Roman Technology and Greek Technology

[Lysimachus]

How much of the Roman technology and culture was actually passed on by the Greeks? It seems from what i've heard that the Romans took in most of it and simply added their own little touch to it, but maybe I could get some concrete information on this?

[DAVIDE]

Technology in what field?

[Lysimachus]

Technology in what field?

Just in general really. So basically, if you were to sum up overall how much of Roman technology and culture was native to it, how much would you think it is?

[DAVIDE]

About architecture this one can help

http://translate.google.it/translate...ml&sl=it&tl=en

[conon394]

Just in general really. So basically, if you were to sum up overall how much of Roman technology and culture was native to it, how much would you think it is?

I'm not sure you can really say for certain. The problem is of course Rome was not isolated in vacuum and by 'Greek' you also mean the Mediterranean wide Greek/Hellenistic culture and it technological achievements, adaptions and borrowings. Also how do figure and achievement by say 'greek' citizens of Rhodes in the era of Republic dominance of Med???

[Ace_General]

The romans borrowed more cultural things while the romans invented more engineering, military, and social things and also, they applied some of the Greek technology on a larger scale like aqueducts

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Engineering.. Reminds me of Archimedes, during the Roman siege of Syracuse..
He invented awesome things..

[conon394]

they applied some of the Greek technology on a larger scale like aqueducts

Careful however - scale is very much a reflection of the size of the Empire. Athens was not really going to build aqueducts across Greece where as once the Republic controls all Italy its possible to think big and also not be concerned about security.

[SigniferOne]

How much of the Roman technology and culture was actually passed on by the Greeks? It seems from what i've heard that the Romans took in most of it and simply added their own little touch to it, but maybe I could get some concrete information on this?

The difference between the two periods is substantial.

From the Roman times we find immense sophisticated water mills, we find automatic drills, water-powered automatic buzz-saws, and pieces of mechanical cranks, which is highly significant because it means they had things that needed to be cranked up.

[cpdwane]

You should remember that Greek culture did by no means "stop" during the Roman period. Indeed, the more technological and artistic sides of Greek culture were at their peak in the Hellenistic era, just before the Romans became global powers, and even afterwards the Greeks were very highly regarded by the Romans as sculptors, architects and philosophers. The Romans didn't so much adopt greek ideas and technology as their own as adopt and develop Greek culture, at the same time as the Greeks accepted Roman occupation. So it's a bit innacurate to seperate the two cultures so much.

[SigniferOne]

You should remember that Greek culture did by no means "stop" during the Roman period. Indeed, the more technological and artistic sides of Greek culture were at their peak in the Hellenistic era, just before the Romans became global powers

No, the peak of Greek science happened during the Romans, with, e.g. Ptolemy, Galen, Heron, Apollodorus etc.

In just the same way the peak of Greek arts happened under the Romans, with sculptors Agesander, Athenodoros and Polydorus.

[cpdwane]

No, the peak of Greek science happened during the Romans, with, e.g. Ptolemy, Galen, Heron, Apollodorus etc.

In just the same way the peak of Greek arts happened under the Romans, with sculptors Agesander, Athenodoros and Polydorus.

I stand corrected. My point still stands however that Greek arts and technology reached their peak after the Greek classical period, and at the same time that the Romans became powerful.

[conon394]

No, the peak of Greek science happened during the Romans, with, e.g. Ptolemy, Galen, Heron, Apollodorus etc.

That's a bit a of stretch Sig given that the very things you just pointed to in #9

From the Roman times we find immense sophisticated water mills, we find automatic drills, water-powered automatic buzz-saws, and pieces of mechanical cranks, which is highly significant because it means they had things that needed to be cranked up.

Were based on technology clearly originating in Greek/Macedonian Alexandria

In just the same way the peak of Greek arts happened under the Romans, with sculptors Agesander, Athenodoros and Polydorus.

One kind of art I don't think you can say the same for drama and comedy (in particular it political and social cometary).

In reality this kind of debate is silly. It more helpful I think to consider a Mediterranean meta culture that developed in Greece, Rome, Carthage their colonies and culturally influenced neighbors created a distinct European/Mediterranean cultural and technological environment that was very diffrent from the old Eastern cultural centers. Parsing out Rome vs Greeks vs Carthage vs Gaul is not very productive as I see it.

[SigniferOne]

That's a bit a of stretch Sig given that the very things you just pointed to in #9

Were based on technology clearly originating in Greek/Macedonian Alexandria

Based on, by no means understood or realized.

It's a bit like, the Greeks invented the Babbage Machine, while the Romans built the ENIAC in the 40s.

One kind of art I don't think you can say the same for drama and comedy (in particular it political and social cometary).

I don't disagree that the Greeks ceased writing good drama/comedy after the Classical period; but the Romans wrote some good stuff afterwards.

As for social commentary, wasn't gone, but was merely moved to other forms of literature such as poetry and to Epigrams (e.g. Martial), out of drama which by then was deemed to be a pure expression of culture, and thus perforce concerned with universals, rather than particular historical accidents of the day. This happened during the Imperial period.

Still even then, you have very notable instances of social commentary in the Republican period by many playwrights, and in the Imperial period in the Cato of Maternus, the Octavia (where Nero himself plays, and is a villain), and the Oedipus Rex of Seneca.

Parsing out Rome vs Greeks vs Carthage vs Gaul is not very productive as I see it.

I agree, that's why I consider the Greeks of the Imperial era as under the general Greco-Roman culture, rather than of "Hellenistic" culture.

But aside from the cultural merge which happened during the Greco-Roman period, it is difficult to make the same argument for Cathage or the Gauls. Carthage was a distinct culture which appropriated superficial elements of Hellenism which maintaining a deeply-held hostility underneath. The Gauls were even worse, so I'm surprised you'd even invoke them here...

[cpdwane]

[QUOTE=SigniferOne;7543621]

I agree, that's why I consider the Greeks of the Imperial era as under the general Greco-Roman culture, rather than of "Hellenistic" culture.

But then, the Hellenistic culture was hardly pure, it incorporating elements of Egyptian, Macedonian and Persian cultures as well. And nor was the Imperial period, because the Romans took a lot of influences out of other parts of the world such as gaul and Egypt as well.

But aside from the cultural merge which happened during the Greco-Roman period, it is difficult to make the same argument for Cathage or the Gauls. Carthage was a distinct culture which appropriated superficial elements of Hellenism which maintaining a deeply-held hostility underneath. And on the scientific account there is far too little unique to them in contrast to the Greco-Roman era. The Gauls were even worse, so I'm surprised you'd even invoke them here...

I would describe Carthage (and Phonecean culture more generally) as a melting pot between lots of different cultures in the Mediterranian, such as Egyptian, Italian, Lybian and Iberian culture as well as Greek and Levantine culture. I disagree with the deeply held hostility between Carthage and the Greeks; to start withat least, it was more against the Tyrant rulers of Sicily and Italy, and later on, as Carthage became more powerful in Sicily it became much more pronounced. Carthage's nature as a merchant state meant that it aslways traded with certain Greeks no matter what the political tensions. There is also growing evidence that very early Rome (ie: Etruscan ruled Rome) had heavy cultural and political influences from Carthage, which were later covered up by patriotic Roman writers.

Carthage was always more of a go between when it came to ideas, as it spread them around more then it invented them. Ultimately however, Carthage factored very little if at all into later Roman cultural influences, so it's not really a good discussion point for this thread.

By the way, is it not also a fact that in the later Roman Republic and early Empire Greek was more widely spoken then Latin?

[neoptolemos]

You should remember that Greek culture did by no means "stop" during the Roman period. Indeed, the more technological and artistic sides of Greek culture were at their peak in the Hellenistic era, just before the Romans became global powers, and even afterwards the Greeks were very highly regarded by the Romans as sculptors, architects and philosophers. The Romans didn't so much adopt greek ideas and technology as their own as adopt and develop Greek culture, at the same time as the Greeks accepted Roman occupation. So it's a bit innacurate to seperate the two cultures so much.

I agree on that,the Eastern part of the Empire stll have been speaking GReek as lingua franka,Greeks and Hellenized locals continued contributing to science in the stable environment of the Roman Empire.
That's why the correct term is GrecoRoman civilization

But then, the Hellenistic culture was hardly pure, it incorporating elements of Egyptian, Macedonian and Persian cultures as well. And nor was the Imperial period, because the Romans took a lot of influences out of other parts of the world such as gaul and Egypt as well.

Macedonian culture is not a distinct culture but part of the Greek culture,otherwise we couldn't make use of the term "Hellenistic".If they weren't the Macedonians there wouldn't have been the Hellenistic world....

By the way, is it not also a fact that in the later Roman Republic and early Empire Greek was more widely spoken then Latin?

True and that's why it had started a movement of replacing greek words in Latin and spreading the use of Latin in conquered lands

[cpdwane]

Macedonian culture is not a distinct culture but part of the Greek culture,otherwise we couldn't make use of the term "Hellenistic".If they weren't the Macedonians there wouldn't have been the Hellenistic world....

Well yes, but there's a whole debate going on about that. The general thought is that before Phillip and (especially) Alexander the Macedonian culture was quite radically different from Greek, while still sharing a few similarities. Then phillip came along, and Macedon started Hellenizing even more. That's the theory anyway, and I'm not sure I follow it. main part of Macedonian culture I was refering to in the previous post was the military,
which was certainl quite radically different from the Greek military system.

[thelionheart]

My ancestors were the greatest (I am an arab from greek origins)
Every scientific or technological thing in the world could be traced back to them

[Last Roman]

Every scientific or technological thing in the world could be traced back to them

mmmm, nope.

[thelionheart]

mmmm, nope.

It is a form of exaggeration