4 ms·

Irony was a double-edged sword in this case. Sure, the Greek city-states were now subject to Rome. On the other hand, Roman civilization was deeply affected by

• B1FF_PSUVM 8y ago
  > Greek culture, which was arguably far superior. The Romans put up a valiant rearguard action against cultural aggression, what with forbidding permanent theaters, favoring the native blood sports, etc.;-) Unfortunately, pretty soon all the aristocracy was hiring the pedagogues, watching the shows and reading greek, and that was that. Umm, reminds me of something. Can't quite put my finger on it. (Plus, that uncouth Macedonian lout had sprayed a top layer of Hellenism over much of the former Persian empire - that helped a lot too.)
  • pm90 8y ago
    That Macedonian lout actually reached as far as India, and his successors in the Indian subcontinent embraced Buddhism forming a very unique Indo-Greek culture.
    • senatorobama 8y ago
      If only they could have fought of Islam.
  • thaumasiotes 8y ago
    Any persistent Hellenism in the Persian empire is really more likely to be attributable to Seleucus than Alexander. Alexander was king for 6 years, during all of which he was out on military campaigns.
• ng12 8y ago
  One of my favorite tidbits was that it was considered very fashionable to have a well-educated Greek slave -- they were often more well-versed in literature and philosophy than their masters.
  • selestify 8y ago
    How does an educated slave happen? Does someone somehow throw money at educating a slave child? Or does an educated person get enslaved?
    • ckarmann 8y ago
      Both situations happened. Rich families had slave and non-slave educators who would teach to the family children and to the slave children. A lot of slaves in Antiquity were given the occupation of shopkeepers, clerks or even lawyers, so they needed to be educated. Also the situation of slaves was quite fluid: you could be a slave by birth, but you could have been captured in war and conquest or you could have simply failed to pay your debts. Skilled slaves often had the possibility to earn some money and buy back their freedom. On the other hand, there were also unskilled slaves, often worked to death in mines or fields.
      • ng12 8y ago
        Also I'd add that educated Greek slaves were much more expensive than uneducated non-Greek slaves so there was economic value in continuing to educate them.
• rossdavidh 8y ago
  Similar statements (which I am not historian enough to judge the accuracy of) regarding the Chinese and the Mongols. The Mongols won militarily, and were turned into a culturally Chinese empire, in the east at least. Again, I am not historian enough to say if this is accurate, but it is a common assertion.
  • wahern 8y ago
    Apparently the Christian daughter-in-law of Ghengis Khan, Sorghaghtani Beki, was instrumental in the preservation and adoption of the pre-existing Han Chinese culture and political apparatus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorghaghtani_Beki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorghaghtani_Beki
  • jonnybgood 8y ago
    The Mongols adopting Chinese culture was an intentional act by Kublai and his established Yuan dynasty after conquering China.
  • _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
    In the West (at least some of them, the future Mughals), they were Turkified, then Persianised, then Indianised.
• pdonis 8y ago
  > Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit (once defeated, Greece conquered its savage captor) A better translation would be "captured Greece has conquered its savage captor", since that better captures (pun intended) the intended parallel between capta and cepit--both are forms of the same verb. (Also cepit is perfect tense, hence "has conquered".)
  • thaumasiotes 8y ago
    > Also cepit is perfect tense, hence "has conquered". The Latin perfect is the equivalent of the English perfect. It's also the equivalent of the English simple past; whether "Greece captured her conquerors" or "Greece has captured her conquerors" is the right translation depends on whether Horace was writing about the past or the present (that is, his past or his present), not on the form of the Latin verb.
    • pdonis 8y ago
      > It's also the equivalent of the English simple past; whether "Greece captured her conquerors" or "Greece has captured her conquerors" is the right translation depends on whether Horace was writing about the past or the present (that is, his past or his present), not on the form of the Latin verb. Yes, you're right. I still prefer the "has conquered" translation, though, because I think Horace was talking about a condition that was still there in his present, not just what had happened in his past.
  • lou1306 8y ago
    Thanks! English is not my mother tongue and I thought "captured" would have sounded a bit too archaic.
    • pdonis 8y ago
      > English is not my mother tongue and I thought "captured" would have sounded a bit too archaic. I don't think so. "Captor" might be, though, even if "captured" isn't. Another possible translation that doesn't use "captor" would be to swap words around to: "Conquered Greece has captured its savage conqueror". That actually might better match the sense of the original Latin in modern English; the Latin victorem is probably better translated as "conqueror" than "captor". (Edit: One other more pedantic refinement: "Conquered Greece has captured her savage conqueror." Since the Latin Graecia is feminine, not neuter.)