5 ms·

I would expect this answer from a reddit thread or a youtube comment, but not from HN. One would think such a silly and ignorant view of history would not be fo

I would expect this answer from a reddit thread or a youtube comment, but not from HN. One would think such a silly and ignorant view of history would not be found here, but alas, it was. Yours seems to be one of those opinions that can be summed up as "lol Greeks good Romans steal" when there is no shortage of technology and civil law improvements the Romans brought to light. To mention a few: a senate, aqueducts, urban planning, sanitation, civil engineering much better than that of the Greeks (see domes and arches), many ideals that are still present in today's governments, farms of quasi-industrial level production, and so forth. That the Greeks made more developments in Maths is true - it was more of a cultural thing anyway. Your post also completely ignores the fact that Greece flourished under Roman rule and managed to keep many of its freedoms, with the protection of a giant empire. Romans also distributed Greek texts to all corners of the known world, wherein learned people could be found. Your comment seriously sounds like that of a child, not at all something of the level of HN.

fngjdflmdflg 3y ago
>many ideals that are still present in today's governments Rome existed for more than a thousand years, and for five hundred of those years there was only an emperor (who didn't refer to himself as a king). I will give you that Rome was good at building but that doesn't stop it from being a dark age. And while Greece was mostly left alone they did not "flourish" and their output significantly decreased. The Romans were anti intellectual and cared more about their traditions than understanding the world. That's why the Romans used Greek statue building techniques to make status of themselves and of the Emperor instead of the gods like Greece did. To Romans they were their own gods. They didn't care about the natural world or about philosophy. They actually became better at statue building than the Greeks (after hundreds of years) which would probably be listed by you as a "Great Roman Achievement" but it's just the result of Aping Greek culture. The Romans themselves were in a sense aware of this; they would use Greek in official documents and would at times dress up in Greek Togas/Chitons. Caesar's Et tu, Brute? was actually spoken in Greek.
- artzmeister 3y ago
  Is your point entirely based on statues an emperors? None of what you said proves anything and you make baseless claims about them not caring about the natural world or philosophy. Bother to read actual Roman and Greek sources of the time and you will find yourself contradicted soon (Plutarch's Parallel Lives might be of use, then Cicero, etc). Seems clear to me that this opinion is not your own.
  - fngjdflmdflg 3y ago
    It's not based just on statues and emperors, though that shouldn't be ignored. The Roman's never adopted the Greek gymnasium, instead opting to have enslaved Greek philosophers tutor them at home[0] so that they could feel cultured. None of it was real and after a thousand years of LARPing as Greeks the Romans made zero contributions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_ancient_Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_ancient_Rome
- nemo 3y ago
  The funny thing here is that the idealization of the Greeks that you're up to here is directly inherited from the Romans who idealized the Classical and Hellenistic Greeks. But it's worth learning more about what the Greeks and Romans were really up to, since you've got ideas that are not well informed by the source material, and if you took the time to examine the evidence I think you'd be surprised at the sophistication of the Romans. Also in this day and age the idealization of the Greeks is something that's largely an old cultural memory, but if you look at the Greeks in their ancient milieu, the "Greek Miracle" was largely an illusion based on lost earlier sources. The Greeks certainly were sophisticated intellectually and they've left a mark on history for it, but they didn't appear in as much of a vacuum as folks thought existed before modern archaeology.
  - fngjdflmdflg 3y ago
    >not well informed by the source material >Afterwards he often made it clear that he was desirous of a second consulship, and once actually announced his candidacy, but when he was passed by and not elected, he made no further efforts to obtain the office, giving his attention to his duties as augur, and training his sons, not only in the nature and ancestral discipline in which he himself had been trained, but also, and with greater ardour, in that of the Greeks. For not only the grammarians and philosophers and rhetoricians, but also the modellers and painters, the overseers of horses and dogs, and the teachers of the art of hunting, by whom the young men were surrounded, were Greeks.[0] [0] Plutarch Aemilius Paullus https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Aemilius*.html https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/...
dllthomas 3y ago
> a senate A council of elders, in various forms, long preceded the Romans. How would you distinguish "a senate" as a meaningful invention from the boule, gerousia, or similar body in many a Greek polis?
- fngjdflmdflg 3y ago
  Because Renaissance Humanists told us so! Never mind the fact that the senate never wrote down their laws until a rebellion forced them to! How dare you question that we base our democracy on the Roman Senate (which was not elected)???
  - dllthomas 3y ago
    It was... sorta elected, in that you generally got in by having previously held any of several offices that were themselves generally elected (not very democratically by modern standards, but somewhat reasonably so compared to contemporary systems) or added to the body by an official (Censor) who was themselves elected. Edited to add: I don't actually think it's unreasonable to take them at their word that the Roman Senate provided some meaningful inspiration for the US Senate, even if it ultimately wound up pretty different. That doesn't make it a good example of Roman innovation, though.
mfichman 3y ago
…but what have the Romans done for us?
justinator 3y ago
>a senate, aqueducts, urban planning, sanitation, civil engineering But besides that, What have the Romans ever done for us?!
- irrational 3y ago
  What have they done for us lately?
  - bruce511 3y ago
    Pizza.

fngjdflmdflg 3y ago

>many ideals that are still present in today's governments Rome existed for more than a thousand years, and for five hundred of those years there was only an emperor (who didn't refer to himself as a king). I will give you that Rome was good at building but that doesn't stop it from being a dark age. And while Greece was mostly left alone they did not "flourish" and their output significantly decreased. The Romans were anti intellectual and cared more about their traditions than understanding the world. That's why the Romans used Greek statue building techniques to make status of themselves and of the Emperor instead of the gods like Greece did. To Romans they were their own gods. They didn't care about the natural world or about philosophy. They actually became better at statue building than the Greeks (after hundreds of years) which would probably be listed by you as a "Great Roman Achievement" but it's just the result of Aping Greek culture. The Romans themselves were in a sense aware of this; they would use Greek in official documents and would at times dress up in Greek Togas/Chitons. Caesar's Et tu, Brute? was actually spoken in Greek.

artzmeister 3y ago
Is your point entirely based on statues an emperors? None of what you said proves anything and you make baseless claims about them not caring about the natural world or philosophy. Bother to read actual Roman and Greek sources of the time and you will find yourself contradicted soon (Plutarch's Parallel Lives might be of use, then Cicero, etc). Seems clear to me that this opinion is not your own.
- fngjdflmdflg 3y ago
  It's not based just on statues and emperors, though that shouldn't be ignored. The Roman's never adopted the Greek gymnasium, instead opting to have enslaved Greek philosophers tutor them at home[0] so that they could feel cultured. None of it was real and after a thousand years of LARPing as Greeks the Romans made zero contributions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_ancient_Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_ancient_Rome
nemo 3y ago
The funny thing here is that the idealization of the Greeks that you're up to here is directly inherited from the Romans who idealized the Classical and Hellenistic Greeks. But it's worth learning more about what the Greeks and Romans were really up to, since you've got ideas that are not well informed by the source material, and if you took the time to examine the evidence I think you'd be surprised at the sophistication of the Romans. Also in this day and age the idealization of the Greeks is something that's largely an old cultural memory, but if you look at the Greeks in their ancient milieu, the "Greek Miracle" was largely an illusion based on lost earlier sources. The Greeks certainly were sophisticated intellectually and they've left a mark on history for it, but they didn't appear in as much of a vacuum as folks thought existed before modern archaeology.
- fngjdflmdflg 3y ago
  >not well informed by the source material >Afterwards he often made it clear that he was desirous of a second consulship, and once actually announced his candidacy, but when he was passed by and not elected, he made no further efforts to obtain the office, giving his attention to his duties as augur, and training his sons, not only in the nature and ancestral discipline in which he himself had been trained, but also, and with greater ardour, in that of the Greeks. For not only the grammarians and philosophers and rhetoricians, but also the modellers and painters, the overseers of horses and dogs, and the teachers of the art of hunting, by whom the young men were surrounded, were Greeks.[0] [0] Plutarch Aemilius Paullus https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Aemilius*.html https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/...

dllthomas 3y ago

> a senate A council of elders, in various forms, long preceded the Romans. How would you distinguish "a senate" as a meaningful invention from the boule, gerousia, or similar body in many a Greek polis?

fngjdflmdflg 3y ago
Because Renaissance Humanists told us so! Never mind the fact that the senate never wrote down their laws until a rebellion forced them to! How dare you question that we base our democracy on the Roman Senate (which was not elected)???
- dllthomas 3y ago
  It was... sorta elected, in that you generally got in by having previously held any of several offices that were themselves generally elected (not very democratically by modern standards, but somewhat reasonably so compared to contemporary systems) or added to the body by an official (Censor) who was themselves elected. Edited to add: I don't actually think it's unreasonable to take them at their word that the Roman Senate provided some meaningful inspiration for the US Senate, even if it ultimately wound up pretty different. That doesn't make it a good example of Roman innovation, though.

mfichman 3y ago

…but what have the Romans done for us?

justinator 3y ago

>a senate, aqueducts, urban planning, sanitation, civil engineering But besides that, What have the Romans ever done for us?!

irrational 3y ago
What have they done for us lately?
- bruce511 3y ago
  Pizza.