Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Originally posted by Alliance
Well, just because he has a differen't point of view, doesn't make it history. And "Roman history as seen by the Britons, Gauls, Germans, Greeks, Persians and Africans" is just as narrow a perspective as the "Roman" one that he is trying to attack. So, at least, he is a hypocrite in his theoretical approach to history.


He is not a hypocrite at all the whole reason why is doing this is because you hardly hear anything about the barbarian point of view. If you had bothered to watch it you will also see he takes accounts of what Romans have to say about Barbarians.

Originally posted by Alliance

And I'm so glad he can bring "wit" to history...his time in Monty Python should have helped that.


Ok if you dont want to watch it fine, but dont make fun of him without having to see what he has to say as well.

Originally posted by Alliance

I have been unable to find any scholarly criticism on Terry Jones' Barbarians, so I will off hold judgement on him for now, as I relly don't want to spend an hour watching overdramatic television.


Well you already made a sarcy comment.

Originally posted by Alliance

Though I will say, treachery, schorched earth campaigns, conquering and murder should not be construed as barbarianism. Barbarian describes a type of culture, one unable to blossom into a civilized society.


Well i have a different defintion then. Yes I know the Romans were able to "blossom" into a civilization , but what im talking about here is how you treat you're fellow human beings and accomplishements.


Originally posted by Alliance

Due to the nature of the Roman military pay structure under the Marian reforms, and the nature of their tax system, the only way to keep the economy flowing was to continuously expand. Its not a coincidence that the Empire started to suffer major problems one Hadrian instituted his policy of non-expansion.


Yes but why was there system like that? Im not saying non-Romans were perfect but there seems to be this tendency that they just wanted to mind their own business while the Romans made it their businnes to intefere with everybody else.

For those of you who weren't purusing the Religion forum, these are the original posts.

Originally posted by jaden101
the Romans for example were the most powerful and civilised and knowledgable nation of the earth

Originally posted by Alfheim
Er thats not true actually they were probably the most barbaric, thats a misconception that they created as an excuse to oppress and destroy other cultures.
Originally posted by Alliance
Um. Don't know which history you studied. Don't confuse things like gladiators, war machines, and prostitution with barbarism.

You realize these people WERE civilization? Steam power, Aqueducts built at constant slopes for 25 miles? The most advanced art until the Reniassance?

You don't know Rome.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Have a look at this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Jones%27_Barbarians




" So you think you know everything about the Romans? They gave us sophisticated road systems, chariots and the modern-day calendar. And of course they had to contend with barbarian hordes who continually threatened the peace, safety and prosperity of their Empire. Didn't they?

Terry Jones' Barbarians takes a completely fresh approach to Roman history. Not only does it offer us the chance to see the Romans from a non-Roman perspective, it also reveals that most of the people written off by the Romans as uncivilized, savage and barbaric were in fact organized, motivated and intelligent groups of people, with no intentions of overthrowing Rome and plundering its Empire.

In his new book and the accompanying four-part BBC Two television series Terry Jones argues that we have been sold a false history of Rome that has twisted our entire understanding of our own history. Terry asks what did the Romans ever do for us?

This is the story of Roman history as seen by the Britons, Gauls, Germans, Greeks, Persians and Africans. The Vandals didn't vandalize - the Romans did. The Goths didn't sack Rome - the Romans did. Attila the Hun didn't go to Constantinople to destroy it, but because the Emperor's daughter wanted to marry him. And far from civilizing the societies they conquered the Romans often destroyed much of what they found.

Terry Jones travels round the geography of the Roman Empire and through 700 years of history - bringing wit, irreverence, passion and the very latest scholarship to transform our view of the legacy of the Roman Empire and the creation of the modern world.

Welcome to history from a different point of view."

Look at this link too.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4049824897297930083&q=Terry+Jones+The+Barbarians

Alfheim did you only make this thread to respond to Alliance his (according to you) incorrect opinion?

Originally posted by Fire
Alfheim did you only make this thread to respond to Alliance his (according to you) incorrect opinion?

Well yeah, but anyone can join in.....

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well i have a different defintion then. Yes I know the Romans were able to "blossom" into a civilization , but what im talking about here is how you treat you're fellow human beings and accomplishements.

If that is what you are discussing, then every culture from then to now has been barbaric.

you're just disagreeing on the meaning of the word barbaric

I think that barbarians smell like sweat, smoke, and broken dreams.

Techincally the Romans were Barbarians because the word "barbarian" comes from the Greek "barbaros" meaning non-Greek! (attempting to lighten up the debate)

True, but the barbarians weren't Roman (Being ruled by the government of Rome) so... Romans were Barbarians but Barbarians weren't Romans?

Originally posted by Mithrandir
Techincally the Romans were Barbarians because the word "barbarian" comes from the Greek "barbaros" meaning non-Greek! (attempting to lighten up the debate)

Yes - the origin of the word is the attempt to mimic the non-greek's languages. They just used to say 'Bar-bar-bar-bar-bar' in mimicry, hence the word Barbarian.

The most advanced art to the Renaissance?

No, sorry, the Romans are rather well known for leaving almost no artisitic contribution at all. It's the gap in their civilisation.

HAH...that is total bull. Roman painting, sculpture, and architecture were the most advanced anywhere in the world at the time.

I have NEVER heard that the Romans had almost no artistic contribution, and I study classical history. Maybe you should revisit the mosaics, the murals at Pompeii...the Colosseum, the Arcs of Titus and Constantine, and Roman sculpture in general.

Either these are the same professors who mistaught you about politics and how countries are classified, or you were not paying attention.

It is a very, very big deal in the world of ancient history about how the legacy the Romans did NOT leave was an artisitic one.

It is the basis of a great many things- it is actually something remarked on recently in the Biritsh press, Andrew Marr noting that the Romans were 'mere scavengers' when it came to art (not to mention philosophy and religion)

And it was the basis of an entire sequence in George Bernard Shaw's Caesar and Cleopatra where the prtagonist comments "Rome produce no art? Is peace not an art? Is war not an art? Is Government not an art? Is civilisation not an art? All these things we give you, im exchange for a few ornaments. You will have the best of the bargain."

Or Tobias Smollet, in his seminal letters written 250 years ago, commented:

"All the precious monuments of art, which have come down to us from antiquity, are the productions of Greek artists. The Romans had taste enough to admire the arts of Greece, as plainly appears by the great collections they made of their statues and pictures, as well as by adopting their architecture and musick: but I do not remember to have read of any Roman who made a great figure either as a painter or a statuary. It is not enough to say those professions were not honourable in Rome, because painting, sculpture, and musick, even rhetoric, physic, and philosophy were practised and taught by slaves. The arts were always honoured and revered at Rome, even when the professors of them happened to be slaves by the accidents and iniquity of fortune. The business of painting and statuary was so profitable, that in a free republic, like that of Rome, they must have been greedily embraced by a great number of individuals: but, in all probability, the Roman soil produced no extraordinary genius for those arts. Like the English of this day, they made a figure in poetry, history, and ethics; but the excellence of painting, sculpture, architecture, and music, they never could attain. "

Romans are famed as structural engineers but historically derided as artists, and if you have missed that, that is displaying ignorance.

Could you please start reading my posts.

Your constant inaccuracies on my arguments are rather annoying.

Art was not the pinnacle of Roman culture. That doesn't mean it was nonexistent. That doesn't mean there wasn't a legacy. The Roman's are not derided as artists. Their culture had different philosophies from the Greeks. So what if they borrowed the original techniques and ideas. Roman sculpture and painting was distinctly Roman.

Maybe you need to review the reliefs on The Arcs of Titus and Constantine...as well as the reliefs on Trajan's column....not to mention the sheer quantity of busts from the period.

You can argue that Art wasn't the strong point of Roman culture (I would totally agree with you), but to say that "Romans are rather well known for leaving almost no artistic contribution at all" is cr@p. The Romans dominated the artistic front during their time. Again, you can argue that Greek art was superior (I'd also agree with you), but it was Roman art that inspired the Renaissance and many Greek statues that were otherwise lost were preserved by Roman societies.

Also, historians generally don't use works of fiction or 250 year old accounts of history if they are writing papers on facts. Usually those sources are reserved for papers on the historical perception of ancient societies.

I would say partially.

Indeed, I largely dislike the title "Barbarians" given to the Keltic and Teutonic/Germanic peoples. I would argue that yes, their tactics were at (many) times barbarous, but often no more so than their oppressors - who were often the Romans, or their relatives.

For example, while the Saxons et al. may have been brutal in their Conquest of Britain, they were no more barbarous than the Romans and Roman allies who were slowly forcing them out of their homelands.

I'm not really sure what the argument is about. It seems as tho the argument started elsewhere. I'm just going to respond to the title.

The fact is every civilization back then was somewhat barbaric. They were ancient, crude barbaric times and sure the Romans were certainly no different. Any civilization that sees 2 people battling to the death or being fed to lions and tigers as perfectly suitable entertainment for all ages, is definitely somewhat barbaric don't ya think? confused

Th truth is the Romans needed to have a thick skin in order to survive these barbaric times. There was definitely no room for the squeamish. In order to be able to win their battles against the so called barbarians, they needed to appear strong and some what bloodthirsty. The truth is the romans considered anyone who wasn't under roman rule at that time as barbarians, even if they were a member of nobility and had their own culture and civilization. Case in point Hannibal and the Carthaginians.

In the words of Maximus Decimus Meridius 'I've seen much of the rest of the world. It is brutal and cruel and dark, Rome is the light.'

Sorry if I was the one to cause confusion, I tend to ramble....

Well done Mithrandir. Technically, everyone but like 0.4% of the world's population is a barbarian, then.

I read your posts just fine, Alliance. Simply, what you say ius wrong.

Rome never dominated the artisitc front,. It simply took art form other people, or compelled others to create art for thrm. Rome itself produced no great artists.

It is very, very true that Rome has historically been seen as making a very poor art contribution. Aside from those letters being a direct source of an expert voice for the time saying so, they were also there to help demonstrate that this has always been the general view.

Robert Harris' latest book about Cicero, Imperium, hammers the point home still further. In such creative areas such as art, all Rome evener did was steal or enslave. Their actual cultual contribution in this area is probably the least of all the significant ancient civilisations.

Originally posted by Alliance
Could you please start reading my posts.

Your constant inaccuracies on my arguments are rather annoying.

Art was not the pinnacle of Roman culture. That doesn't mean it was nonexistent.

Yes but there were other cultures at the time that produced art, why the big deal about the Romans.


Originally posted by RZA

The fact is every civilization back then was somewhat barbaric. They were ancient, crude barbaric times and sure the Romans were certainly no different.



Er no. Lets look at the Celts. Women Celts had more rights than the Romans, in Celt society old people and orphans had rights. In the Roman society orphans were left to die. Before the Romans conquered them they were the major road builders in Europe, eventhough there buildings were not as complex as the Romans they didnt all live in huts. The Celts were also capable of creating very complex dating systems.

As far as im concerned The Romans were animals. They oppressed women, they allowed people to kill themselves for fun. They made it there businnes to conquer and destroy other cultures. For example they wiped out the druids and they destroyed The Empire in Carthage. Im not saying that the Non-Romans were perfect but it mainly seems that the Romans were the ones who were mainly interested in conquering and supressing other people.

The Celts used to fight each other but they were not an Empire they in general were not interested in conquering other people.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I read your posts just fine, Alliance. Simply, what you say ius wrong.

Rome never dominated the artisitc front,. It simply took art form other people, or compelled others to create art for thrm. Rome itself produced no great artists.

It is very, very true that Rome has historically been seen as making a very poor art contribution. Aside from those letters being a direct source of an expert voice for the time saying so, they were also there to help demonstrate that this has always been the general view.

Robert Harris' latest book about Cicero, Imperium, hammers the point home still further. In such creative areas such as art, all Rome evener did was steal or enslave. Their actual cultual contribution in this area is probably the least of all the significant ancient civilisations.

I said, Rome dominated the artistic front at that time. There was nowhere else in the world that had such great artistic impact. Can you name any great artists from that period? Even outside of Rome? I don't care if Roman Art was the least significant of all the Major ancient civilizations....it was the best of its time and had legacy.

Rome had a different culture than Greece did. There was not an emphaisis placed on the artist...the emphasis was placed on what the art said about its patron or subject.

Roman sculpture became significantly different from that of the Greeks. There was a much greater emphasis on the role of the individual in the work.

Maybe you should refresh about the great number of artistic pieces of including middle-class businessmen, freedmen, slaves, gladiators, and soldiers...in addition to those of the upper classes. This was just not a bourgeois movement. This is a cultural movement. It was about patronage and subject. If you actually understood Roman culture, you'd realize this makes perfect sense.

Romes art was also diverse, reflecting on local tastes and traditions...just like art today. Thats not stealing or being unoriginal...thats called culture. Even though Rome stole many of its original artisitic ideas from the Etruscans and Greece, Roman art became distinctly different...everything from painting to sculpture to architecture.

Your sources are consitantly fictional accounts of Rome or 250 year old sources. I don't really care what the public perception is or what perception was. Its not the fact.

So really, stop with the reactionary and extremeist views and do some real research.

Originally posted by Alliance
I said, Rome dominated the artistic front at that time. There was nowhere else in the world that had such great artistic impact. Can you name any great artists from that period? Even outside of Rome? I don't care if Roman Art was the least significant of all the Major ancient civilizations....it was the best of its time and had legacy.

Rome had a different culture than Greece did. There was not an emphaisis placed on the artist...the emphasis was placed on what the art said about its patron or subject.

Roman sculpture became significantly different from that of the Greeks. There was a much greater emphasis on the role of the individual in the work.

Maybe you should refresh about the great number of artistic pieces of including middle-class businessmen, freedmen, slaves, gladiators, and soldiers...in addition to those of the upper classes. This was just not a bourgeois movement. This is a cultural movement. It was about patronage and subject. If you actually understood Roman culture, you'd realize this makes perfect sense.

Romes art was also diverse, reflecting on local tastes and traditions...just like art today. Thats not stealing or being unoriginal...thats called culture. Even though Rome stole many of its original artisitic ideas from the Etruscans and Greece, Roman art became distinctly different...everything from painting to sculpture to architecture.

Your sources are consitantly fictional accounts of Rome or 250 year old sources. I don't really care what the public perception is or what perception was. Its not the fact.

So really, stop with the reactionary and extremeist views and do some real research.

Are you Italian because you seem to be taking this kinda personal?

Coincidentally yes, Sicilian actually, but my family immigrated long ago.

I'm not taking it personally, Ush is just dead wrong. I never said Roman art is the superior art form...I'd strongly disagree...

...but saying that the Romans had no artistic value and just co-opted other art forms is ludicrous.

I'm against it from a scholarly and historical point of view.

Originally posted by Alliance
Coincidentally yes, Sicilian actually, but my family immigrated long ago.

Ok...

Originally posted by Alliance

I'm not taking it personally, Ush is just dead wrong. I never said Roman art is the superior art form...I'd strongly disagree...

...but saying that the Romans had no artistic value and just co-opted other art forms is ludicrous.

I'm against it from a scholarly and historical point of view.

Well I thought people were saying that basicaly what the Romans did was blown out of proportion, not that they didnt have artistic value.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Er no. Lets look at the Celts. Women Celts had more rights than the Romans, in Celt society old people and orphans had rights. In the Roman society orphans were left to die. Before the Romans conquered them they were the major road builders in Europe, eventhough there buildings were not as complex as the Romans they didnt all live in huts. The Celts were also capable of creating very complex dating systems.

As far as im concerned The Romans were animals. They oppressed women, they allowed people to kill themselves for fun. They made it there businnes to conquer and destroy other cultures. For example they wiped out the druids and they destroyed The Empire in Carthage. Im not saying that the Non-Romans were perfect but it mainly seems that the Romans were the ones who were mainly interested in conquering and supressing other people.

The Celts used to fight each other but they were not an Empire they in general were not interested in conquering other people.

Er no. I'm not sure as to what you're Er Noing about but it seems that your confusing the concept of morality with the term barbaric. To say that the romans were more barbaric than the germanic, brittanic or celtic tribes of that time is a completely unfounded statement which I challenge you to back up with any type of credible literature or information anywhere. The Romans had a much more advanced society and civilization than any of these tribes. Whether or not they happen to be of greater moral fiber is a different argument all together. Again define clearly what your argument is and stick with it, stop flip floppin back and forth. I wont argue the issue of morality but I will debate the topic as to whether or not they were viewed as barbaric, which I believe I've already made clear in my previous post. So until this is clearly defined my discussion ends here.

Btw, the Romans contributed many things to modern society. And art was indeed one of them. While not as advanced in the artistic endeavors at the time, as say the greeks, they were a great driving force and inspiration behind greater artistic periods later on such as the Renaissance. The Romans contributed more in architectural design and sculpture art than actual canvas drawings or paintings. Some would argue that the Colliseum itself was a work of art. I'll be it in an architectural marvel sense but a work of art nonetheless. They were also great industrial engineers, designing and building bridges and aqueducts. They also made great contributions towards modern medicine and language with the first roman alphabet, first roman numeral system...legal, political etc...etc.

Originally posted by RZA


Whether or not they happen to be of greater moral fiber is a different argument all together. Again define clearly what your argument is and stick with it, stop flip floppin back and forth.


I did. Dont start with me ok if you had bothered to read the thread you would not have said that.

Originally posted by RZA

I wont argue the issue of morality


Then dont talk to me then. I made it clear what my defintion of civilised was from the beginning.

^ I'm not starting with anybody. It's obvious that you have no idea what you're speaking of. You're the one that's getting all defensive because you just don't know how to articulate your position well.

You haven't defined anything, you haven't proven anything, you haven't supplied any facts to back up anything, in fact you're argument and position couldn't be more vague.

Don't worry I will stop because this discussion is obviously a waste of time and is going absolutely no where fast.

Originally posted by RZA


You haven't defined anything.




lListen this is what i said at the very beginning

Originally posted by Alfheim



Well i have a different defintion then. Yes I know the Romans were able to "blossom" into a civilization , but what im talking about here is how you treat you're fellow human beings and accomplishements.


Therefore you had no right to say this......

Originally posted by RZA
Again define clearly what your argument is and stick with it, stop flip floppin back and forth.

This is what I was trying to say in the last post but instead I ended up getting the wrong quote. As I was saying before you were just being rude if you had read the thread you would have already seen I established what I wanted to discuss.

I dont even care wether you think The Romans were barbaric or not what annoys me is that you have not bothered to read what I have said and accused me of not defining anything.

Originally posted by RZA
^You're the one that's getting all defensive because you just don't know how to articulate your position well.



Ok you put yourself in my position you accused me of not defining what my argument is when I have. If you were me would you be slightly irritated?

Ok, let's be completely clear here..

Originally posted by RZA
I'm not really sure what the argument is about. It seems as tho the argument started elsewhere. I'm just going to respond to the title.

This was the beginning of my 1st post on this topic. I'm clearly admitting that I'm not sure what the argument is about because it obviously started somewhere else and then carried on into this thread. So, what am I basically saying? I'm not going to get involved in the argument between you two, I'm simply going to state my opinion on the topic as it's presented..'Were the Romans Barbarians?' Is that not the title of this thread?

Then I went on to generally address the topic and state my reason for why I felt or not felt that the Romans should be viewed as barbarians. It was a general statement addresses to the board not you specifically. You then reply to my statement starting with this....

Originally posted by Alfheim
Er no.

Completely somewhat dismissing everything that I originally stated and also drawing me into the argument with you. Again let's be perfectly clear, I didn't call you out, you called me out.

At this pt. I ask you to re-define what stance are you taking with this argument with me now, not Alliance. You clearly stated to him that you had a different definition of 'Barbaric' which btw I have to agree with his definition, that is the correct one. And I notice that you go on to respond with the same argument of morality with me. You go on to describe acts by the romans that in your opinion you feel were immoral to which I want to make clear that I have no interest whatsoever in debating. However if you were willing to continue with the statement that the Romans were in fact Barbarians or more barbaric than any other tribe or civilization in those times then yes I would continue to debate you on that because that's just not accurate.

I was merely asking for a clarification on your stance at this pt. to see if I wanted to proceed with this argument. It wasn't intended to provoke you or upset you in anyway and I'm sorry if you felt that way.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well i have a different defintion then. Yes I know the Romans were able to "blossom" into a civilization , but what im talking about here is how you treat you're fellow human beings and accomplishements

Now let's look at your quote and what you're referencing in order to define your argument. Even this is not clearly defined. In fact you're somewhat contradicting yourself. This is the basis for your argument..'How you treat your fellow human beings and accomplishments.' Hmm..let's see how did the Romans treat it's citizens, well they provided them with civil and social services, shelter, schooling, water, waste removal, libraries, places of worship, central forums, bath houses. They built roads, bridges, aqueducts. All this sound familiar? Doesn't sound that much different from a modern governmental system if you ask me. The accomplishments have already been mentioned by other members and myself.

Also if you take the time to look back at my quote which is the one you had issue with. You can see that I'm actually somewhat agreeing with you.. So where's the argument?

Originally posted by RZA
The fact is every civilization back then was somewhat barbaric. They were ancient, crude barbaric times and sure the Romans were certainly no different.

And lastly this whole argument really should've ended here...

Originally posted by KharmaDog
If that is what you are discussing, then every culture from then to now has been barbaric.

I agree.

Originally posted by RZA




Completely somewhat dismissing everything that I originally stated and also drawing me into the argument with you. Again let's be perfectly clear, I didn't call you out, you called me out.


Ok im sorry I was rude.. I will try to reply to the rest later.

Originally posted by RZA
And lastly this whole argument really should've ended here...
i agree..

Originally posted by MadMel
i agree..

I dont know about that.

Those three artists worked during the period of 'Renaissance' art in the 15th-17th centuries; the 'Holy Roman Empire' was the term given - I can't remember why - to the area broadly comprising Germany during that time.

This thread is dealing with the 'original' Roman Empire which went kaput around the year 400.

Generally the Dates for the RE are considered to be 44 BCE to 476 CE. I think people in this thread generally include the Roman Republic as well which began in 510 BCE and lasted until the Empire.

The Holy Roman Empire is much different. That didn't begin until the mid 850's CE

I apologize then... I would then think that in the original Empire, most of the artisans were soldiers or smiths. That is not to say no sculptors or artisans were present or active, or that they didn't produce wonderous works, they were most likely simply underappreciated for the greater glory of Rome then.

Actually I dont think I know enough on this subject to have started it. I suck and I probably wont be making anymore posts on this topic.

^ Try not to take it personal dude, at least you tried to contribute to the forum by starting a thread that was worthy of some discussion unlike some other people.

Look to tell you the truth I can reply but part of the reason is that there is alot of stuff which you have said about me that does not seem to make sense, and to be quite honest I have been enjoying the comic debates more so to be quite honest I could not be bothered. Due to Alliances statements about me in the Religon forum I have decided to give it a shot.

Part of my problem is that you said what I was debating about was unclear. I thought it was obvious that if you call somebody barbaric you can do so by comparing them with other people. If you look at the first post that point is brought up.

Then you said you agreed with my opinion then you disagreed. To tell you the truth I dont think you misunderstood me I think it was because I was rude.

Anyway...



Originally posted by RZA
I'm not really sure what the argument is about. It seems as tho the argument started elsewhere. I'm just going to respond to the title.

The fact is every civilization back then was somewhat barbaric. They were ancient, crude barbaric times and sure the Romans were certainly no different.

Thats true to an extent but from my undertsanding is that the Romans made it there business to conquer everybody else. They also had a tendency to destroy other peoples culture. Not every one was trying to conquer and even when other people did they did not try to destroy the conquered peoples customs.

Originally posted by RZA

Any civilization that sees 2 people battling to the death or being fed to lions and tigers as perfectly suitable entertainment for all ages, is definitely somewhat barbaric don't ya think? confused



Originally posted by RZA

Th truth is the Romans needed to have a thick skin in order to survive these barbaric times. There was definitely no room for the squeamish. In order to be able to win their battles against the so called barbarians, they needed to appear strong and some what bloodthirsty. The truth is the romans considered anyone who wasn't under roman rule at that time as barbarians, even if they were a member of nobility and had their own culture and civilization. Case in point Hannibal and the Carthaginians.


Yes but the thing that interests me is that after they conquered Carthage they tryed to destroy Carthage culture completely.

Originally posted by RZA


Btw, the Romans contributed many things to modern society.


Well this is the thing im sure that The Celts and other people would have contributed alot to modern society but they were conquered and their culture was wiped out


Originally posted by RZA

And art was indeed one of them. While not as advanced in the artistic endeavors at the time, as say the greeks, they were a great driving force and inspiration behind greater artistic periods later on such as the Renaissance. The Romans contributed more in architectural design and sculpture art than actual canvas drawings or paintings. Some would argue that the Colliseum itself was a work of art. I'll be it in an architectural marvel sense but a work of art nonetheless. They were also great industrial engineers, designing and building bridges and aqueducts. They also made great contributions towards modern medicine and language with the first roman alphabet, first roman numeral system...legal, political etc...etc.

Ok lets look at legal and political systems. I really cant see how for example their legal and political systems were more advanced than the Celts. The Celts had their own legal and political systems but we dont know much about them because the Romans wiped out their culture. The Celts also treated old people , orphans and women with respect the Romans did not. Whats more important human rights or big buildings?

Eventhough the Celts were not perfect they were not trying to conquer everyone. The Romans were. Proof of this is the fact that The Celts did not have an Empire, they were a Confederation, yes they fought but by and large they just wanted to mind their own business.

If you want to talk about medicine the Druids had tools which were used for surgery. You had to study for 20 years before you became a Druid. If the Romans had not wiped out The Druids they would have had something to contribute to modern society.

In terms of architecture yes the Romans were more advanced but the Celts were not as primitive as people make out.

They created complicated jewellery.

They were the major road builders in Europe before the Romans came and they didnt just build roads, they were able to build roads and bridges for different surfaces and terrain.

Eventhough they did not have a huge buildings they did create buildings that were more than one storey.

Uhh, Rome never conquerd the Celtic peoples.
They built a huge wall to keep them out of Roman conquered England...

And I agree with Ush in the way that painting and sculpture wise, Romans were not very art heavy, although they did appreciate it and went through great lengths to obtain it. All Roman art was either taken or artisans from other area's made it.
I've been to Pompeii and all the art has hints of other things, Frescos are reminecant of African paintings and feature african animals, or Greek style statues. They supported art, but did not innovate much.
I do consider archetecture art, so In that way they did have a signifigant artistic impact.

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
Uhh, Rome never conquerd the Celtic peoples.
They built a huge wall to keep them out of Roman conquered England...



I think you are thinking of the Picts. Celt is a broad term and I guess I should have been specific. The Gauls were Celts and were conquered. I think there is some debate about wether the English were Celts or not but they defintely had some Celtic aspects to their culture.

They conquered the south of the British Isles, but never got to the north...
I'm not an expert or nearly knowlegeable enough on British history though.

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
They conquered the south of the British Isles, but never got to the north...
I'm not an expert or nearly knowlegeable enough on British history though.

Ok but im sure the Gauls were Celts.....ah actually I think the Welsh were Celts, not the English. If I remember there were some Druids massacred by the Romans and I think it was in Wales. I know the Druids are a part of Celtic culture.