Were the Romans Barbarians.

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 [Romans] 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? 😕

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.