6 ms·

It's probably worth noting - and I'm surprised it isn't mentioned in the article - that almost 100 years after the razing of Carthage, the enmity between Rome a

It's probably worth noting - and I'm surprised it isn't mentioned in the article - that almost 100 years after the razing of Carthage, the enmity between Rome and Carthage is mythologised in Virgil's Aeneid. In that epic poem, its said that the people of Carthage swore to either destroy or be destroyed by the "heirs of Aeneas" aka the proto-Romans. This epic revisionism is not a singular act in history but instead one I feel we must be wary of even in the present. I see similar narratives forming about bastions of the "west" constantly assailed by the barbarians just outside the gates.

csomar 7y ago
> This epic revisionism is not a singular act in history but instead one I feel we must be wary of even in the present. Eh, no. Carthage and Rome are both gone. There are lots of attempt trying to draw people around the civilization again. But the population, the new religions and the new reality makes it anything but possible.
macspoofing 7y ago
It seems to be a property of every human society to mythologize the history of ones peoples. I'm not sure we are capable of building a society by internalizing a 'raw' version of our history. >I see similar narratives forming about bastions of the "west" constantly assailed by the barbarians just outside the gates. The irony is that this is a true statement of any major culture/society/empire/etc. Unraveling a complex structures is easy (entropy) when compared to the effort it takes to build and maintain one. All complex structures are always susceptible to atrophy and sudden collapse. All complex structures inevitably collapse due to entropy. In very real ways there are 'barbarians' at the gates of every major culture.
- setr 7y ago
  >I'm not sure we are capable of building a society by internalizing a 'raw' version of our history. Probably because a ‘raw’ version doesn’t make much sense.. its like looking at a log file. It’s dense. Far too dense to be worth communicating in that format. So instead you pick out key facts and build out a narrative of events, usually with something in mind (a moral, a bug, etc). The bias and myth that people complain about is an inevitable result of this process.. it’s simply a complaint that one set of facts, and resulting narrative, was chosen, but this second set of facts, and narrative should have been chosen instead. Of course, sets C, D and E also exist, but they’re not being argued for.
FabHK 7y ago
Where does revisionism enter? The Romans were probably correct that they had to destroy, or be destroyed by the Carthagens. Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator defeated Hannibal, and who knows what would have happened otherwise. Of course, history is written by the victors. But what is the connection to today's narratives? In particular, a narrative today bearing resemblance to the past does not mean that it's wrong.
- r00fus 7y ago
  Did you read the parent comment? The revisionism is that the people of Carthage somehow thought their destiny was to "destroy or be destroyed by the Aeneans (Romans)". It's projecting Rome's mission on their enemy. Analogy: Clearly the Iranians/Chinese/North Koreans feel the same way about you, fellow Americans! Destroy or be destroyed is what we hear from them!
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  By the time Rome destroyed Carthage, it surely did not have to. Carthage had already been defeated more than 50 years previously, and had been reduced to little more than a Roman vassal state. The destruction of Carthage has to be one of the greatest acts of unnecessary spite in history.
labster 7y ago
Some are well formed already. The "Lost Cause" of the US South is a century-plus-long propaganda campaign cleaning up Southern motives, as if their desire for legal independence somehow justifies firing the first shots at Fort Sumter, the evil of slavery, or the holocaust at Andersonville. For the Southern heroes like General Lee, the mythologized opinion is the common one: https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-myth-of-the-kindly-ge...
- pdonis 7y ago
  If one is trying to pick a Southern hero to de-mythologize, Lee is a poor choice. Charles Francis Adams explained why in his famous oration, "Shall Cromwell Have A Statue?" [1] In it, he describes how Lee, by ordering his troops to surrender to Grant at Appomatox and telling them that they had lost fair and square and they should now go home, put away their guns, and be good citizens, prevented what otherwise would very likely have been years of guerilla war in the South that would have been much worse for the country than what actually happened. [1] https://archive.org/details/shallcromwellhav00adam/page/n5 https://archive.org/details/shallcromwellhav00adam/page/n5
  - labster 7y ago
    Lee could have done that at any point in the four years prior (or held to his oath and not killed fellow citizens at all). Surrendering gracefully in a war in which you had been thoroughly beaten the year before, so you can live out your life in comfort is an awfully low bar. The violence didn't quite go away, either. It just moved out West.
    - pdonis 7y ago
      > Lee could have done that at any point in the four years prior (or held to his oath and not killed fellow citizens at all). You could say the same about Grant or any of the Union generals. Since the Union refused to accept that the Confederate states had seceded, all of the Confederate soldiers killed were fellow citizens. And if we're going to talk about what could have been done, we should also talk about why the US didn't just pay off the slaveholders, the way Great Britain did, and end slavery peacefully. Why did it have to cost a million lives? Or we could ask why the North didn't secede from the Union, as many abolitionists were advocating, in order to free itself from any obligation to uphold the fugitive slave clause in the Constitution? If we're going to de-mythologize, we should do it impartially, not just to one side.
pdonis 7y ago
> I see similar narratives forming about bastions of the "west" constantly assailed by the barbarians just outside the gates. Drawing historical parallels is always risky. There have been plenty of times where Western civilization was assailed by barbarians, not just outside the gates but breaking them down and coming in. That happened to Rome itself in the 5th century AD. There are plenty of other examples.
- tomlockwood 7y ago
  Drawing historical parallels between Rome and what we currently consider "Western Civilization" is also risky. Commonly held central tenets of Western Civilization seem to be: the scientific method, judeo-christian values, and classical logic. All of these things weren't state-sponsored beliefs for most of what most people would consider ancient Rome, which began its long decline around 100 AD, 400 years before the period you mention.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > Commonly held central tenets of Western Civilization seem to be: the scientific method, judeo-christian values, and classical logic. All of these things weren't state-sponsored beliefs for most of what most people would consider ancient Rome So what if they weren't state-sponsored beliefs? State-sponsored beliefs aren't supposed to be part of Western Civilization (although it's hard to tell these days in many so-called Western countries). As for "commonly held central tenets", those are tenets of Western Civilization now, but they weren't for most of the time that Western Civilization existed, at least not in the form we have them now. But if you look at where all those tenets came from, Western Civilization plays a central role. (I would also add individual liberty and the rule of law to the list.)
    - tomlockwood 7y ago
      You're making the claim that cultural beliefs are what's important to Western "civilization" and their interplay with states are irrelevant - and that means that the process of drawing historical parallels between certain states, like you've done with your 500 AD example, becomes even more perilous and poorly defined. And, at that point, it becomes almost like you could read anything you wanted into history, to the point of it becoming mythology - much like the Romans did with the Aeneid. You're also claiming that tenets of Western Civilization now exist and didn't at some time before, but that there are places that were "Western" even though they didn't hold those tenets, which makes things even more unclear. It seems like there's some lineage of culture that you're seeking to identify, but which doesn't exist as objectively as you'd like. Its also kind of interesting you'd identify individual liberty as one of the tenets of such a mythologised civilisation, when slavery existed in that civilisation for the vast majority of its theorised existence.

csomar 7y ago

> This epic revisionism is not a singular act in history but instead one I feel we must be wary of even in the present. Eh, no. Carthage and Rome are both gone. There are lots of attempt trying to draw people around the civilization again. But the population, the new religions and the new reality makes it anything but possible.

macspoofing 7y ago

It seems to be a property of every human society to mythologize the history of ones peoples. I'm not sure we are capable of building a society by internalizing a 'raw' version of our history. >I see similar narratives forming about bastions of the "west" constantly assailed by the barbarians just outside the gates. The irony is that this is a true statement of any major culture/society/empire/etc. Unraveling a complex structures is easy (entropy) when compared to the effort it takes to build and maintain one. All complex structures are always susceptible to atrophy and sudden collapse. All complex structures inevitably collapse due to entropy. In very real ways there are 'barbarians' at the gates of every major culture.

setr 7y ago
>I'm not sure we are capable of building a society by internalizing a 'raw' version of our history. Probably because a ‘raw’ version doesn’t make much sense.. its like looking at a log file. It’s dense. Far too dense to be worth communicating in that format. So instead you pick out key facts and build out a narrative of events, usually with something in mind (a moral, a bug, etc). The bias and myth that people complain about is an inevitable result of this process.. it’s simply a complaint that one set of facts, and resulting narrative, was chosen, but this second set of facts, and narrative should have been chosen instead. Of course, sets C, D and E also exist, but they’re not being argued for.

FabHK 7y ago

Where does revisionism enter? The Romans were probably correct that they had to destroy, or be destroyed by the Carthagens. Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator defeated Hannibal, and who knows what would have happened otherwise. Of course, history is written by the victors. But what is the connection to today's narratives? In particular, a narrative today bearing resemblance to the past does not mean that it's wrong.

r00fus 7y ago
Did you read the parent comment? The revisionism is that the people of Carthage somehow thought their destiny was to "destroy or be destroyed by the Aeneans (Romans)". It's projecting Rome's mission on their enemy. Analogy: Clearly the Iranians/Chinese/North Koreans feel the same way about you, fellow Americans! Destroy or be destroyed is what we hear from them!
DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
By the time Rome destroyed Carthage, it surely did not have to. Carthage had already been defeated more than 50 years previously, and had been reduced to little more than a Roman vassal state. The destruction of Carthage has to be one of the greatest acts of unnecessary spite in history.

labster 7y ago

Some are well formed already. The "Lost Cause" of the US South is a century-plus-long propaganda campaign cleaning up Southern motives, as if their desire for legal independence somehow justifies firing the first shots at Fort Sumter, the evil of slavery, or the holocaust at Andersonville. For the Southern heroes like General Lee, the mythologized opinion is the common one: https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-myth-of-the-kindly-ge...

pdonis 7y ago
If one is trying to pick a Southern hero to de-mythologize, Lee is a poor choice. Charles Francis Adams explained why in his famous oration, "Shall Cromwell Have A Statue?" [1] In it, he describes how Lee, by ordering his troops to surrender to Grant at Appomatox and telling them that they had lost fair and square and they should now go home, put away their guns, and be good citizens, prevented what otherwise would very likely have been years of guerilla war in the South that would have been much worse for the country than what actually happened. [1] https://archive.org/details/shallcromwellhav00adam/page/n5 https://archive.org/details/shallcromwellhav00adam/page/n5
- labster 7y ago
  Lee could have done that at any point in the four years prior (or held to his oath and not killed fellow citizens at all). Surrendering gracefully in a war in which you had been thoroughly beaten the year before, so you can live out your life in comfort is an awfully low bar. The violence didn't quite go away, either. It just moved out West.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > Lee could have done that at any point in the four years prior (or held to his oath and not killed fellow citizens at all). You could say the same about Grant or any of the Union generals. Since the Union refused to accept that the Confederate states had seceded, all of the Confederate soldiers killed were fellow citizens. And if we're going to talk about what could have been done, we should also talk about why the US didn't just pay off the slaveholders, the way Great Britain did, and end slavery peacefully. Why did it have to cost a million lives? Or we could ask why the North didn't secede from the Union, as many abolitionists were advocating, in order to free itself from any obligation to uphold the fugitive slave clause in the Constitution? If we're going to de-mythologize, we should do it impartially, not just to one side.

pdonis 7y ago

> I see similar narratives forming about bastions of the "west" constantly assailed by the barbarians just outside the gates. Drawing historical parallels is always risky. There have been plenty of times where Western civilization was assailed by barbarians, not just outside the gates but breaking them down and coming in. That happened to Rome itself in the 5th century AD. There are plenty of other examples.

tomlockwood 7y ago
Drawing historical parallels between Rome and what we currently consider "Western Civilization" is also risky. Commonly held central tenets of Western Civilization seem to be: the scientific method, judeo-christian values, and classical logic. All of these things weren't state-sponsored beliefs for most of what most people would consider ancient Rome, which began its long decline around 100 AD, 400 years before the period you mention.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > Commonly held central tenets of Western Civilization seem to be: the scientific method, judeo-christian values, and classical logic. All of these things weren't state-sponsored beliefs for most of what most people would consider ancient Rome So what if they weren't state-sponsored beliefs? State-sponsored beliefs aren't supposed to be part of Western Civilization (although it's hard to tell these days in many so-called Western countries). As for "commonly held central tenets", those are tenets of Western Civilization now, but they weren't for most of the time that Western Civilization existed, at least not in the form we have them now. But if you look at where all those tenets came from, Western Civilization plays a central role. (I would also add individual liberty and the rule of law to the list.)
  - tomlockwood 7y ago
    You're making the claim that cultural beliefs are what's important to Western "civilization" and their interplay with states are irrelevant - and that means that the process of drawing historical parallels between certain states, like you've done with your 500 AD example, becomes even more perilous and poorly defined. And, at that point, it becomes almost like you could read anything you wanted into history, to the point of it becoming mythology - much like the Romans did with the Aeneid. You're also claiming that tenets of Western Civilization now exist and didn't at some time before, but that there are places that were "Western" even though they didn't hold those tenets, which makes things even more unclear. It seems like there's some lineage of culture that you're seeking to identify, but which doesn't exist as objectively as you'd like. Its also kind of interesting you'd identify individual liberty as one of the tenets of such a mythologised civilisation, when slavery existed in that civilisation for the vast majority of its theorised existence.