical works have exercised on the European imagination, like The Culture of Classicism, by Caroline Winterer, which details how in early colonial America everybody thought in exclusively Classical, largely Roman, terms. (Middle Ages were called barbarian and primitive.)

Classical works - only Roman ?They were mainly Greek .

Alphabet - wrong again it was taken from Greek colonists too:
The Cumae alphabet was a western variant of the early Greek alphabet, used between the 8th to 5th centuries BC. It was specifically used in Euboea (including the towns of Kymi and Chalkis) and the areas west of Athens, especially in the Greek colonies of southern Italy. It was this variant that gave rise to the Old Italic alphabets, including the Latin alphabet. In Greece it was replaced by the standard Greek alphabet, which is based on eastern Ionic Greek variants from the 4th century BC.

After studying Greek and Roman history for years, I find out myself cannot really explain this question - what is Roman culture exactly?? It seems that Roman culture, unlike Chinese culture, lacking any central philosophy or other focus on it.

True they don't have important philosophers.
None of them has became a founder of any school of philosophy for example.

[SigniferOne]

Classical works - only Roman ?They were mainly Greek .

Have you read any scholarly books on Classical European education, such as the one that I cited? Many Greek authors extolled now were left relatively unrecognized by the European culture of 14-18th centuries. Xenophon, Diodorus, Isocrates, most of the Greek poets except Homer and Pindar, were left pretty much ignored. Quintus Curtius was held to be as much of a great biographer of Alexander as any of the Greeks, entirely equivalent to someone like Arrian.

The culture was formed, in architecture by Roman ruins and Vitruvius, in military by Caesar/Vegetius, in history by Livy, in oratory by Quintilian, in poetry on equal level by Aristotle and Horace, in philosophy on equal level by Cicero, Aristotle, Seneca, Plato, and Lucretius.

Even Greek authors that were extolled then are looked down on by the "Greek scholars" now: Lucian, Ptolemy, Galen, Plutarch. Plutarch especially was idolized as an unparalleled example of Greek literature, and Lucian was held as paragon of wit and intelligence, both authors expressly and explicitly ignored in today's Ancient Greek curicculum.

Please put more effort into your such 'rebuttals' in the future. At least proper punctuation.

Alphabet - wrong again it was taken from Greek colonists too:
The Cumae alphabet was a western variant of the early Greek alphabet, used between the 8th to 5th centuries BC. It was specifically used in Euboea (including the towns of Kymi and Chalkis) and the areas west of Athens, especially in the Greek colonies of southern Italy. It was this variant that gave rise to the Old Italic alphabets, including the Latin alphabet. In Greece it was replaced by the standard Greek alphabet, which is based on eastern Ionic Greek variants from the 4th century BC.

Sure you can post a meaningless fragment in a different font color, as if that gives it authoritative origin. However here's the thing: it doesn't.

[CiviC]

Some values left to Europe by Romans that come to my mind, and I'm surprised nobody pointed them :

Roman Law - very great influence on Europe, even today, in fact Napoleonic Civil Code is based on Roman Law adapted to modern realities.

The concept of State - inherited from Romans, they had the concept of Res Publica, separating the public domain from the private domain.

The concept of citizen, different from that of subject.

I would say these were some of the central focus points of Roman culture, the State, the Law, the citizenship, but also the civilisation and Roman way of life (great monuments, roads, aqueducts, baths, amphitheatres, temples, etc.). Rome remained an ideal and a model even in Middle Ages and Roman civilisation and culture was at the base of Rennaissance in Europe, the fundation of modern European civilisation and culture. When you say civilisation and civilised some of the first things that came in mind are the Romans.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

After studying Greek and Roman history for years, I find out myself cannot really explain this question - what is Roman culture exactly?? It seems that Roman culture, unlike Chinese culture, lacking any central philosophy or other focus on it, but is rather a mixture of several different cultures and unable to actually has a central point. Perhaps, that flexibility of culture was why Roman could survive ever since the chaotic situation in 3rd Century, yet that also bring out another questions - if Roman culture is lacking any central focus, then what values of Roman culture Europeans actually inherited??

Yes, Roman culture was impressively flexible and open, but at the core of lied essentially the set of four fundamental values, virtus, disciplina, reverence for the past and the notion of “civis Romanus”.

Virtus, or aggressive martial courage, was the most admired human quality a Roman could demonstrate.
As a wife sings in Plautus (Amphitruo 648-653):

I want my man to be cried victor in war: that's enough for me
Virtus is the greatest prize,
virtus comes before everything, that's for sure:
liberty, safety, life, property and parents, homeland and
children it guards and keeps safe.
Virtus has everything in it: who has virtus has everything good

Compared to the display of virtus, "everything else is subordinate and hides in dark night" (Ennius, Phoenix 311). It was the root value of the Romans of the Republic and it was par excellence an intensely competitive quality.

I am the one, I do declare; it is just that I should enjoy them:
my kinsman's arms should be adjudged to me,
either because I am kin or a rival in virtus (Accius 106-108)

The fiery ambition of Romans to excel those around them in virtus would lead them to seek out single combat in battle. The tales about legendary figures, such as Marcus Valerius Corvus and Titus Manlius Torquatus, who are said to have slain terrifying Gallic giants in duel, are not constructs of romanticism, but denoted a projection back to their earliest days of the later perception of military ethos, which the Romans lived by. And the institutionalized honors of spolia opima and spolia provocatoria, the decoration to those who distinguished themselves in skirmishing and the continuous tradition of soldiers, officers and generals aggressively yearning for single combat and distinction on the battlefield are a testimony to that, from Marcellus and Marcus Servilius in the Second Punic War to Scipio Aemilianus in the Second Macedonian War, from Lucius Fabius and Marcus Petronius at the siege of Gergovia to Crastinus at Pharsalus and Antistius Turpio at Munda, from Gaius Marius in Africa and Titus in Jerusalem to Julian, Exsuperius, Magnus and Jovian in the former’s Persian Campaign and Valens in Andrianople.



Disciplina was the other fundamental military value. The English translation "discipline" does not convey the full power of the Roman concept, because disciplina was not a system of imposed rules to make an unwarlike people place themselves in danger, but it was conceived primarily as a brake to overly aggressive behavior. The tradition as it came down to the 1st century BC could be summed up as this: "In war, fighting against the enemies without orders or retiring too slowly when recalled from the fight, was more often punished than fleeing the standards or abandoning one's position when pressed" (Sallust Bellum Catilinae 9.4). It did not coexist harmonically with the ethos of single combat, but was rather set directly against it as a contradictory imperative in order to render the impatiently aggressive Romans commandable. Dictator Postumius Tubertus was said to have executed his own son for advancing beyond the lines without permission and even the fabled Roman hero of the early Republic, Titus Manlius Torquatus, who had won great fame by slaying a gigantic Gaul in single combat, is supposed to have ordered the torture and execution of his own son, when he performed a similar military feat in the Latin war against the orders of the officers, for he 'had destroyed disciplina, by which up to now the Roman state has stood firm" (Livy 8.7.15). More often than not the willful virtus of the soldiers pounded like a siege ram against disciplina, as in the campaigns of Fabius Maximus and Aemilius Paulus, which was precisely the ethic the commanders relied upon to command obedience and put their plans to action, but thankfully for them disciplina was also a fervently competitive virtue, which would historically concede to them an ever increasing power to implement tactics and more importantly to call upon the sense of labor (excellence in hard work) and patienta (endurance) of their soldiers in order to get them to routinely perform seemingly unheroic tasks such as digging, sapping, setting camps and building forts, the small things that win campaigns, campaigns that win wars.

Adulation for the past would always have a strong hold over Roman mentality. The past was perceived as a set of admired ethics around which the people wove illustrative stories and a set of ways of doing things to which they were strongly attached. So, the Romans for centuries would begin their public auctions with the cry that they were selling the property of Lars Porsena of Clusium and Roman officials would continue to levy fines in animals centuries after the fines were paid in good silver money. The people could hardly understand some of the prayers they offered to their gods, having preserved their archaic Latin formulae long after linguistic change had made old Latin an almost foreign language. Devotion to the past was not just sentimental or doctrinaire, because the past also served as a guide of doing things in the most efficient way because the men of old had, by and large, been better and wiser than the men of the present, a mindset prevalent among the Greeks as well. Under the Republic Roman conservatism was mighty, but in time the Romans would also develop a past enshrined in their texts, the history of their own conquests, and they would borrow Greek history too. Under the Empire history became for the Romans what had epic been for the Greeks and they would begin to experiment with ways of bringing it back to life. This mentality was immortalized during Hadrian’s reign in the East by the literary antiquarianism of Atticism and in the West by its equivalent, which would be manifested in the style of Aulus Gellius or Apuleius, a style which consisted of ransacking the oldest Latin texts one could get his hands on for the ripest archaic words he could find. The traditional Roman culture had always been past minded, but combined this trait from the 2nd century AD onwards with the common education of the class of men who would become the high officers in the Empire in old classics and the intellectual disposition this produced, it would give birth to minds like those of Arrian, Vegetius, Polyaenus, Frontinus and Ammianus Marcellinus and their generations’ perception of the past as exemplary and in a peculiar way flat and unarticulated, collectively labeling all their predecessors one entity, the antiqui, “the ancients”. And it is notable that this trend would never fade, one the contrary it would dwell deep in common consciousness up to the final days of the Byzantine Empire.

And last but not least, the pillar of the Roman state was the idea of “civis Romanus”,the political ideal which stemmed from a constitutional form of government and defined a whole sets of rights and obligations of the individual towards the state. The unique element in Roman citizenship was its dynamic nature. Early enough the introduction of the idea of natio would spur the enlargement of citizenship to the extent of encompassing in autonomy Rome’s Latin allies and the concession of full (optimo iure) or partial (sine suffragio) political rights the other Italic communities. Later it would expand beyond the barriers of race or birth through recognition of political rights to all free residents of the Empire who lived under Roman law and paid taxes to the state. The result was that as soon as the 3rd century BC not only had Rome manufactured fiercely loyal native social base, but had entered an irreversible path of growth by assimilation and incorporation of foreign populations into this system as well. For centuries to come the Roman State, either in the republican or the imperial era, would find itself at the head of a vast manpower of undisputable allegiance and this is how Rome conquered the world.

...and what exactly Europeans inherited from Romans.

To quote Victor Davis Hanson 'the western way of war'. But I am too tired to elaborate at the moment.

[CiviC]

Let's not reduce Roman culture to philosophy only or the lack of it. Romans had their philosophers too, but they were a very pragmatic people, so probably philosophy wasn't their strongest point or they considered Greek philosophy they adopted thoroughly to be enough. In fact Roman culture is a natural continuation of Greek/Hellenistic culture, this is why historians call it Greco-Roman culture and civilisation. It's artificial to put Roman culture in opposition with Hellenistic one. And lets not forget the last stage of Roman philosophy - the Early Christian philosophy that shaped Christianity in the West for a thousand years.

[Exarch]

it seemed to me that the Romans idolized greek culture, to the extent that the ERE eventually became greek speaking.
Question: why werent the greeks 'romanised', why werent they made to speak latin etc?

why didnt roman culture dominate and replace greek/thracian culture ?