Were the Romans Barbarians.

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...

Originally posted by MadMel
i agree..

I dont know about that.

I'm sorry, I must be displaying ignorance as well, but I thought Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo Buonarroti Donatello (Donato di Niccolò di Betto Bardi) Raffaello Sanzi were all well known artisans working during the time Wikipedia defines as the Holy Roman Empire.

Two of the artisans are generally accepted as the more famous of the era. Way before they all became turtles, which, even that, does not berate the contributions they made to art in general.

Now, were Romans barbaric, if you opposed them, yes. In war the enemy always seems to be the most barbaric of civilizations, even if they were the best of friends as allies in the way before.

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? 😕

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.