6 ms·
Yes, flippantly, because each new generation of historians needs to find a new hook to hang their career on. They add nuance, but it's unclear if it will stick.
by trgn 6y ago
Yes, flippantly, because each new generation of historians needs to find a new hook to hang their career on. They add nuance, but it's unclear if it will stick. The same happens for example with the rehabilitation of the Vikings, which were savages who built a culture, by any account, on pillage, rape and murder, supported by the archaeological record (the many burnt settlements) and the historical one (the many first hand accounts of the despair and fear they sowed).
The stability of the roman empire was a marvel. After incessant war within the borders during the republic, violence moved to the borders of the empire. To be Roman, and citizenry became quite broadly spread, during those few centuries, was to be free and safe.
Fiction can often capture this truth better than any scholarship. In "Augustus", a portrait of the first roman Emperor, the author John Williams conjures a scene where Augustus, near the end of his life, contemplates his successes and failures on the deck of his cruise-ship. An Egyptian freighter pulls alongside, and the crew sings him a song, thanking him for the stability he brought, the captain recalling the pirates that used to terrorize the Mediterranean. Now, they could voyage safely.
That change, in just a generation, exemplified the stability of the roman empire. While adding color to this history is great, it often tends to cheapen this enormous achievement.
- Joker_vD 6y agoI've seen around the internet an illustration from a history textbook that had vikings loading their drakkar, and a burning village in the background, with a mocking caption added: "Vikings rescuing the women and valuables from the burning buildings after all the men in the village have suddenly and mysteriously died". Hey, it could've happened like this, right?
- Talanes 6y agoViking was a profession, not a culture group, so forgive me if I take the rest of your historical expertise with a giant grain of salt.
- graeme 6y agoIn English the word commonly refers to the norse people of the time as a whole. “ In modern English and other vernaculars, the term also commonly includes the inhabitants of Norse home communities during this period.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings
- danjac 6y agoThat's modern English though, when the word "Viking" was re-introduced as part of the general romantic revival and where much of the popular ideas of Vikings - horned helmets, dragon ships, beserkers etc - were either invented or at least highly exaggerated by modern writers and artists.
- throwaway894345 6y agoThe original Old English term "þa Deniscan" (the Danes) was pretty clearly a people group as well, and they established colonies in England and France. That there is a narrower sense of "pirate" doesn't prove that there isn't a broader ethnogroup sense.
- throwaway894345 6y agoVikings were very much a culture group. The Old English called them "The Danes" in general (which was a generic name for Scandanavian peoples, not specifically people from Denmark as we define it today), and they settled much of England (the Danelaw) and Normandy (literally "(land of the) North Men").
- skybrian 6y agoWell, "free" is an exaggeration given how common slavery was. I guess it depends who you identify with? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome
- throwaway894345 6y agoYou seem to be taking one word in the parent's quote wildly out of context. Here's the full sentence: > To be Roman, and citizenry became quite broadly spread, during those few centuries, was to be free and safe. It's pretty plain here that the parent is arguing that Romans, not their slaves, were free and safe. Anyway, the idea that Rome is worse than its contemporaries because of slavery or some other failure to adhere to 20th (or 21st) century mores is silly (though fashionable) without making a case that said contemporaries performed better by those same standards.
- skybrian 6y agoI made no argument about whether they were better or worse than their contemporaries. However, I do think that by modern standards, all governments were terrible back then. Most of history is like that. It's mostly about cruelty and suffering.
- throwaway894345 6y ago> I made no argument about whether they were better or worse than their contemporaries. I was only clarifying since you were responding to a comment comparing Rome to her contemporaries. No one argues that Rome was more enlightened or less brutal than modern first-world nations, but many do argue that Rome was relatively more backwards than her contemporaries on the basis that Romans practiced slavery and colonization (ignoring that her contemporaries did the same or would have done if they had the ability).