Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IDonT
This is sort of the chicken or the egg problem. The Roman and Greek classical civilization have far more influencial than any other civilization in the world was due to their successor 's success (ie. Britain, France, and USA) and not because of anything intrinsic to those civilization. The concept of democracy and equal rights were certainly among them. However, if you bring a Roman Republic citizen to the modern day, they would only recognize a few remnants of their own civilazation.
|
I don’t know whence that idea about successors, but I find it way to overpumped, especially US. This is not a knee jerk – just that that in my educational system, which is quite balanced, this assumption doesn’t have its place (or I’m not noticing it) and certainly not so significantly as you are painting it. And just to say that I’m studying law – not that I’m bragging or acting as a wiseass, to the contrary – but merely the fact that I have a quite accurate literature in front of myself.
Also, on this one I agree with
Spartan 105% –
The Romans influenced everyone. Directly. No need for intermediaries Likewise, I will quote my “school” book –
"…Roman state is the synthesis of experience of the overall Antique world…" What came after that is another story, in other words, apples and oranges.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IDonT
Now if we are talking about civilizational impact (off topic), China has got Rome beat (in terms of longevity). During the same time period, China also developed "civilizational" traits that are still used today. One of them is the mantra of the U.S. Govt. -- "Civilian Control of the Military". Other's are standardized exam for government position, legalism, and confusianism. In fact, the current Chinese written and spoken language has change little since the days of the Qin dynasty, where it was first codified and established around 330 BCE. Confusianism is still the main traits amongst several Asian nations.
|
Of course, just to define my standpoint in this discussion – I am not a supporter of Euro-centrism or West-Euro-centrism, infact, I’m pretty open for criticizing it.
But one thing must be considered – I’m quoting my book again: "There were states that lasted long and that were big in size, but they belong to other type, so called Oriental despoty. Their main characteristics are static social structure and not particularly developed trade. On the other hand, in Roman state there was a market, unknown to world till that time."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IDonT
Now it can be argued that Classical Western Civilization had a much greater impact than the Chinese civilization of the same time period. And based on world wide evidence today you have a valid point. However, it was the success of Rome's western successor (France, Britain, Germany, and the US), and in some regards, the failure of Qing China to assert itself in the world stage during the age of imperialism that the bulk of the evidence is based on. The success of Rome's successor, not the success of the Roman civilization itself.
|
As I already explained, point about successors is very moot. In certain aspects France and Germany could be considered as successors. Britain – I’m not negating the fact that impact of British Empire is also great, but the fact that it has enough similarities with Roman Empire (especially Byzantine) to consider it real successor. And this point is pretty weak if we are talking about US.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IDonT
Now comparing Roman impact with the mongols is like comparing apples to oranges. The Mongols were a nomadic people who lived on tents.
|
That doesn’t disqualify them from comparison. And this description of Mongols says a lot about it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IDonT
Han Dynasty China is a better eastern equivalent of the Roman empire.
|
It might be so, though such relation is somewhat different in "Roman part of the world".