4 ms·
Roman culture was initially just Greek culture, and Greek culture would remain a heavy influence on Rome throughout its existence. Hence why we refer to it as
by Svip 6y ago
Roman culture was initially just Greek culture, and Greek culture would remain a heavy influence on Rome throughout its existence. Hence why we refer to it as Greco-Roman in a historical context.
These "general strikes" are but one way that the conflict between the plebeian and patrician classes manifested itself. A central pillar in Roman society, it persisted long into the imperial era, but since by the time of Augustus, the powers of the Senate and the Tribunes (which still existed) were evaporated, the conflicts weren't as dramatic as the republican ones.
You can counter-argue your static culture question with since the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the rise of capitalism in the 18th century, Western Europe maintained the same economical structure (i.e. feudalism); was European culture pretty static for a very long time?
History is a lot more complicated than that. If one only focuses on one aspect, then similar events may crop up occasionally, making one think people did not change much over long time spans. But sometimes re-introducing old protests can be a way of honouring one's ancestors as well as inspiration for a solution to one's new conflict.
- barry-cotter 6y ago> Roman culture was initially just Greek culture, and Greek culture would remain a heavy influence on Rome throughout its existence. Hence why we refer to it as Greco-Roman in a historical context. This is about as accurate as describing the culture of the Abbasid Caliphate as Persian. They were Arabs whose high culture was deeply informed by Persian culture, not Persians. In the same way the Romans were not Greeks, any more than the Carthaginians and other Phoenicians were. Their language was different. Their political culture was somewhat outside of the Greek mainstream. They were more liberal in regards to women’s social role than the Greeks. Their cultural production was pitiful compared to the Greeks’. The Romans stand in a similar relation to the Greeks as the English to the Romance speaking Western Christian world. Nothing about them makes sense without reference to the other but they’re very different.
- Svip 6y agoWhile a statement in the brief that certainly leaves a lot of details omitted, you are of course correct; as the main gist is the same as yours; their cultural production was pitiful. Romans admired the Greeks when it came to culture, and adopted as much as they could. Incorporating other culture's gods into their own pantheon was a common occurrence for Romans, they were not afraid of other cultures. There is still some historical debate over whether the Romans who founded Rome were actually Greeks (which they were according to their own legend), that simply adopted the local language from the local Latins, and then conquered them. Or whether they were their own unique tribe in central Italy, and not a foreign invader. I am honestly not sure what the historical consensus is these days.
- occamrazor 6y agoAccording to their own legends, Rome was founded by Trojans, descendants of Aeneas, not by Greeks.
- Svip 6y agoKind of embarrassing that I confused Trojans with Greeks for a brief moment there. Since the Roman legend of descending from Trojans is about making them distinct from the Greeks, yet having a prestigious origin story. Not sure whether it is actually true.